The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0229.000 2012-2014 /!: +�,'. Walter K.M.Lau p ��*L Managing Director William P.Kenoi +:If��._��" '�:•' Mayor . Randall M.Kurohara 1... ',,..i T:,,, ,`�.'' Deputy Managing Director E pp'N�' County of Hawai`i Office of the Mayor 25 Aupuni Street,Suite 2603 • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720 • (808)961-8211 • Fax(808)961-6553 KONA: 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Hwy.,Bldg.C • Kailua-Kona,Hawai`i 96740 (808)323-4444 • Fax(808)323-4440 March 22, 2013 J Yoshimoto, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawai`i 25 Aupuni Street _. _ Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Members: Planning Director Initiated Amendment to Chapter 25,Article 6, Division 1 of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as Amended)Relating to Planned Unit Development As required by Chapter 7, Sec. 6-7.5 (a), Hawai`i County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions' letters and enclosures regarding the above-referenced matter. Sincerely, ID 1 0 r William P. Kenoi Mayor Enclosures cc: Planning Department <16%\ 56i> Comm. No. a.�.9 Ref. To: PG Ref. Date APR 0 1 2013 County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. .4OJ�SV OF N''' ,.�,.�-4 7TE GF•N�,i�_. County of Hawaii 2013 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION MAR 2 2 Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 J Yoshimoto, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawai`i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo,HI 96720 Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members: Planning Director Initiated Amendment to Chapter 25,Article 6,Division 1 of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as Amended)Relating to Planned Unit Development The Windward Planning Commission, at its duly held public hearing on January 10,2013, considered the Planning Director's request for an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code)of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended)relating to Planned Unit Development(POD). The Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council on the request. The Commission also recommended that the Planning Director and County Council review the notification requirements of Section 25-2-4(notice to property owners and lessees of record of a pending application)of the Zoning Code to expand the distances of the required notice area and/or improve the notification process. The draft bill is attached for your favorable consideration. We have also enclosed a copy of the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation,the PowerPoint presentation,and a transcript of the hearing for your information. Sincerely, Dean Au,Chairman Pro Tern Windward Planning Commission cc: Planning Department-Kona Ivan Torigoe, Esq. Enclosures Ipdpudbil101 wpc Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer COF/��.��ldi�i ç. If .).Oi�N.''� County of Hawaii LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 • Hilo,Hawai`i 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 MR 2 2 2013 J Yoshimoto, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawai`i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members: Planning Director Initiated Amendment to Chapter 25, Article 6, Division 1 of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as Amended) Relating to Planned Unit Development The Leeward Planning Commission, at its duly held public hearing on February 21, 2013, considered the Planning Director's request for an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code)of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended)relating to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council on the request, subject to the following amendment to the Director's draft bill to provide for an additional public meeting after acceptance of the PUD application: Section 25-6-6. Actions by director on P.U.D. [permit] applications. (a) Except as provided in section 25-6-5, the director shall, within [sixty] ninety (90) days after acceptance of a P.U.D. [permit] application, deny the application or approve it subject to conditions. 111 Within sixty (60) days after acceptance of an application or modification, the Director or applicable Community Development Plan Action Committee shall hold a public meeting on the application. And a further amendment to Section 25-6-11 to emphasize that any building approved under a PUD must conform to the zoning district height limit unless there is special or unique circumstances: Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer J Yoshimoto,Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawai`i Page 2 Section 25-6-11. Height exceptions authorized. (a) A building approved under a P.U.D. [permit] approval may not exceed the height limit specified under the zoning district of the property and the height limits under section 25-4- 22; [provided, that the maximum height of the building shall not exceed seventy five feet]unless there are special or unique circumstances warranting an exception. Therefore, we are transmitting the Planning Director's draft bill for your favorable consideration, along with the revisions recommended by the Leeward Planning Commission as specified above. We have also enclosed a copy of the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation, the PowerPoint presentation, and a transcript of the hearing for your information. 'ncerely, Geraldine Giffin, Chairma / / Leeward Planning Commission cc: Planning Department—Kona Ivan Torigoe, Esq. Enclosures Ipdpudbil101 Ipc PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 10, 2013 A regularly advertised hearing on COUNTY COUNCIL BILL NO. 291 AND THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 RELATING TO PUD was called to order at 10:10 a.m. in the County of Hawai`i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai`i, with Chairman Pro Tem Dean Au presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dean Au, Ronald Gonzales, Wallace Ishibashi, Raylene Moses and Stephen Ono STAFF PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe (Deputy Corporation Counsel), B. J. Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), and Sharon Nomura(Secretary) And approximately 37 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL (Bill No. 291) Bill No. 291 regarding a proposed amendment to Chapter 25, Article 6, Division 1 of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to Planned Unit Development(P.U.D.). The purpose of Bill No. 291 is to clarify procedural guideli7nes, define the requirements of a P.U.D. permit, and to add the Planning Commission(s) and the County Council to the review and approval process for a P.U.D permit. Initiates amendments to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 6, Division 1, relating to P.U.D: Amends Section 25-6-1 relating to Purpose. Deletes Section 25-6-2 relating to Minimum land area required. Amends Section 25-6-3 relating to application for P.U.D. permit. Amends 25-6-4 relating to Notice of action on a P.U.D. Application. Deletes Section 25-6-5 relating to Procedure for processing P.U.D. Application when use not permitted in district. Amends Section 25-6-6 relating to Actions by director on P.U.D. permit applications and replaces it with Procedure for processing P.U.D. Application, adds Section 25-6-7 relating to Conditions imposed on P.U.D., and Section 25-6-8 relating to Review and approval of final site plans. Deletes Section 25-6-10 relating to Criteria for granting a P.U.D. permit. Replaces Section 25-6-11 relating to Height exceptions authorized with Construction in conformity with approved final site plans, and Section 25-6-12 relating to Approval of variances, use permits and plan approvals issued under P.U.D.permit with Plan approval issued by approval of final site plans. Amends Section 25-6-13 relating to Effect of P.U.D. permit on other zoning provisions. Amends Section 25-6-14 relating to Time extension and amendments. Amends Section 25-6-15 relating Appeals to Appeal of director's actions on P.U.D. final site plans. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Amendment to Chapter 25, Article 6, Division 1 of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to Planned Unit Development(P.U.D.). The purpose of the proposed bill is to clarify the purpose of a P.U.D., clarify procedural guidelines for submitting a P.U.D. Application, define the requirements of a P.U.D. project, and to provide an opportunity for greater community 1 Attachment to: Come. 229 Bill 59 ter . involvement in the approval process for a P.U.D. permit. Initiates amendments to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 6, Division 1, relating to P.U.D. Amends Section 25-6-1 relating to purpose. Amends Section 25-6-3 relating to requirements of application for P.U.D.permit. Amends Section 25-6-4 relating to notice of action on P.U.D. Application. Amends Section 25-6-5 relating to procedure for processing application when use not permitted in district. Amends Section 25-6-6 relating to actions by director on P.U.D. permit applications. Adds Section 25-6-7 relating to community meeting required prior to submittal of an application for a P.U.D. Amends Section 25-6-10 relating to criteria for granting a P.U.D. permit. Amends Section 25-6-11 relating to height exceptions authorized. Amends Section 25-6-12 relating to approval of variances, use permits and plan approvals issued under P.U.D. permit. Amends Section 25-6-13 relating to effect of P.U.D. permit on other zoning provisions. Amends Section 25-6-14 relating to time extensions and amendments. Amends Section 25-6-15 relating to appeals. AU: Okay, agenda item number 4 and possibly 5. So go ahead, staff COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We submitted one background and recommendation report for Items 4 and 5. One is the County Council initiated bill to amend the Zoning Code related to Planned Unit Development. And then Item 5 is a Director initiated bill related to Planned Unit Development. So this presentation will address both items. So the County Council has initiated Bill 291. This proposes amendments to the Zoning Code related to Planned Unit Development. The purpose of Bill 291 is to add the Planning Commission and the County Council to the review and approval process for a PUD permit, and to clarify procedural guidelines and define the requirements of a PUD Permit. Currently PUD permits are issued administratively by the Planning Director, so the Commission and Council do not review them at all. This is the current PUD approval process. It kind of outlines the notification and opportunities for the public to get involved in the PUD process. So currently a PUD application is filed with the Department, and the Department files notice of the application in the newspapers on our island, and then the applicant posts a sign on the property. You've probably seen those white,white signs around the island. And then the applicant also sends a letter notifying the surrounding property owners of the PUD application. So those are the three opportunities that the public currently has to be notified and to become involved in the PUD approval process. After that's done the public or neighbors can mail in letters to the Director letting her know of their concerns about the application. And then the Director considers those concerns and then makes a decision to approve or deny the PUD permit. Bill 291 which is the County Council initiated bill wants to change that process a little bit. In addition to the notification requirements in this first box here, after that is done the Planning Department would make a recommendation rather than a decision. And that recommendation would go to both of the Planning Commissions. They would make a recommendation to the County Council on the PUD Permit and then the County Council would make the final decision to approve or deny the permit. So it's changing the process from an administrative decision to a legislative decision, similar to like a rezone application that the Commissions currently make recommendations on. 2 A So what is a PUD permit? Essentially it allows a comprehensive set of variances from the zoning and subdivision codes relating to building site standards such as lot width and size,building height, yards and open space, and road standards. Changing the approval from the Director to the County Council may be in violation of the County Charter, this is the Director's concerns with Bill 291, because the Charter says that "The Planning Director shall render decisions on proposed variances...." And since the PUD Permit is essentially a comprehensive set of variances, the Charter says that basically the Director should be making those decisions. So before Bill 291 could be adopted, the County Council may first have to amend the Charter. So with the Director's concerns and mine, the Department staff met with Councilperson Hoffman, who is the author of Bill No. 291,to try to find a way to come up with a new bill that addresses his concerns with wanting more community involvement in PUD decisions, but also addressing the Director's concerns related to the County Charter. As an alternative to Bill 291, the Director proposed her own bill. This bill would require that the Applicant conduct a community meeting prior to submitting a P.U.D. Application to the Planning Department, and that the P.U.D. development must be consistent with the intent of the recently adopted community development plans. The Director feels that holding a community meeting prior to submittal of a P.U.D. Application is both beneficial to the applicant and the community because it allows for the concerns to be identified ahead of time, early on in the process so that the applicant can modify development plans before submitting the application to the Department. So the approval process that the Director is proposing in her bill would require the community meeting to solicit comments from the neighbors ahead of time, and then the application would be submitted to the Department. And then the same notice requirements that currently exist would occur-notice in the newspaper, a sign posted on the property, and letters to the surrounding property owners notifying them that the application was filed. And then the Director would consider any additional written letters that come in of concern and then make a decision on whether to approve or deny the PUD Permit. So that's the two bills that we're proposing in a nutshell. The Director is recommending an unfavorable recommendation for Bill 291, and obviously a favorable recommendation for her proposed bill. I also want to point out to you that we did submit a revision to the background and recommendation on a yellow piece of paper to clarify the PUD process and what it's used for, as well as make a correction on the Director's proposed bill. Are there any questions? 3 AU: Any questions for staff? No? Seeing none, okay. Well, if there's anybody that wants to speak on Bill 91 please come forward. COTTLE: Two. AU: I'm sorry, 2, 291. Okay, Mr. Fuke is actually a testifier. But what I was getting at is if anybody who authored the bill wants to come testify or talk about it. FUKE: Oh, I'm sorry. AU: But Mr. Fuke since you're already there, you can stay there. And if our Madam Director would like to elaborate on her proposed bill,before we go into public testimony? LEITHEAD TODD: No. AU: Okay, well then we'll just go into public testimony. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to, do you swear and affirm to tell the truth in front of the Hawai`i County Planning Commission today? FUKE: I do. AU: Okay. Please state your name, where you reside, and you have three minutes. FUKE: Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairivan and Members of the Commission, Happy New Year. My name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a planning consultant. And my business address is 100 Pauahi Street, which is located directly across of this building. On this matter, I think that the purported concept that the bill is proposing,which is Councilman Hoffman's bill, is commendable, which is to enable more public input. The recommendation of the Planning Director is much more appropriate. Very briefly, the reasons are two-fold. One is that it's an appropriate separation of functions between the legislative branch and the executive branch; and, secondly, it's a question of efficiency. First as it relates to the separation of functions between the legislative branch, we know that the legislature or in this case the County Council, it establishes and adopts the policies. And once these policies are established then it becomes the responsibility of the executive branch,be it the Planning Department or the Public Works Department, to implement and administer them. In this case, the County Council adopted the Zoning and the Subdivision Codes and amendments, such as rezoning for example. These Codes establish standards for subdivision and zoning, such as roadway width, water, height, lot size, setback and such. To use an old cliche, however, because"one size does not fit all," a process - such as the variance or PUD - to allow relief by the Planning Director from these standards was created. Further, notification to surrounding property owners, notices in the newspaper, posting of a sign on the property were also required to better enable the public to weigh in on the request, as the staff had kind of pointed out. 4 To minimize abuse, however, criteria to allow these reliefs were also established. The Codes also identified what kind of variances can or cannot be granted. Thus,while the Director can grant a setback or a height variance, it would be prohibited from granting a variance or a PUD to allow, for example, a hotel in a single-family residential zone. That's clear that they cannot do it. Such a change, appropriately so,must go through the rezoning process, which means to the Commission and to the County Council. Thus,in summary, the Director administers and enforces the Zoning and Subdivision Codes adopted by the Council. If these are standards or areas where the Council finds that the variances or PUDs are not appropriate, it would be best to have them clearly defined in the Zoning or Subdivision Codes, rather than having the Council assume the administrative task of approving or denying the variances. The second item relates to the mater of efficiency. Prior to 1968 the County Charter, prior to the 1968 County Charter, the Planning Commission, this body actually, was the approving body of all subdivisions in this County. This function was delegated to the Planning Director in 1968 to relieve the Commission of being the administrator of the Subdivision Code, while reserving its time for acting on variance and recommending rezoning and other policy-related applications to the Council. Can you imagine if the Commission today were to review and act on over 500 subdivision applications annually? It would probably require a full-time commission. Now because processing variances dominated the Commission's agenda between 1968 and '78 and the realization that this was really an administrative function, the Charter was amended in1978 to relegate this function to the Planning Director. Checks,however, were put in to minimize abuse by increasing the role of the Board of Appeals. The Commission now had more time to focus on and act on major land use policy matters such as Special Permits, Use Permits, and making recommendations to the Council and Mayor on critical land use issues such as the CDPs or the General Plan. All of these require public hearings and, understandably, can be quite time-consuming. Bill 291 proposes to now have PUD applications (which is really like the variation of the variance) processed through the Commission and Council, purportedly to enable more public input. Such a move will again unnecessarily add to the burden of the Commission and Council and could further risk politicizing an issue,particularly since legislative actions are not appealable. On the other hand, retaining this function at the Director's level,with the appropriate checks afforded by the Board of AppealS,it provides a more efficient and fair approach to processing PUDs. In sum, if the intent of Bill 291 is to increase the opportunity for greater public input and beyond the current requirement of notices to surrounding property owners, etc., then the Director's proposal addresses this. The proposal mandates the applicant to hold a community meeting, and I think that's a good thing. On the other hand, if there are concerns regarding the outcome of the decisions on PUDs, then it would be more appropriate to have the Zoning or Subdivision Codes amended to further define what kind of exceptions can or cannot be considered and/or create new guidelines or standards. Just transferring what is normally an administrative function to the legislative branch does not necessarily address the concern and it could excessively politicize an issue. And that's the reason why I think what the Director is proposing is way better and, I think, is legally sound. Thank you very much. 5 AU: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? Okay. So what we have in front of us, Commissioners,is we have,we're going to take each item separately,okay? So we have Item No. 4 which is to either give a favorable or unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. And then after that we're going to take No. 5 and give either a favorable or unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. So we're going to take it as two separate items. Oh, yeah, and our discussion may overlap the two. So I' m ready to entertain a motion. COTTLE: Mr. Chair? I'm sorry—. AU: Yes. COTTLE: I found one other correction that needs to be made in the Director's proposed bill. It's just very minor but I need to put it on the record. On page 5 of her bill, Section 25-6-10, Criteria for Granting a PUD permit,we want to strike out"permit"and put"approval,"which is consistent with the rest of the language in the bill. And that's it. AU: Okay, thank you, Maija. At this point,ready to entertain a motion for Applicant No. 4, County Council Bill No. 291? ISHIBASHI: I entertain a motion that we reject Bill 291. AU: Send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council? Is that your motion? ISHIBASHI: Yes. AU: Okay. ONO: Second. AU: Okay,thank you. Discussion? Maija, could you flip back to that screen where it shows the current process and the new process. Okay. You know, one thing that I do like is our Planning Director is getting the community involved; and I think that's very important, especially for this next application that we're going to hear. You know,the community needs to get involved; and I think that's a great thing. But I think Bill 291, I think maybe they're trying to micro-manage. Maybe the County Council might want to try and do that. That bill might make, you know,bring these issues to them when it should be an administrative matter. So maybe I just think the County Council is maybe trying to micro-manage. GONZALES: I agree. I think the Director should be allowed to do her job. AU: Okay. Any more discussion? Okay, well, Maija, we're ready to take a vote. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the vote is to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council regarding Bill No. 291. Commissioner Ishibashi? 6 ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chair? AU: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes five-zero. AU: Okay, moving on to Item No. 5. I just have to ask, is there anybody here to testify, or if the Planning Director wants to elaborate on it more? MARKS: I'd like to testify. I did sign up but I -. AU: Okay, can you have a seat. Okay, please raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth in front of the Windward Planning Commission today? MARKS: I do. AU: Okay, please state your name,where you reside ad speak clearly into the microphone. MARKS: Good morning, Commission. I'm Kerri Marks. I live in Kaumana City in Hilo. I just wanted to comment that the community meeting,the way that you have it set up that you'd like to do it is actually not as far-reaching as you might think. Posting in the newspaper is good. But I'm poor, I can't afford the newspaper. I read it on-line for free. Those kinds of things are not posted in the on- line section. Okay, the posting on the property, I have been driving past that sign on it, by the Kaumana Cave for months, and months and months, and never read it. Never read it, had no idea it would even apply to me. The way they put the sign and where they put it, you can't read it when you're driving by. The words are too small. You would have to park up at Kaumana Cave and walk down to where the sign is to read it. So that's not a valid—I still haven't read it. As many meetings as I've been to here about the Kaumana Charter School, I still haven't stopped and read the sign. 7 The public meetings, I went to one last month,they had a big bulletin board with about six or seven dates of public meetings they've had over the last several years. I never heard about any of them. Last month's meeting was the first one I was ever notified of. And the only reason I was notified is because I was in the room when they announced that they were having it. So notifying people that live within 500 feet, or 1500 feet, or whatever your rule is, is not enough. Everybody that drives past that subdivision or that development is also affected, especially in a bottleneck neighborhood like where I live. There's only one way. Well,there's two ways. If I'm going to Puainako I can take the extension. But pretty much I take Kaumana Drive up and down the hill, 99 out of 100 times that's how I go. So I just wanted to point that out that to you, that it may not be as awesome as you think for those reasons. Okay, mahalo. AU: Thank you. Any questions for the testifier? MOSES: What suggestions, sorry, what suggestions do you have? MARKS: I like the County Council thing. They have a process and I'm, you know, the whole community, the whole island is tapped into that process. You could post it on the website too, that would be helpful. The whole County Council website needs,honestly, to be burned down to the ground and restarted. It's kind of a tragedy. But that would help. That's more, you know, accessible. The interne is free. You've got to figure out how to use these things. That would be my suggestion, was at least post them on the website. Posting stuff on the bulletin board behind the glass at the County Building is also a waste of time. As much time as I spend down here and at the County Building, that's still not the best way to get stuff. I really have a problem with the 500 feet notification thing. It's not enough. It's not enough. AU: Okay, thank you. Any more questions for the testifier? ONO: I'm sorry, I have one. AU: Commissioner Ono. ONO: I kind of am disturbed by your comment that you're not willing to,maybe I'm may be phrasing this in the wrong way so please tolerate my question here. We provide information regarding,through the newspaper which is the more common way of doing it apparently. And you're saying, and I agree with you,it's kind of expensive to be subscribing to the papers. However, your suggestion of a website,who's going to be maintaining those things? MARKS: There should be staff to do it. ONO: Yeah, so you're -? MARKS: That's really easy. That's copying and pasting something. That would take minutes, especially if it was a process for all Boards and Commissions and -. ONO: I see, I see. 8 MARKS: Yeah -? ONO: Well, I guess what I'm looking at is that we're trying to stay within budget, that means that we now need to look at someone else being assigned a responsibility for the entire County activities. Two, we have notices posted and you say, you know, you don't have time, not you don't have time, it's too small to be read while passing by. But I guess I'm thinking that we, the suggestion is maybe you need to come up with other suggestions more than just saying that the website -. I guess, the means of the communication is -. MARKS: Okay, expand community involvement then to a mile. ONO: I'm sorry? MARKS: Expand the community, the radius that you notify neighbors to a much larger radius. ONO: Yeah, see, but the thing is, I guess what, I hope we're not getting into an argument here. But to be mailing things out to the residences more than 500 that's going to cost us more money and therefore your tax money again and-. To what extent is it going to be enough for you to say, okay, I'm satisfied with the means of communication? MARKS: When I for the first time in five years and seven meetings am notified of a meeting that affects my neighborhood. That hasn't happened yet. Honestly do away with the newspaper notices. Does anybody really read that page? They're all kind of jammed together in the tiniest print possible. AU: Okay, well, thank you very much. Any further questions for the testifier? Okay, Fellow Commissioners,maybe we can also get to some of this stuff in discussion. So I'm ready to, if there's nobody else to testify, I'm ready to entertain a motion. We do have somebody here to testify? WILLE: Yes. AU: Okay. AU: Can you,hi. Can you raise your right hand. Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth in front of the Hawai`i County Planning Commission today? WILLE: Yes, I do. AU: Okay, please state your name and where you're from before you get started. Speak into the microphone, please. WILLE: Margaret Wille, Waimea. I'm speaking on behalf of myself as an individual member of the community, Waimea, and just really responding to Mr. Ono's questions. I, too, if we were to adopt this, the Director's proposed changes, have concern about the extent of public notification. And I would like to see it go to the, if there's a community plan, action committee in that area. I feel that's a good forum. They get notice out to people where they are community members. We actually did that 9 with two of the PUDs that came up recently, Puako 1010 -. And I thought that was a good forum and I think it would develop over time. And you already have that notice in place. I also agree with the utilization of the internet. I actually tried to get a charter amendment to make that a requirement. And as I recall, as I recall, Mr. Ashida, Corporation Counsel Ashida at that point said, well,we're working on that and doing it. But if you get these things onto the internet it is not,it's very accessible; and I think that that is the modern way. It's just bringing us up to the 21st century. I don't think it's asking a lot. You can even get a volunteer to come in and help. So I would like to see it both in the internet and, to the extent there's a CDP committee or an equivalent, there's a Hilo Neighborhood Board. It's still, what their input is advisory. It's going to the Director. And I think that it, there's a greater sense of trust that you have an informed community. So thank you very much. LEITHEAD TODD: I -. AU: Okay, okay. Madam Director. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah,just for clarification purposes—I guess the difficulty in what you put in the bill is, one, not every community has a CDP action committee. So it would only work with action committees. It wouldn't work for other areas. Like Hilo does not have a CDP action committee. But what the concerns of the speaker were, were to the community meetings, which in my bill is before an application is submitted. And so, but I'm like I don't know what to do. We put, we have signs on the property notifying people that there's an application; and the reason we went to that was that that was more visible. Cause unless you know something is going on,most people are not regularly going to check the County Council website or the Planning Department website. I mean, let's be honest, most people are not political junkies that are going to show up at every meeting. They're busy, they're working. So the sign on the yard, on the property, was the Council's attempt to get notice directly into the community where there's an application. So whether it's a subdivision,but I don't know what-. The response, too, is that, well, the sign is not big enough, that you can't read it, or I didn't stop to look at it. Because if you weren't going to look at the sign, I don't think people would have gone to the website,because you didn't know there was anything to go look for. So I don't know what you do. You could look at expanding the 500 feet to 1,000 feet,you know, or you could require perhaps that a sign announcing the community meeting go up on the property,because people theoretically you drive by you see it. And it needs to be in a certain type perhaps so that it's more visible. But that's all front end. What you're addressing more is kind of back end after the application actually comes in. And the process we have right now is the action committees get notice where the application is. They can determine whether it's something they want to have on their agenda. The last two that went was because,one I directed because I knew it was big enough that they'd be interested, and the other one they requested. And then on smaller stuff, small subdivisions and stuff, they've basically said, you know, two-lot subdivisions they're not interested in having that automatically go to them for a hearing. But perhaps the issue is signage, size of the sign and the size of the type in announcing to the community that something is going on. Because I just don't think that putting it on the website is going to tell people that there's something that they need to go and find. Cause the average citizen, if they're not reading the paper and they're not reading the sign on the property, I don't know what's going to hook them, cause they're probably not reading the agendas either. This is, what you see here 10 is people word of mouth more than anything else notifying their neighbors, or through a community association. Perhaps it's having an accessible directory of community organizations and presidents of those community organizations so that they're on a list that regularly gets contacted. Like I'm the former president of my community association; and even though the community association isn't doing much I still get Land Use Commission agendas mailed to me on a regular basis so I know if there's anything going on then I can go notify my neighbors. So maybe that's a process that the Council or Department can initiate and incorporate. WILLE: And let me just say I don't have a problem with this signage on the location. I think as long as they're visible enough that someone can see them that if they want to stop they can stop. But I really feel strongly about having it be available on the internet. You can for certain things that come up get on a list that you're regularly get sent that, such as I think a lot of us do for something coming up, like if it's, there's an EIS. Anyway other departments do it. You can just get on a list, and then you're on that contact list and hit one, hit. But I also think that if you do have it on the internet then people can, community members,pick out somebody that's going to regularly check it, and it's there and available. So, again, I do feel strongly. That's how people communicate. And if it's available -. I also feel with the CDPs, I like having it go,just to say that, in advance. And before the roads get put in, you know, around the center, the community member would say why won't you put them around the far end and have, the outside end, and get a little more interaction between the developer and the community. I also, in terms of the 500 feet,my one concern there is that-. Say the Waikii PUD, my understanding is you did that and did legal notice, was within 500 feet of the land being developed. But the people using that new land to be developed would be sharing the same roads so that you're burdening roads that are common to all in that subdivision. And I actually think that where you have a common area that impacts, that it should really go out. But that's another issue,but I just want to-. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, I was just going to briefly mention that. It's one thing, in Waikii every property owner actually did get notice because the proposer paid for the community association to mail notice out. But if you're talking some place like Hawaiian Paradise Park where the roads are used by all the owners and they're all individually owned, that's 8,800 plus notices that would have to go out for something like what we have in the special use permit. WILLE: Okay. And I think there is a balancing there. I know. But I think that where you are sharing the roads, I know I talked to Bill Moore and Bob Acree in terms of Waikii and Sharon said actually all of the members were informed. But I do think it's a concern. Thank you very much for your time. AU: Okay, okay. Thank you. Any questions? Any more questions for the testifier? Okay. Ready to entertain a motion to either send a favorable or an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. GONZALES: I'd like to propose that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council on the Director's bill. AU: With the amended changes? There was an amendment, changing of that one word -. 11 GONZALES: With the amended changes. AU: Okay, is there a second? MOSES: Can I say something without seconding? AU: We need to get a second before you get into discussion. MOSES: Okay, second. AU: Okay, discussion. Go ahead, Commissioner Moses. MOSES: So could we add to this that we should look at the process of notification in the community, whether it is to expand the 500 feet current rule or looking into other options as to how we're going to notify the community in this day and age? AU: Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: If you wanted to, in Section 25-6-7, want to add additional requirements -. Cause basically it has in Section 25, this is page 5 of the proposed bill, in Section 25-6-7(b), it says that it basically complies with whatever is required under Section 25-2-4, which are the notices that are required pursuant to the Code. And those were set in a prior bill. But because this bill is before you, you could add additional requirements here. You could add a requirement that a notice of the community meeting be posted on the subject property if you wanted to. Cause I think that that's probably the most effective, cause anybody driving past the property would see it. You could add something that says if you had, but we have community, homeowners and business associations or organization in the area. They're already required in here to be notified. So if you've got a kumiai, you know, and that's more than just, you know, 500 feet. If there's a kumiai in the area or community association they're required to notice them here under Item B. So,but this is where you would add stuff if you wanted to add,you know. AU: I think that, you know, what we're required to in Section 25-6-7 (b) (1-7), you know, that's the minimum; and I think that's sufficient. Personally, I would like to see more, you know, in and of itself, updating on the internet,especially for our county. 1 was on the Parks and Rec's website and there are things from 2011 on there. I got some results for some Parks and Recs things and, you know, it's 2013 already. So, yeah, I'd like to see the County try and update more often,but that's within each department. So,but, you know,regarding land use and regarding this application, you know, everything is done as far as the minimum,things that we need to do. And I think people that get involved in community meetings, in Commission meetings like this, I think it's a personal preference. Not everybody, they may hear about it but they don't want to get as involved; and it's a lot of, the time is after the fact. So, you know, we do reach out to the community in some way or form. And, yeah, it can get better, you know. I agree with what Ms. Wille was saying. But, you know, the County is currently doing all the minimums, and this is the current minimum if we were to send a favorable recommendation. COTTLE: Mr. Chair? 12 AU: Yes. COTTLE: If I could also just point out what the current notification requirements are. Section 25-2-4 requires that when the land, the property, is in the Urban district, notice has to be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property. And then for land that's Agriculture, it's 500 feet; and that's because agricultural lots are usually larger. So those are the current notice requirements that are proposed in this bill, in addition to any community,homeowner or business associations known to be active in the surrounding community, which goes beyond the current requirements. AU: Thank you, Maija. Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, I just wanted to say that one of the reasons, when we do notice requirements, that we typically refer to the section of the Code that sets up notice requirements is if you start setting up different requirements at different sections of the Code it becomes very difficult to figure out. And also if the Council later amends the provision on notice requirements, then it automatically amends all the notice requirements in every section. If you separate it in sections and every time you want to amend it, you're going to have to amend every section of the Code, which is why we typically put all the notice requirements in just one section. And, obviously, you know, this discussion had come up earlier, because I think there had been some discussion with the Council of 1,000 feet on some types of rezoning, I think it was. And so obviously that could be amended. • But, you know, another thing here is if you wanted to put in additional meetings, if you wanted to have, you know, it wouldn't necessarily be in that section. But a requirement that the Department post the application on its website, you could put something in here to that. MOSES: So do we have to make a recommendation or can we just say that we'd like for this to be reviewed, and then bring recommendations as to how -? LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, you could make a recommendation and not amend this bill,but do a recommendation along with the bill that you think the Council and the Department should review the distance for notices and expand the distance so that more neighbors are notified than are currently. MOSES: And even the process of notification could be looked at,reviewed. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, you can make that recommendation without amending the bill. MOSES: That's exactly what I'd like to recommend. AU: Okay. Well, I have another question for Madam Director or staff. What is the process for the community development plan? Let's say it is on the agenda for a community development plan, what is the timeframe of that and, yeah, what's the timeframe on that, and what is their notification process to the community? 13 LEITHEAD TODD: We post an agenda, we mail it out. What we're doing now is when an application comes in, and it's not just PUDs, it's any application that typically requires notice to neighbors,we then, at the same time that we notify other agencies - cause you notice we always notify Fire Department, DPW,Department of Health,please comment on this application- we now send that same letter to the action committee so that they get this notice at the same time that every other agency gets notice saying,hey,this is in our office. We give them a brief description of what the application is, and then they can ask us for the full application. Cause what we want them to know is how many acres,how many lots,what is it doing, is it a rezone, is it a PUD? And then they can put it on their agenda and ask the applicant to come and do a presentation. We've done that with, since we changed to this process we've done two PUDs that way where it has gone to the South Kohala action committee so that they could see what was happening in that, which is then,that's separate and apart of the community meeting that's in this bill. That's another process. And the action committees are free to determine what they want. And they can go beyond PUDs. They can ask for subdivisions, they can ask for variances and stuff to come before them too, if they want. So that's the current process. We, you know, changed this maybe six months ago, and since then we've had two that went through that's open to the public. I think they had larger attendance at the community meetings though than they did at the action committee,but I'm not 100 percent sure on that. With, and with everything, I think there's always the issue of notice. We've had people say that putting in the papers is not enough. We've had people saying on the website is not enough cause they don't have a computer. So there's, there isn't a perfect way. So we tried doing, you know, multiple ways. And then anyone who wants to be on our email list we regularly email all our subdivision applications. And whatever applications are in the department go out on a semi monthly basis to people. AU: Thank you, Madam Director. It answered my question. Any more discussion amongst Commissioners, asking any more questions? Staff? If not, we're ready to -. Did you want to amend, are you making an amendment to your motion? MOSES: Well -. AU: Okay, so what, what is our amendment? To add,we're going to add in 25-6-7 (b), I guess we're adding No. 8. And what is going to be the exact language? Can staff help us with that? COTTLE: I thought Commissioner Moses said she just wanted to make a recommendation-. LEITHEAD TODD: It's 25-2-4. COTTLE: But that the Department and the Council look at improving the process,the notification process. I didn't hear that she wanted to actually amend the bill. MOSES: No. COTTLE: Was that correct? 14 LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah. And I think she's concerned about the notification in 15-2-4, which is not part of this bill which has the 300 and 500 feet, that she wants both the Department and the Council to look at expanding that and, as well as the process of notification. MOSES: Correct, that's exactly it. AU: So we're not amending. It's just a recommendation to -. MOSES: Yes, correct. COTTLE: And since Commissioner Gonzales was the maker of the motion, are you okay with that? GONZALES: I guess, I'm fine with it. COTTLE: Okay. I know Commissioner Moses is. GONZALES: She's -. AU: Okay, so any more discussion with Fellow Commissioners, if not we're ready to take a vote. Corporation Counsel Ivan? TORIGOE: Let's see, this particular recommendation, well, Section 25-2-4 is mentioned as part of the proposed amendments here. So I would say that it is just within the scope of, we can discuss it in terms of a rccoiuieivativu . AU: Okay. So, correction, so it can be in the motion. TORIGOE: Actually let's have it restated exactly what the motion is. MOSES: Can I have Maija restate it for me? COTTLE: I can try. MOSES: Please. COTTLE: Okay. So, and then maybe Ivan you can correct me if it's wrong. So the motion is to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council on the Director's proposed bill with the additional amendments that she suggested, as well as a recommendation to have the Planning Department and County Council review the notification requirements in Section 25-2-4, to try to expand the notice area or improve the notice process. MOSES: Correct, yes. COTTLE: Okay. AU: Okay. Is the Commissioner that made the motion okay with that? 15 GONZALES: I'm fine with that. AU: Okay. And Commissioner Moses is fine with that, too. MOSES: Yes. AU: Okay, so ready to take a vote. TORIGOE: Just for the record, once the motion has been made and seconded it really is the property of the entire Board, so you should make sure that there's no objection from anybody else. AU: Okay. Any other, Fellow Commissioners, do you object to our changes in the motion? ISHI.BASHI: Second that motion. TORIGOE: I think you should take that as a no objection from the Commissioners. And if there are no other objections then you can go ahead. AU: Okay, there's no other objections. Go ahead and take the vote. Okay, Maija. COTTLE: Okay. Commissioner Gonzales. GONZALES: Aye COTTLE: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBAHI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chair? AU: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes five to zero. AU: Okay, everybody-. You'll be notified in writing. 16 The discussion ended at 10:58 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 17 LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 21,2013 A regularly advertised hearing on the PLANNING DIRECTOR INITIATED AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(P.U.D.)was called to order at 9:42 a.m.in the West Hawaii Civic Center, Community Center,Building G, 74-5044 Me Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona,Hawaii, with Chair Geraldine Giffin presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Geraldine Giffin,Brandi Beaudet,Thomas Hickcox and Thomas Whittemore ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Lani Bowman,Richard Nelson,III and Wayne Iokepa ALSO PRESENT: BJ Leithead Todd(Planning Director),Daryn Arai(Planning Program Manager),Jeff Darrow(Planner)and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) And approximately 16 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Amendment to Chapter 25, Article 6, Division 1 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended),relating to Planned Unit Development(P.U.D.). The purpose of the proposed bill is to clarify the purpose of a P.U.D.,clarify procedural guidelines for submitting a P.U.D. application, define the requirements of a P.U.D.project, and to provide an opportunity for greater community involvement in the approval process for a P.U.D.permit. Initiates amendments to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code),Article 6,Division 1,relating to P.U.D.: Amends Section 25-6-1 relating to purpose. Amends Section 25-6-3 relating to requirements of application for P.U.D.permit. Amends Section 25-6-4 relating to notice of action on P.U.D.application. Amends Section 25-6-5 relating to procedure for processing application when use not permitted in district. Amends Section 25-6-6 relating to actions by director on P.U.D.permit applications. Adds Section 25-6-7 relating to community meeting required prior to submittal of an application for a P.U.D.. Amends Section 25-6-10 relating to criteria for granting a P.U.D. permit. Amends Section 25-6-11 relating to height exceptions authorized. Amends Section 25-6-12 relating to approval of variances,use permits and plan approvals issued under P.U.D. permit. Amends Section 25-6-13 relating to effect of P.U.D. permit on other zoning provisions. Amends Section 25-6-14 relating to time extensions and amendments. Amends Section 25-6-15 relating to appeals. GIFFIN: The first agenda item is initiated by our Planning Director. It is an amendment to Chapter 25, Article 6, Division 1 of the Hawaii County Code 1983, 2005 Edition, as amended, relating to Planned Unit Development, or P.U.D. Daryn? ARAI: Thank you very much,Madam Chairwoman. Good morning,Commissioners. Good morning,ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for coming today. If I may direct your attention to our presentation screen. The item before you today is a proposed bill amending the county Zoning Code regarding Planned Unit Developments. The bill that you have before you today is a bill being offered by the Planning Director in response to a previous bill that was introduced by the County 1 Council regarding Planned Unit Development. As you may recall, at your last meeting on December 13,2012,Bill No. 291 was presented to you along with the Director's recommendation. That meeting resulted in the Commission issuing an unfavorable recommendation on Bill 291. At that meeting we wanted to also hear the Director's proposed bill, which she offered as an alternative to Bill 291;however,at that meeting,as you may recall,we were informed that we needed to properly agendize the Director's bill, which is why you have the Director's bill being scheduled for today's meeting. Just to give you a little bit of history as to why we are here today, when you first heard Bill 291 back in December of last year,the proposed bill offered to add Planning Commissions and the County Council to the review and approval process for a P.U.D. permit. Currently,a P.U.D. permit is an administratively issued permit,meaning that it's issued by the Planning Director and does not require hearings or actions by the Planning Commission or the County Council. Bill 291 attempted to clarify procedural guidelines,as well as defined the requirements of a P.U.D.permit. As I mentioned earlier,P.U.D.permits currently are issued administratively by the Planning Director. This is a diagram showing the process. At the very top, you'll see the current Planned Unit Development approval process by which an application comes into the office,notice of the application is placed in the newspaper,the applicant is required to post a sign of the P.U.D. application on the property,and the applicant is also required to provide notice to surrounding property owners;if the property happens to be situated in the state land use Urban district, then the radius for notification is 300 feet; if it's in the Agricultural District, it's a 500-foot radius. The public, upon being notified of the submittal of this P.U.D. application,can then prepare letters to the Planning Director offering their comments one way or the other regarding the proposed P.U.D. application. Within 60 days after the submittal of the application and upon considering any testimony or comments offered by the general public,the Planning Director will then render her decision. As you may recall,Bill 291 proposed to follow a process very similar to how you handle change of zone applications whereby the Planning Department,or Planning Director,instead of offering a decision here,would actually offer a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Commission,which would then conduct a public meeting within the district where the project is being situated,and then offer its recommendation to the County Council,which would then conduct its own series of meetings and ultimately make a decision on whether to approve or to deny. So, again, the difference being offered by Bill 291 was to include the Planning Commission and the County Council as part of the decision making process. To briefly explain what a P.U.D.is,Planned Unit Development permits essentially allow for a comprehensive set of variances from the Zoning and Subdivision Codes relating to building site standards such as lot width and size,building heights,yards,and open space and road standards. A P.U.D.permit,if approved,cannot introduce a use that is not permitted by the current underlying zoning district classification. Changing the approval from the Director to the County Council may be in violation of the County Charter,because the County Charter provides the Planning Director with the authority to render decision on proposed variances pursuant to law. The Planned Unit Development permit is basically a series of variances,and that's why there is a concern that Bill 291 would be implementing something that would be violative of the County Charter—and basically I recited that just now, sorry,getting ahead of myself. The Planning Department staff did meet with the author of Bill No. 291,former Councilperson Pete Hoffmann,in order to understand the concerns that resulted in the introduction of the bill. As an 2 alternative to Bill 291,the Director is proposing a bill that is the subject of today's meeting,and the bill would require applicants to conduct a community meeting prior to submitting a P.U.D. application,and secondly,to ensure that the P.U.D.development must be consistent with the intent of community development plans for the particular area. So there were components within Bill 291 that we thought were very reasonable and would actually enhance public interaction and involvement within the P.U.D.review process. Holding a community meeting prior to the submittal of a P.U.D. application is both beneficial to the applicant and the community, because it allows for the community's concerns to be identified early on in the process so that the applicant can then amend their development plan as needed prior to its formal submission to the Planning Department. And I should note the bill as drafted would require that the community meeting be held no more than 60 days prior to the submittal of the application;so it kind of remains fresh. And this is a graph just showing the process as being proposed by the Planning Director where the applicant in the first box would conduct the community meetings in order to solicit those comments and concerns from the community,and then the notice of filing of the application in the newspapers,the posting of a sign on the property,and notice of the meeting to surrounding property owners will follow the same track as currently required under the current P.U.D.process. And then finally,the Director will be making a decision on the P.U.D. application,taking into account all of the comments collected during the review process,as well as part of, as was solicited during the prior community meeting. So with that said, the Planning Director is offering her version of proposed amendments to the Zoning Code regarding Planned Unit Developments. With that, I stand ready to answer any questions. GIFFIN: Thank you. Director. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah,I just wanted to add for the information of the audience that one thing that is not up there is it's not just the notice is mailed to the surrounding property owners;when the Department receives the application,we routinely send it out to other departments and agencies for review and comment,and typically we give them about 30 days to respond to us. So we get comments from DEM that might be on whether there is a solid waste management plan or whether there is a sewer system. We might get comments from DPW on the roads and the variances that are applied for there. And we take those into consideration before coming up with a recommendation. The other thing that's missing there is that any decision of the director can be appealed to the Board of Appeals. The difference with the County Council decision,Bill 291,is that an appeal from the County Council goes immediately to Circuit Court. With our system,planning director's decisions go to Board of Appeals,and then if the result is not to the liking of any of the parties, then it can go to Circuit Court from there. GIFFIN: Thank you. And thank you, Daryn. Daryn,did you want to add something? ARAI: Sure, very quickly. My apologies. I failed to mention that we did receive some communication just prior to today's hearing. One of them was a letter from Cory Harden that also included testimonies from some other individuals; that was provided to you,you should have hardcopies before you. Another was a letter from Mac McInnis,that was dated February 19;copies again have been provided to you. And finally—oh,I'm sorry—we also have a letter from Normita Error;copies were provided to you. I also—and I'm not sure why I don't have it right in front of 3 me—but Mrs. Nimori also submitted testimony,and she did provide copies and we've also distributed the testimony to you as well. GIFFIN: Thank you, Daryn. Anything else you want to add? ARAI: No. GIFFIN: Okay. Members of the Commission,any questions of Daryn? Daryn, I have a question. I know the result of our last action on Bill 291. Where is Bill 291 now as we speak? ARAI: The,291 was heard by both the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions. Both Commissions forwarded unfavorable recommendations on the bill. Those recommendations now reside at the County Council;however,we did ask the County Council to delay its hearings on Bill 291 so that your actions or decisions regarding the Director initiated P.U.D. bill can catch up to it, and that way they can at least consider both bills at the same time, which we think is a prudent thing to do. GIFFIN: Thank you. With that, because the applicant is really the Planning Director, and I know Daryn gave us a synopsis of your recommendation, I mean your background report, is there anything else, Director,you would like to add? LEITHEAD TODD: What we do now with all applications that require notice to neighbors is we routinely send a, not a copy of the entire application,but a notice and a description of the application to our action committees. And then the action committees, if they are interested,can put it on their agenda and have a presentation done,and then make comments on that. We've done that twice with South Kohala with the PuakO 1010 P.U.D.,as well as the Waiki`i P.U.D. And that seems to be working out. That's not something,though,that's specifically written in our rules or in the code; that's just a practice that,we reached an agreement,because what we were doing previous to that was we would do,like,twice a month,we would list the subdivision applications,and the feedback we had from the action committees was they didn't feel that they had enough time from the time of the general public notice to decide whether they were going to put it on their agenda since they only meet once a month. So now it's routinely sent to them at the same time that it goes out to the other agencies for comment,and that was agreement reached in terms of trying to provide them notice and give them an opportunity. And I might note that despite having gone through the process and despite having the action committee agree with the recommendations on the P.U.D.,we still have one that's going up on an appeal to Board of Appeals. GIFFIN: Okay,Commissioners,any questions of,in this instance, the applicant who is our Planning Director? Hearing none,this morning there are—one,two,three,four,five—six people who have signed up to testify. And I would like to remind members of the public that if you have not and you would like to give public testimony this morning,please go up to the staff and indicate such. Imminently, I would like to please call Tomoe Nimori,Normita Error—if I'm mispronouncing your name,please, I'm sorry in advance—and Ken Melrose. Please come up. Thank you. And thanks, Ken, for helping the ladies. Will you please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. 4 GIFFIN: All right. Starting with you, ma'am,on my left, will you please state your name. NIMORI: Tomoe Nimori. GIFFIN: All right. Would you like to begin your testimony? NIMORI: Others testifying today may focus on transparency-. GIFFIN: I'm sorry,please-. Yes. And Members of,excuse me,Members of the Commission,as Daryn stated, she has submitted written testimony. Ma'am? NIMORI: Other persons testifying today may focus on transparency,as the proposed amendment moves to provide an opportunity to greater community involvement. As a third generation resident of Kona, I ask you to consider greater community involvement from the perspective of historical Hawaiian land use practices. Agriculture has been the primary land use for 1,200 years influenced by the largely unchanged or unchangeable aspects of geology,soils,climate and hydrography. The Kona Field System reflects this. I would like to draw your attention to Page 2,Section 25-6-3,Item (F). A preliminary site plan of the P.U.D. lists nine items one of which alludes to this concept of respect for the land. If you will look on Item(4), "Natural,historic,and cultural features,"simply listing such features is inadequate in light of historic land use. I ask you to elaborate Item (4)to state: Natural,historic,and cultural features including the geology,soils,climate and hydrography of the Kona Field System within the area of the Planned Use(sic)Development. On Page 5, Section 25-6-7 (4),I recommend the same wording to this section. The approval process on Page 7,(e),my statement of concern: "If the director fails to render a decision on the site plans within the prescribed period,the site plans shall be considered approved without further certification by the director." My recommendation for Section 25-6-3 and Section 25-6-7 may require more time beyond the sixty days allowed. I recommend ninety days to enable the applicant and the Planning Director to conduct a thorough research of the site of the Planned Use(sic) Development. GIFFIN: Thank you very much. Commissioner,any questions of Ms. Nimori? Hearing none, ma'am,than you very much. And you,will you please state your name. ERROR: Good morning. GIFFIN: Good morning. ERROR: I'm Normita Error,and I live on Hua'ai Street,which is near the horseshoe Bend on Hualalai Road. I'm here-. GIFFIN: Excuse me,Ms. Error. Commissioners, I just want to remind you, as Daryn stated earlier, that she did submit written testimony. Please continue. 5 ERROR: I'm here to plea for more transparency in the P.U.D. approval process,and I'll tell you why. Our neighborhood has already suffered from a project that slipped through a couple of years ago because the Planning Director did not have enough staff to make a proper review. And I don't believe that situation has changed,and we would like to have the opportunity for a final hearing with the County Council before a P.U.D. approval is given. I know the Planning Director feels that it would solve the situation,if the developer met with the surrounding property owners to work out their differences. And that's a good idea,but it's not enough. What if they meet and still cannot agree on what is appropriate? In this previous situation that slipped through,the developer, after approval,asked the Planning Director for 17 variances to the regulations,and 15 were approved without further opportunity for the public to object. In addition, as it turned out,a full 68 percent of those lots were below the minimum size for an RS-10 zoning classification. Why have a minimum? Please do not leave us without recourse to at least present our case. It's all about transparency. Thank you. GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners,any questions of Ms. Error? Hearing none, thank you very much. Ken? MELROSE: Good morning. My name is Ken Melrose. And I'll submit this afterwards; I apologize for not being timely. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the proposed revisions to the very useful P.U.D.process. I support the Director initiated version,and offer the following comments. Like subdivision applications,a P.U.D. is the division of existing zoned land,and the process should remain ministerial. The use of P.U.D.guidelines allows flexible configurations of newly created lots in a way that allows preservation of sensitive areas,open space and agricultural uses while also permitting realization of the potential of existing entitlement densities in a way that is compatible with surrounding community. The recognition in Sections 25-6-3,6 and 10 of the applicable community development plan is a very significant addition. The Kona Community Development Plan proposed a paradigm shift in land use towards smart growth policies,which concentrate growth in compact nodes and preserve our rural sense of place and our agricultural potential,without affecting existing landowner entitlements. The P.U.D.revisions proposed seem to further reinforce and help implement our policies,and for this I'm grateful. There are a couple of portions of the proposed wording that concern me,however. In 25-6-6(d), as a potential applicant,I do not like the change from automatic approval to automatic denial of an application by untimely review by the Department; the timing for it being proposed is being extended from 60 to 90 days to help with the paperwork flow. In 25-6-7 (b),the new pre- application community meeting"shall be served"causes concerns. This is on community members around;as I'm only aware of a form of service being by a sheriff, that wording concerns me and I think it might be revised appropriately. And lastly,in 25-6-11, the height exemptions authorized should be those already allowed in the zoning designation and not increased to 75 feet. For Ag zoning, the height is 45 feet, and to my knowledge the only places where zoning is allowed,excuse me, additional height is allowed by zoning is in Resort zones and in the Hilo area where zoning 6 limits would be applied. So thank you for the consideration of these comments,and I look forward to these revisions to the P.U.D.guidelines. Aloha. GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners,any questions of Ken Melrose? Hearing none,thank you, the three of you. LEITHEAD TODD: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: I'm sorry. Director. LEITHEAD TODD: I just wanted to clarify. I think,looking at some of the testimony coming in, it seems that, I think some people are looking at Bill 291 and not the bill that's actually on our agenda today. So you're going to have to take some of Ms.Nimori's comments,which referred to 25-6-3 (F)are actually,in the current bill before your consideration, would be applicable to 25-6-3 (G) rather than 3 (F),because 3(G)is where the reference to natural, historic, and cultural features; because the numbering and where certain language is in the two different versions of the bill are in different locations,so if you look at Ms. Nimori's testimony,it would be to Page 3 of the proposed bill and it would be 25-6-3 (G). And then similarly, I think you need to double-check whether her reference to 25-6-7 (4) is applicable to this or needs to go to a different section. And that was the other thing is like Ms. Nimori's comments about the 60 days,the current bill under consideration today changes it from 60 to 90 days and, as Mr.Melrose pointed out,changed it from an automatic approval to a denial,if we didn't render a decision,and that was-. So it's a significant difference. GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners,any other questions? Thank you. Thank you for being of assistance. I would like to call Mary Kay McInnis,Mac McInnis and Tom Madson. Please come forward. Good morning,and thank you. Will you please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. GIFFIN: Thank you. Starting with you, ma'am,your name,and you may begin your testimony. M. K.McINNIS: My name is Mary Kay McInnis. Good morning,Members of the Commission. My name is Mary Kay McInnis. I live at 75-661 'Hua`ai Street,here in beautiful Kailua-Kona. I've heard a lot of interesting and meaningful testimony this morning. The opinion shared by Mrs. Error and Mrs. Nimori were considerable and expressed much more eloquently than I could offer to you this morning. Instead, I would ask the Commission a question,and ask if you would help in understanding the cumbersome and confusing process known as P.U.D.approval. I've heard the terms "transparency,""public input" and"cooperation"batted about quite a bit today, and I think we can all agree ultimately that we'd all like to achieve this. So here is what concerns and confounds me. I do not think I'm going out on the limb when I say it concerns and confounds many of us. Using the example Mrs. Error alluded to earlier is the rezoning amendment bill 163,A- 5a to RS-10. This is TMK 7-5-017:042. This rezoning was approved. The P.U.D. was submitted and approved with 15 of 17 variances. Now, I'm not a real estate professional, I'm not a developer, 7 I'm not a real estate expert of any kind,and I don't profess to be. But I am reasonably intelligent and fairly well educated. So I look at this thing,and I say,okay, it's RS-10, so that should mean that these are 10,000-square foot lots,and I go and I look at it,and I say,okay,but I look and I see of the 53 lots in here exactly twelve of them are 10,000 square feet or greater. So I think to myself at this point, what does this mean? If that's what's going on, then what is RS-10 mean? It's a random number. And this is, this is where all the confusion begins. And if we are going to have rezoning and it's just a random number, then I don't understand and this is where the confusion begins. And I think people find this distasteful and distrustful. So to try to better understand and decipher the rezoning,you begin to read the district rezoning regulations, which I've done. And I think,well,this is pretty straightforward,and then I get down to minimum building site areas,7,500 square feet, and I think,well, this is interesting,I think,okay,except, wait,out comes my aforementioned P.U.D.plan,and I see of the 53 lots and the twelve remaining lots exceeding 10,000 square feet, and incredible 79 percent under the required amount,42 lots, 14 are less than 7,500 square feet, which the county law requires, the zoning law requires. So now all this smoke and mirrors and hocus pocus comes into play,and this, with these building variances, and I don't understand. I don't understand how this happens. All of this happens with no,nobody's input; nobody knows what happens. The builder goes in and this meeting happens,the public doesn't know,and all these changes happen. And people have a right to understand. And I know that, Ms.Todd, you have the right and the responsibility to make these decisions, and you all are charged with this responsibility to make these decisions. And I understand that sometimes in the art of compromise that people are unhappy, and that you have to make decisions for public safety and for public good. But what I don't understand is why the public isn't allowed to know these reasons and why we aren't allowed to hear these negotiations. And if it's a proprietary reason or a safety reason or a security reason,I can see why that's behind closed doors. But in lieu of that,why, why all the cloak and dagger and why all the secrecy? And I think that's what,that's where the bone of contention is. So if somebody can explain to me why it's done this way,then I think we'll all feel a lot better about it. And having a meeting prior to a decision and we can all say,well,we don't like this or we don't like small lots or we don't like whatever we don't like,is one thing;but what happens is your decision is made,and then we find out later, but we never know why,and all we see is we have an area that once had zoning for one house on five acres and the next thing we know is we have a subdivision that has one house on 6,100 square feet,and that's the last thing we ever hear about it. So those are the answers and those are the things I think I would like to have answers on,and those are the things I think most of our neighbors and most of the community would like to know. GIFFIN: Thank you. Director? LEITHEAD TODD: I thought I'd explain a little bit. Generally,when a P.U.D. comes in and it has specific zoning and,let's say that you have a piece of property and you have RS-10 zoning,and if you were to divide it up—let's assume for argument's sake that it's a flat piece of land,so you can put the roads in a straight line and you can have nice, neat,little rectangular lots—then let's say that for your property you could have a total of 50 lots based on the zoning and based on the amount of land that you have,and you can get 50 10,000-square foot lots; but the reality is is that it's not a flat piece of land,that it's next to a road that's not straight. So in order to connect to the road and have sight distance where you are going to place the connecting road,let's say it's HualAlai Road,that in order to have the sight distance, the road needs to connect to it at a certain point in order to have 8 adequate sight distance. The road has to have certain slopes, and has to have certain dimensions to it. Your land is not flat;your land is like this or like this or it could be like that. So sometimes in order to layout the roads and have a road connect to the point on the public road where you have adequate sight distance and where Public Works is telling you this is where we want the road to connect, if you took a straight line,that might connect here,but if you are looking at sight distance and topography,maybe it connects there. But that road needs to connect from here to another road on another piece of property that's not in a straight line;so the road has got to go kind of like that, and part of it's topography,part of it's slope. So when they are looking at engineering it, they try to figure that out,and it means that frequently the lots cannot be nice little rectangles because of where you put the roads. That has a lot to do with it. Sometimes on a P.U.D.,it may be that there is certain features on the property that want to be protected;so that reduces the amount of buildable space you have,so they want to reconfigure,if you've got burial sites, if you've got other features you want to protect. So typically,when someone comes in,it's because they are not able to layout nice,neat, Iittle rectangular lines for the roads and the Iots. They cannot increase the total density. If they were allowed to have 50 10,000-square foot lots, the maximum number of lots that they can get in a P.U.D. is 50 lots; they cannot get 100 5,000-square foot lots. They get 50 lots; some of them may be 10,000,some of them may be less than that,but that's the maximum number of lots that they can get. And that's what I think a lot of people don't understand. Because the one we had in upper Kona, the zoning was Ag-5,and the guys wanted to do two-acre lots and then there would be this one large leftover lot, which would be about—I can't remember exactly whether it was 45 or 48 acres—so you get one large lot and a number of smaller two-acre lots. And that's actually consistent with what the Kona CDP calls for,which is to try and cluster the development and leave more open space. So the total density,the total number of lots that they get out of it is the same. But the size of lots changes, where the roads go may accommodate the topography,it may be that there is natural features that you want to preserve. Typically,the information should be in the application;when somebody submits an application,it should list why they should have a layout for it. And I don't know whether people go and read the whole application,or they just see the letter and then they see the map,so they don't understand what's in the application. It may be that we need to have more information. It may be that our decision needs to have a better explanation of why a specific variance was granted. Because we are now doing that with some of our variance letters because we've had this come up afterwards;people said,well, why did you grant it or what was the reason for it,so we are revamping the way our letters are written,when we approve stuff,in order to give more of an explanation that somebody can read it and say,oh,that's why that variance got granted,or that's why the road is where it is. And so it's kind of a fluid process that we are doing that. And also,you know,the inclusion recently of the action committees. And they were only interested,I think,in the larger ones,because these were very large P.U.D.'s. Waiki'i, actually,the initial P.U.D.application went out to the neighbors,we had six letters of objection to the size of the lots,the applicant withdrew the initial P.U.D. application and then submitted a new one that took into consideration the objections of the neighbors; because the objections of the neighbors were they didn't want any lots less than ten acres, and the original P.U.D. did have some lots that were smaller than ten,and so they pulled it and resubmitted and those lots are now, the smallest lot is ten and the larger lots are 40 acres. I would not, you know, I would be willing to entertain the thought that, you know,if there were language that if the action committee wanted to hold a hearing on it,that we would do it and notice would go out to the neighbors, something like that,because the action committee would be in the 9 position to look at whether it's consistent with the CDP. The problem with some of this is we don't have CDP's for the entire island. We don't have CDP's in some cases that really address some of these issues. And it's the same thing with Ms.Nimori's comment earlier about the Kona Field System;that language is specific to Kona whereas the code that we are trying to write has to cover the entire island. And so if you are going to propose amendments, the amendments need to be worded in such a way that it would take into consideration not just a specific area but the entire island in the way you word it. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of the Planning Director? I do-. M. K.McINNIS: I have one more little tiny,just so I understand,if you don't mind. GIFFIN: Excuse me, I need to recognize you. M. K.McINNIS: Oh, I'm sorry,excuse me. GIFFIN: It's quite all right. Do you want to react to what the Director said? Please go ahead. M. K. McINNIS: I just,I want to make sure that I understood just the one part. So when you grant the rezoning for the piece of property that,as example that we were talking about, so you have however many acres it is that was rezoned, you are guaranteed,you are allowed to have so many lots just willy-nilly in this many acres of zoning before you even have done anything; I can go out and I can buy 20 acres of whatever and have it rezoned and I can-. I don't quite understand that when I don't-. I understand about topography and easements and roads and drainage and all those sorts of things have to go into it. So I don't quite understand how-. I understand a few variances, but I don't understand if-. Because lots have to be adjusted,and you can't just cookie-cutter them out—I understand we don't live in Nebraska, I understand that. But I don't quite understand when you have to accommodate for easements and roads and drainage and special features and all the things that we have,living here,so I don't quite understand,though,just because I bought 20 acres of,or however many acres it is,it happens to be,it has been rezoned,how I can necessarily count on using all those to put X number of houses on to kind of make the math work. And if you'll explain that to me, I would appreciate that. GIFFIN: Director? LEITHEAD TODD: Well,zoning is really about density,and then subdivision is how you cut up your density. And what we typically do,when we look at this,is—let's say your 20 acres,now, typically,if you divided it by the lot size,you would get X number of lots—we typically subtract out what we assume is going to be the roads so that,even though theoretically you could divide it and you were going to get 80 lots out of it, we have a calculation where we assume roads are going to take up so much space, so we subtract that out, and instead of 80,we may say that, you know, you actually can only get about 70 lots out of this. So we look at that as being the maximum number of lots that you can get out of that, if it was RS-10 and you had 20 acres. The reason you end up doing P.U.D.'s sometimes is because of topo and roads. And so the P.U.D. allows them some flexibility,and then they can try to get to the maximum number of, you know,70,75 or what is,in configuring it. And so we usually try to accommodate that,because we look at that as trying to accommodate the differences in the topo and trying to treat different property owners somewhat similar in the sense that if you have 20 acres,and you can subdivide 75,and you've got 20 acres 10 and you can subdivide 25,but because we want the road a certain way or we have certain requirements,we try to accommodate it so that you can still get the 75 lots but it's not necessarily each in a rectangle and it's not necessarily the same size. Usually, and if I recall right,I think the one that was doing the rezoning,I think they were saying that they were going to come in for a P.U.D. at the time,because, I think when, the discussion was that it was clear that you couldn't do the roads exactly the way the roads,you know,would lay out evenly,and I think the discussion occurred at the County Council that,you know, there was going to be some changes and they would be coming in,you know. I may be wrong but I thought that there was the discussion. Similarly, there is another scheduled, this one got withdrawn,but there is another rezoning in this area off of Hualalai Road where the landowner was going to come in for reclassification to Urban,rezoning, I think,to RS-10,and he was also very upfront about the fact that he was going to come in for a P.U.D., and has in fact met with the community. So it's,you know,in a lot of these cases,when it closely follows a rezoning, I think the public is aware,and the Council is aware, that the applicant is coming in,because this guy,at least the one that I know on Hualalai Road,he's been very upfront that that's what his goal is,because he is trying to configure the lots. I think that frustration for, and possibly the fear, for people living in an area is if you are in an area that's zoned RS-10 and next door it gets zoned RS-10,there is an expectation that the lots are going to be the same size as the lots in your subdivision. And the fear is that if the lots are smaller next door, that it's going to impact your enjoyment of your property in a sense that it may lessen the value of your land,if the lots next door are smaller. People also get concerned about view planes, traffic,you know, and they also sometimes think that density is actually increasing in terms of, if they see a smaller lot,they are thinking that,oh,hey, he's getting more than his 50 lots or he's getting more than his 75. And it's the concern that there is going to be an impact to you. Is my view plane impacted? Is my quiet enjoyment impacted? Is my property value impacted? I don't know that that's quantifiable. I don't know if historically there is any evidence that having a P.U.D. next door in fact lowers your property value;but I know that that is frequently the concern of people in the community,and also whether it opens the door to further rezoning,further smaller lots,and so that what they thought they were buying into ends up not being what,you know,the community looks like they-. And so that's some of the fear that's driven. The one where we had the two-acre lots in the five acres,I think,you know,while there were concerns over other issues, I think it initially started with,hey,I bought into an area where it's five acres,so the lots next door should be five acres,and, you know,he's getting away with something because,without having to rezone the property,they are getting smaller lot sizes, so they are increasing density,even though it's the same number of total lots. It's the concern that what's happening next door,that this isn't what I moved into;I moved into Ag,I moved into Rural, I moved into a certain size. I don't know how you can totally take care of that concern without just totally eliminating P.U.D.'s,because the P.U.D.,as it's set up,does allow for this shifting of the sizes and location. And in fact,the goal of the CDP is for us to try and do this more,not so much in the urban areas but in the rural areas,to try and preserve the open area and preserve ag land,because we have a lot of existing zoning, so -. I think there was, I'm trying to remember,there was one big P.U.D. we did where the zoning was like Ag-20, but it was several-thousand acres of land. And so the tradeoff on the P.U.D. was they got some smaller lots in one area in exchange for going from a 20-acre lot to like a 400-acre lot here,you know,a 600-acre lot,I think one might be a 1,200-acre lot,and they can never subdivide the 1,200 acres, they can never subdivide the 400; but they did get in one area less then 20-acre lots. And so what they did is they looked at the total number of 20-acre lots that they theoretically could get, they 11 came in with a smaller number of lots,and that was a tradeoff,because it protected the bigger acres. But we seldom have a P.U.D. where it's a couple thousand acres; it's typically more a 15-acre or, because people don't like to go to the state Land Use Commission,it's slightly less than 15 acres. And I think people get concerned because the two-step process is confusing,and it also,people, what they see happening and what they thought was going to happen ends up being two different things. So I think that's why there is a lot of interest in the P.U.D.'s. I don't know that this takes care of all of the concerns. It seems like what you are really asking for is that after the application has been submitted and prior to me making a decision on it, that you would like a public opportunity to come and tell me what you think,whether the Department held the meeting or whether an action committee held the meeting,I think that's what I'm hearing; because the concern is that the applicant may not have taken your concerns into consideration, and you want that opportunity to have an explanation and go over the plans. And that could be something that the Planning Commission could recommend as an amendment. GIFFIN: Thank you. Mrs.McInnis? Happy? Okay. I have another question of the Planning Director,as she presented. You suggested,I think,that there be—I can't remember the term you used—but it would be a county initiated community group that would meet to hear from the members of the community whereas,if I understood this scenario correctly, the applicant would be initiating this meeting. Did I hear that correctly? LEITHEAD TODD: The bill,as it's currently drafted,says that pre-application,before you submit, you've got to notify the neighbors and set up a meeting with them and tell them this is what I'm planning to do-. GIFFIN: The applicant. LEITHEAD TODD: The applicant--get feedback,they've got to provide proof to us that they've held the meeting. And the theory was that if they heard the concerns of the neighbors early on,that they could modify their application to take those concerns into consideration,and then they would submit the application. And at that point they are required,when they submit the application,to notify the surrounding property owners that they've submitted the application. We notify the various agencies,and ask them to comment on it. We also would notify the various action committees of the application,and they are free to comment. But the current bill does not provide for a public meeting after the application has been submitted,and I think that that's what the public seems to be asking for. GIFFIN: Uh huh. So we are speaking of timing, and we are also speaking of who sponsors the meeting,you know,these action committees or the county or the applicant prior to submitting the application. Okay. And if we are hearing this correctly,we,the public today would be interested in what you are talking about,which is these action committees,once the application is submitted but no decision has been made,then there would be another opportunity for public input,correct? LEITHEAD TODD: I think that's what I'm hearing that they want an opportunity after the application has been submitted to have a public meeting that they can come to, that they can hear from both the applicant,as well as the Department,and that they can ask questions about the application and provide additional input,because it's, you know,their concerns may not have been addressed in the application. 12 GIFFIN: Thank you. Sir,are you Mac McInnis? You are. M.McINNIS: He's much better look-. MADSON: He's Mac. M. McINNIS: I'm Mac McInnis. GIFFIN: All right,thank you. M. McINNIS: Good morning-. GIFFIN: Good morning. M. McINNIS: Madam Chairman,Ms. Planning Director,gentlemen. I'm not going to waste time with what I planned to say,because BJ has said exactly what the citizens are concerned about,the transparency issue. The neighborhood meeting,BJ,we've had five meetings, and I think we know who you are talking about,what developer, and we've got nowhere with the gentleman. You are taking about different personality; this man holds his cards very close to his chest—some people are that way. Neighborhood meetings are a good idea to start with,but what the citizens would like is the opportunity to attend a meeting, a public meeting, whether at the Planning Commission or the County Council, after the P.U.D. application has been made,and have their questions answered. Just like my wife said,she is not a real estate expert, she is not a developer,she is not in a real estate business; these people are good citizens and have very little knowledge of how the process works. If they have a question,they'd like the ability to be able to stand up and raise their hand and say,BJ, could you please explain how they got this size lots? It's very simple. Just have a public meeting. That's all we are asking for. Thank you. Mahalo. GIFFIN: You are very welcome. Commissioners,any questions of the testifier? Hearing none,sir? MADSON: Yes. I'm Tom Madson,and I don't have any testimony,but I have questions I don't understand the answers to. GIFFIN: Okay,good. If my memory serves me correctly,both you and Mr.McInnis testified in December,correct? MADSON: That's correct. GIFFIN: All right, thank you. Please go ahead with the statement of your questions. MADSON: Okay. I was wondering what would be required to make the Bill 291,as it was originally written,not in conflict with the county procedures. GIFFIN: Okay. Bobby Jean? LEITHEAD TODD: You would need to amend the County Charter. 13 MADSON: Who is"you?" LEITHEAD TODD: Well,the public,because what would need to occur is the County Council would need to propose an amendment to the County Charter,it would have to go on the ballot at the next election,and then the public would get to vote on changing the Charter. MADSON: Okay, that's clear. And how would you do,how would you get it on the ballot? How would you start the procedure? LEITHEAD TODD: Typically, you either have to have the Council initiate it or you have to do a citizen's petition. And I don't know the requisite number of signatures that it would require to do that. MADSON: Okay,but we can make a proposal to the Council and ask them. LEITHEAD TODD: You can make a proposal to the Council. MADSON: And if they recommend it,it would go on the ballot. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah. MADSON: Okay. LEITHEAD TODD: I think they need to have six, I'm rot sure,I don't want to speak to how many they have to, but-. MADSON: Okay,well,at least that explains the procedure. GIFFIN: Sir,No. 2? MADSON: My next question is,why do you have to go to the Land Use Commission,if you want to develop 15 or more acres? LEITHEAD TODD: You have to go to the state Land Use Commission,if you-. Hawaii has kind of a dual layer land use system. There is state land use classification,and so the land you sit on could be state land use classification Agriculture and county zoning Agriculture,or it could be state land use Urban,county zoning Ag or,if it's in Urban,then it could be county zoning Ag,it could be county zoning Rural,or it could be county zoning Residential,it could be Industrial,it could be Commercial. If it's state land use classification Agriculture and it's more than 15 acres,the county cannot take it to an urban or residential use without the state Land Use Commission approving that, which is why you frequently see special use permits for 15 acres or less,or guys taking land and trying to cut it up into smaller parcel so they can get under the 15 acres. And the reason is is that basically it's very expensive to go to the state and get land reclassified first, and then go to the county and get the rezoning at the county. It's also lengthens or doubles the amount of time. And so for a lot of people who are looking to develop property-. This is not you're going to buy a lot and build your house. This is somebody, I'm going to buy this land, I'm going to create a subdivision, I'm going to have, you know, 30 lots that I'm going to sell,I look at what it costs me to buy the land, I look at whether that's cash out of pocket or am I borrowing money and paying 14 interest on it,I look at how long it's going to take me to go from purchasing the land to getting the requisite zoning to getting construction done before I can actually sell the lots; so I look at what does it cost me for the period of time to get to the point that I can sell and actually see revenue come back in. So the reason a lot of guys try to avoid going through a two-step process—unless you've got a significantly large piece of land so that it kind of makes it worthwhile to go to the Land Use Commission,because you are going to rezone, you know,500 acres,so maybe it makes more sense —but if you are only talking about smaller parcels,because it extends the time and extends the cost, a lot of property owners try to do segments that are just 15 acres or less, and that's because it shortens the time,it shortens the cost,it means that they are spending less money on interest, if they borrowed it, it means that there is a shorter period in which they can hope to get the money back. And also sometimes they are trying to hit that window. The economy,if you are a developer,you want to get your lots ready for sale as the economy is going up. The worst thing is you've invested all your money,and just as you are getting ready to sell your lots, the economy tanks,the price of land tanks. And the money that you've put into developing it, into bringing water,into bringing the road infrastructure up to a dedicable standard or a modern standard,is very expensive. And so guys are always looking at this, because for one example, where we have several guys working together now to try and get water, the water system is going to cost over 13 million dollars to get the water from up mauka down to where the development is going to occur—and so guys are figuring out,well,what's that going to cost me and, you know,how do I pay for it, when do I get return. And that's why guys try to avoid lengthening the process. But it's the system that we have. It's in state law. The county can't change the state law; the State Legislature has control. But the intent of a lot of it was to preserve agricultural land from being rezoned and developed. It was supposed to preserve the best agricultural land,which typically was considered to be A and B soils,the soils that you can actually grow something in as opposed to-. On our island we have a lot of land that's classified as Agricultural that's `al and pAhoehoe, because we have recent lava flows. The difficulty for a lot of people is that—and I'm sorry for taking up all this time-. GIFFIN: No,no,this is great-. LEITHEAD TODD: Is that both Conservation and Agriculture became kind of buckets you throw other land into. Land that you didn't think was ready for development,some of that got thrown into Conservation. It wasn't in Conservation because it had flora or fauna or unique features that you needed to preserve;it was it's not ready to be urbanized,so we are going to throw some of that in Conservation. In Ag,well,you know,it's not ready to be developed,so even though you can't grow anything on it,we are going to throw it into Agriculture. And the state law specifically says that they recognize that there is land that they've put into this classification that really isn't good for agriculture. So they created a process where you can get a special use permit, so somebody can do something else with the land, because it's not really good for growing stuff. But for this island,95 percent of the land on this island is either classified as Conservation or Agriculture;it means that there is very little land that's classified as Urban where you can actually have a right to build a house. And that's because the state law also says that on agriculturally zoned Iand you can only have a farm dwelling. In theory you are not allowed to build a single family residence on land that is zoned,or classified,state land use Agriculture; you can only build it, if you have agricultural activity,unless your lot was created prior to 1976. 15 So there is all these nuances that guys are looking at. It makes it very complicated. And in many cases in Hawaii it makes it very expensive to develop land for residential use. So it's,I guess it's good for people who can afford it; it's not good for people who can't afford it. MADSON: Thank you. That explains why the developer would prefer to use a P.U.D.to develop the property. But my primary question is why does the state require a land use application,or permit or whatever, in the first place? Why don't they eliminate that,if they don't think there is a reason to have it? GIFFIN: Director? LEITHEAD TODD: I think that's a question that I have asked in the past, and it is actually interesting in some cases that-. I mean,the state Land Use Commission is supposed to determine where is an appropriate area for urban development,where is agriculture appropriate, where is rural development appropriate;but again, I think,just like we sometimes complain on the county level, that the amount of staff they have, the amount of resources they have, the budget that they have, doesn't enable them to really go out and look at land and decide, you know,what's appropriate and whether a thing should move from one classification to the other. It is partially because the State Constitution got amended in 1978. And in 1978 the State Constitution was amended and it specifically states that we have to preserve important agricultural lands. And so state courts have said that some of the duty cannot be delegated from the state to the county;that it has to be done at the state level. So even if the Legislature wanted to,you know, create more of a flow to the county level,it becomes difficult. They could,if they wanted to,change the acreage. Instead of 15 acres, there have been attempts in the past to say that the counties can rezone and reclassify up to 50 acres or 30 acres as opposed to 15, and that the state should just reserve the larger parcels for itself;that's gotten no traction at the State Legislature. It hasn't gone anywhere,so we are stuck with 15 acres for now and for the foreseeable future. A lot of this,the goal in 1978 was really trying to protect large scale agriculture. There was a lot of state land that was in leases to sugar,and the concern was that the state would take that land out of agricultural production,create homesteads where people could go and get pieces of land. And so part of the goal was to keep state land really in agricultural production and protect some of the industries at that time,which were pineapple and sugar. What's occurred is agriculture has changed,and there really is more of a small scale agriculture;guys are doing stuff on five acres and three acres whereas before sugar was, I have,let's see,Hamakua Sugar was 29,000 acres and that was just one plantation,but you needed that acreage. And so I don't think the law has kept up with the changing reality and the changing nature of agriculture. But that was the intent;it was to protect the large plantation style of agriculture and to keep large acreages, and it was to prevent the state from moving the land into agricultural reduction. The strange thing— and I'm so sorry-. GIFFIN: No,no,go. LEITHEAD TODD: The strange thing is the greatest pressure and the greatest movement to reclassify Ag land to Urban has not been in places like the neighbor islands; it's been on Oahu where they have A and B soil. It's the best land in the state and that's what's become, it's flat,it's got good soil, it's easy to build houses on. So you have vast acreage on O`ahu that is theoretically the best place to have agriculture occur,because it's got the best soil;but because it's flat,it's also some of the easiest place to develop and build houses and put roads in,and that's-. So I don't know that we accomplished what we wanted to do, because there are other pressures that come into 16 play. That's where,the greatest need for housing was on Oahu and it happened to have some of the best soil. The older islands tend to have the better soil. We have no A soil on this island. We have a little bit of B;most of it is located on Hawaiian Home Lands up in the Waimea and Kohala areas. When we have a B application,we look at it very closely. And we have recommended denials for some of the special use permits when it's a B soil,because it's soil that you can actually grow something in as opposed to-. You can grow anything anywhere, if it's in a hot house and it's aboveground;but the theory of protecting Ag land was trying to protect land that had the ability to actually plant stuff in the ground. And on this island we have instead unique crops like,coffee doesn't require dirt,papaya actually likes rock; so it's a very different way that we look at Ag land here. But it's also much what's growing is smaller agriculture; it's not 29,000 acres anymore,it's a five-acre coffee farm. And we have language where we protect the coffee lands,lands that are in the coffee belt;through the General Plan we look at very closely in terms of whether those get reclassified or rezoned. And it's kind of learning where we are growing up,you know. I think planning was in its infancy where we are getting better at it;we are not perfect. But it's also frustrating for a lot of people because, I think,most people want predictability, and rezoning and P.U.D.'s are not necessarily something that people can predict, and I think that that's the frustration that members of the public have. GIFFIN: Sir? MADSON: So if I have 149 acres, I can split it up into ten 14.9-acre P.U.D.'s and totally circumvent whatever the reason was in 1978 for the state to impose the land use requirement,if you are going to develop more than, 15 or more acres. LEITHEAD TODD: Not exactly. And that's,we look at who owns the property, and if you own all of those parcels and come in for successive things, we will reject your application and kick you up to the Land Use Commission. And we are doing that currently with a—we'll see how well the litigation goes—we have a 140-acre parcel,it's the same landowner,they are leasing subsections of the land,less than 15 acres,and guys are coming in for special use permits. And so we looked at that over a 20-year period. This is Iike the fourth one that came in. So we said we were going to reject it,even though they came in with just 10 acres. And we are saying,because we are looking and it's a 140-acre parcel,it looks clear that there is an intent to do successive development,and so that the whole parcel should go up. And so we have that one. And we have another one where they did 15 acres and it started looking like their operations were larger,so we basically said that we are either going to shut you down or you need to go to the Land Use Commission and get all these things that you are doing permitted. So you would not be able to do that. You could divide it and sell them off to 20 different people and each of those 20 people could,theoretically,could-. MADSON: Yeah,my son and two other straw owners,or eight other straw owners. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, we look at the ownership, and if the ownership is not identical, then we process them. MADSON: So it's a father, son and two other straw buyers,their,you know, the intent was to defeat the intent of the land use ruling in 1978. LEITHEAD TODD: And if it meets the parameters of what's permissible,then it comes through; because we look at letter of the law,black letter,and if the black letter says that if the ownership for 17 us,you know,when we look at it, if the ownership is not 100 percent,then we process them separately,because they are separate owners,they are separate entities. MADSON: But if title changes to all those parcels all on the same day,and two of them happen to be a father and a son, you know their whole intent of this is to defeat the intent of the Land Use Commission. LEITHEAD TODD: I can't look at what people's intent is;I can look at what the paper is in front of me,and if the ownership is separate, then we process it. And -. MADSON: Okay,and you approve it. Is that automatic-? LEITHEAD TODD: And the zonings,the four that you are speaking about,we recommended denial of two,but not based on ownership; we recommended denial of two based on the community development plan. The four parcels that we are alluding to,we recommended denial. We recommended that the state land use classification should go to Urban,because given the area and with the fact that it was within the Kona Urban Area, we said that the classification should be Urban. But we recommended denial of the rezoning,because it was not consistent with the community development plan,on the bottom two 15-acre parcels. MADSON: Okay-. GIFFIN: Mr.Madson,does that conclude your questioning-? MADSON: I'm sorry it doesn't. My next question has to do with any studies that are done and reviewed by the Planning Department or the Council about height limitations that affect visibility and the adequacy of the entrance and exit and traffic on—since we are talking about the four parcels —on HualAlai Road,because I know that in one intersection where I turn down the street to go down to my house,if the weeds are over five feet tall, it's like cross yourself before you make a left turn. There's no Stop signs. I mean it's a shot in the dark,and people are coming down the road at 35 miles an hour,and it takes you,you know, 15 seconds to get across the lane,and you just pray there is no one coming. So if there is any high building that obstructs your visibility-. And I know (indecipherable)the proposed road is supposed to enter onto Huai-alai Road, you know. I just want to know what kind of analysis has been done to analyze that. LEITHEAD TODD: Well,not that it's germane to this specific bill,but when plans come in,they are reviewed by DPW for sight distance,and they are supposed to be looking at where the roads should go,and they typically have to-. If it's a state highway,the state has to approve the intersection. If it's a county highway,then the county Department of Public Works has to approve where the road is. And we try to maintain the weeds within our right-of-way. Unfortunately,we can't do a lot for privately owned land, if the brush goes up. But,typically,the right-of-way should have enough of a design and we should be taking care of the weeds within the right-of-way so that you have some visibility. And if there is a problem within the county right-of-way or visibility, I would suggest reporting it so we can try and address it,if you have a concern specifically-. MADSON: You mean after the fact? After a house is built that obstructs visibility? LEITHEAD TODD: Well,houses have setbacks,you know,and-. 18 MADSON: Yeah,but they are so small. They are ten feet. With variances that have been granted, in some places five feet. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah,but they are back of the property line. So if the intersection is there, the intersection, you should be able to see clear from the intersection and the houses shouldn't be blocking. But if that's a concern,that needs to be brought up with DPW, MADSON: And who would you bring that up with? LEITHEAD TODD: Department of Public Works. MADSON: Publics Works,okay. Uh -. GIFFIN: Mr. Madson,I need to ask you if you have further questions, No. I, and,No.2,if the questions are germane to this agenda item. If they are not germane to this agenda item,I suggest that maybe you arrange an appointment with the Department to discuss those other questions that you may have. But if you have other questions that pertain -. LEITHEAD TODD: I'm here every Tuesday. MADSON: Okay,thank you. LEITHEAD TODD: And more than willing to meet with you and go over your concerns and see if we can address them-. MADSON: And you are extremely knowledgeable and-. GIFFIN: She is. MADSON: I appreciate that. Okay, my last question was not in direct,at what's on the agenda. GIFFIN: Okay. MADSON: So I will make an appointment. GIFFIN: Thank you. MADSON: Thank you very much for your time. GIFFIN: Thank you. And I appreciate you coming, and I appreciate the lesson on Planning 101 from the Director. LEITHEAD TODD: I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself. GIFFIN: No,that was great. MADSON: Thank you. 19 GIFFIN: So thank you very much for coming. Please go back to your seats. Members of the Commission,any questions of the Director? And I did have-. Daryn,maybe we need to speak to this proposal that I think I heard Mrs.McInnis allude to regarding the sequence of the meetings,and I think that the Director also acknowledged that that was something well taken. Any questions? Director. LEITHEAD TODD: I was going to say let's take a look at Page 4,Section 25-6-6,"Actions by director on P.U.D. applications." And so I'm looking at adding a subsection (1)to(a),and the subsection would say that within sixty days of receiving,of acceptance of a P.U.D. application,the director shall hold a public meeting either,or have a meeting through the action committee—so one or the other,not a director meeting and an action committee,but if there is a public meeting through the action committee,then that would take care of that. If there is no action committee like,let's say this is Kali,then the director would hold a public meeting. And we would do that within sixty days. So there would be an opportunity by then to have had comments from the departments,public comments come in on the application. There would also have been an opportunity for the action committee to have seen the application and potentially decide whether they wanted to hear it,so that we would hold some kind of a public meeting, notice it publicly. And I don't have the exact language,but that's where I'm looking at putting it is under(a)so that-. Because, since we are expanding it from sixty to ninety days in this proposal, say that within sixty days you have to hold the public meeting, so then this proposal would then have a community meeting before the application is submitted,and it would have a community public meeting where people could come after the application is submitted. But that would also still reserve the opportunity to appeal any decision that was made to the Board of Appeals. GIFFIN: To the Board of Appeals,right. Okay,I got it. Commissioners,any questions of the Director? Members of the public,did I enable all of you to have the opportunity to testify today? Great. BEAUDET: I have one-. GIFFIN: I'm sorry. Brandi. BEAUDET: I'm looking at Section 25-6-11,Paragraph(a),and my question was as to why 75 feet and how does that account to typical stories or levels within a building. LEITHEAD TODD: That was existing language in this section; this is not new language. And I think it's partially because you are looking at different districts,including Agricultural districts,and different types of things. But it is a concern. BEAUDET: Wouldn't it be better just to follow the zoning height requirements of the area rather than having an exemption to go higher than what is currently zoned for? LEITHEAD TODD: I think you can currently get a variance for height limit that's outside of the P.U.D.,you know,for specific conditions like,let's say there's flooding issues or something and so you need to elevate-. But it does seem,I mean,that would make me nervous, if somebody had 75 feet next door to me. And I'm only allowed to be 15 feet in my subdivision. Let me-. May we take a five-minute recess and have staff pull up some of the other stuff? 20 GIFFIN: Sure, sure. We are in recess to enable our staff to give us some background information on this issue. Thank you. RECESSED The Chair called a recess at 11:07 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 11:26 a.m. GIFFIN: I'd like to call the Hawaii County Leeward Planning Commission meeting back to order. I think,if I understood our Director's body language,that she has worked out some language to add to the existing proposal that she has for the agenda item. LEITHEAD TODD: On Page 4,Section 25-6-6, "Actions by-." Oh, sorry,I forgot.,I keep thinking my voice is loud enough,but it has to go into the tape. Section 25-6-6,"Actions by director on P.U.D. applications,"a new subsection under(a)would be,"(1)Within sixty days after acceptance of an application or modification, the director or applicable community development plan action committee shall hold a public meeting on the application." So that's on Page 4. For the other one on height limits on Section 25-6-11, "Height exceptions authorized,"under(a),we would delete everything after the semicolon that says,"provided,that the maximum height of the building shall not exceed seventy-five feet,"and instead the section would read,"A building approved under a P.U.D. approval may not exceed the height limit specified under the zoning district of the property and the height limits under section 25-4-22, unless there are special or unique circumstances warranting an exception." GIFFIN: Any discussion on the additions and changes that the Director has recommended? Hearing none-. UNIDENTIFIED PUBLIC MEMBER: Uh-. GIFFIN: Pm sorry? UNIDENTIFIED PUBLIC MEMBER: I have a question,I'm sorry. I did not understand. You are going to have a meeting with an action committee-. ARAI: Sir,if you are going to speak,please go to the table. GIFFIN: Could you identify yourself again,too,for the tape. M.McINNIS: I'm Mac McInnis. I'm sorry,I did not understand what BJ said. It will be before, the meeting will be before an action committee,and if an action committee doesn't have jurisdiction,it'll be before whom? LEITHEAD TODD: Me. M.McINNIS: You? LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah. 21 M.McINNIS: The planning director. LEITHEAD TODD: Because we,I'm saying either-or,because I'm going to give the action committee the option of whether they want to hold the hearing;if they do,then we would do it at a regularly scheduled action committee hearing. I have two areas that only have steering committees; so if it's Hamakua or Ka`u,I would have to hold the hearing because there is no action committee to go to. But because this isn't something that is specifically,under the current code,assigned to an action committee,you may have an action committee that says,hey, we are not really interested in holding the hearing because we have other things that we need to do. But I'm going to give them the option; if they want to hold the hearing, we are going to do it at the action committee;if they don't want to hold the hearing,then I'm going to hold the hearing. But it requires that a public hearing be held on the application. M.McINNIS: Okay,thank you. GIFFIN: You're welcome. Once again,Members of the Commission,any questions of the Planning Director? Hearing none,do I hear a motion? And it might be best for us to take a look at, first of all, Agenda Item No. 1 on your agenda. Also,take a look at Page 3 of the December background report; the bottom paragraph has recommendation,and what is germane for us today is the last sentence, "The Planning Director requests ...." Okay? And I'm happy to read it. You want me to read it and just ask for the approval,okay. So what we are voting on this morning is the Planning Director initiated amendment to Chapter 25, Article 6,Division I of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition,as amended),relating to Planned Unit Development(P.U.D.). I'm going to ask—and if this is not what you are in favor of,please correct me—that the Planning Director, that we forward a favorable recommendation for the Director's proposed bill to be made to the County Council,with—Daryn,are they amendments,are they changes,are they conditions,what are they? ARAI: I think maybe the best way to frame it is to recommend favorable consideration of the Director's bill as proposed with additional amendments as she offered to Sections,you know,25-6- 6 and 25-6-11. GIFFIN: Yeah,I will. All right. So,with the favorable recommendation to the County Council, with the addition and changes,as stated by the Director,of Section 25-6-6(a)and a new section(1) and also 25-6-11 with the change in verbiage as expressed by the Director. Do I hear a motion? BEAUDET: I move to support the Planning Director's recommendation. GIFFIN: Do I hear a second? HICKCOX: Second. GIFFIN: It's been moved and seconded, it's been moved by Commissioner Beaudet and seconded by Commissioner Hickcox that we approve the Planning Director's request, that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council, with the changes that were suggested by the Planning Director. All those in—no, no,no—roll call. ARAI: Okay, let's make this legal. Commissioner Beaudet? 22 BEAUDET: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Whittemore? WHirrEMORE: Aye. ARAI: And Madam Chairwoman? GIFFIN: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman,motion carries with four aye votes. GIFFIN: Thank you. The discussion ended at 11:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, „.„4., --,4-: c.,... , _ ,,,,,_.., „...,c_32_,>__ Norik Sauer,Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 23 BRPUDBi11291.doc 12/10/12 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE),ARTICLE 6, DIVISION 1 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION,AS AMENDED), RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The County Council has initiated an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 6, Division 1 of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to planned unit development. BACKGROUND The County Council is proposing amendments to the Zoning Code as described within Bill No. 291 (Planning Department Exhibit 1). In summary, Bill No. 291 attempts to amend the Zoning Code in order to accomplish the following: • Add the Planning Commissions and the County Council to the review and approval process for a planned unit development (P.U.D.). • Define the requirements of a P.U.D. project and clarify procedural guidelines. ANALYSIS As described in the American Planning Association's QuickNotes, Understanding Planned Unit Development, (P.D. Exhibit 2), P.U.D. is a form of development that can be used to advance a number of important smart growth and sustainability objectives. In other jurisdictions,planned unit developments can take many forms,ranging from the granting of variances in order to create clustered residential subdivisions or mixed-use master planned communities. In Hawai`i County, mixed-use master planned communities are typically developed by approval of the County Council through the Project District zoning process and the P.U.D. process is primarily used to develop residential or agricultural developments where housing units are clustered on smaller lots than the zoning district allows in exchange for the protection of open spaces. For example, under conventional zoning a 100 acre agricultural property that is zoned Agricultural-10 acres (A-1 Oa) could be subdivided to create a maximum of ten 10-acre •1- lots. The minimum lot size allowed with A-10a zoning is 10 acres. The P.U.D. process permits the granting of variances from the minimum lot size in the zoning code so that the same property could be developed with nine 5-acre lots clustered into one area and one 55-acre lot of open space. The total number of lots cannot exceed 10, which is the maximum number allowed with A-10a zoning for a 100-acre property but the minimum lot size can be reduced below what is permitted with conventional zoning. This allows for land to be developed with consideration for topography and any natural, historic or cultural resources. Under current zoning code requirements, there are three ways the public and surrounding community is notified of a P.U.D. application. The Planning Department publishes notice of the filing of a P.U.D. application in two newspapers, the applicant posts a sign on the property, and the applicant mails notice of the filing of a P.U.D. application to surrounding property owners and lessees of record within 300 or 500 feet as required by the zoning code. These notification methods afford the public the opportunity to provide their suggestions and concerns regarding a proposed P.U.D. application in writing to the Planning Department. The Director considers these suggestions and concerns in making a decision to approve or deny the applicant's P.U.D. application and in determining what, if any, conditions should be included in the approval. Bill 291 proposes to change the P.U.D. approval process from an administrative decision made by the Planning Director to a legislative decision made by the County Council, in order to provide greater opportunity for community input through public hearings held by the Planning Commission(s) and County Council. The Planning Director is concerned that changing approval of planned unit developments,which are essentially a comprehensive set of variances, to the County Council will be inconsistent with the approval process for stand-alone variances that are currently approved by the Planning Director pursuant to Sections 25-2-50 and 23-14 of the zoning and subdivision codes, respectively, and may be in violation of the County Charter. Pursuant to the County Charter, Chapter 7, Section 6-7.2(b)(6) the Planning Director renders decisions on proposed subdivision plans and Section 6-7.2(b)(8)provides that the Planning Director render decisions on proposed variances. Since a P.U.D. is basically an 2.- application proposing subdivision of land and seeks variances from Hawai`i County Code Chapter 23 and Chapter 25, it may be that the authority to approve a P.U.D. cannot be shifted to the County Council without first amending the County Charter. At the same time, the Director understands that communities should have more opportunities to participate in the P.U.D. approval process,particularly with the recent adoption of the island's four community development plans. Planning Department staff met with the author of Bill 291, Councilperson Hoffman, and his staff to understand the intent of Bill 291 and find ways to improve the P.U.D. approval process so that greater consideration is given to approving P.U.D. developments that are designed in context with the surrounding community. As an alternative to Bill 291, the Director is proposing a bill (P.D. Exhibit 3)that would require applicants to conduct a community meeting prior to submittal of a P.U.D. application rather than changing the approval process for P.U.D. decisions. Holding a community meeting prior to submittal of a P.U.D. application is both beneficial to the applicant and community because it allows areas of community concern to be identified early on in the process so that the applicant can modify development plans as needed prior to submitting an application. The Director's proposed bill also requires that the P.U.D. development be consistent with the intent of any applicable community development plan for the area. Other changes are also proposed to clarify the purpose, application guidelines, approval process and amendment process for planned unit development. Bill 291 also proposes changes, such as the deletion of Section 25-6-5,that have the effect of making the P.U.D. and Project District zoning process almost the same. The Planning Director believes these two development processes should be kept separate. The deletion of Section 25-6-5 circumvents the zoning code's concurrency requirements by allowing applicants to apply for a P.U.D. rather than Project District zoning, which is the more appropriate regulatory process for approving comprehensive mixed-use developments. RECOMMENDATION For the reasons detailed above, the Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commissions send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council 3- regarding Bill No. 291 in its current form. Instead the Planning Director requests that a favorable recommendation for the Director's proposed bill be made to the County Council. .4. 0 • , Pete Hoffmann �s;;w;, Phone No. Hilo: (808)961-8027 Council Member �':�r,,;' Phone No. Waimea: (808)887-2043 District 9-North and South Kohala 'f . Fax No.: (808)887-2072 n„� E-Mail: poffmann@co.hawaii.hi.us HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawai'1 Hawaii County Building Holomua Center 25 Aupuni Street 64-1067 Mamalahoa Highway, Suite C-5 Hilo,Hawai'i 96720 Waimea, Hawai'i 967) J TO: Dominic Yagong, Chair and Members of the Hawai`i County Council FROM: , \Pete Hoffmann, Council Member km Date: August 29, 2012 Subject: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 25, Article 6, Division lof the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as Amended), Relating to Planned Unit Development Attached is a bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 25, Article 6, Division 1 of the Hawai`i County Code, relating to planned unit development. Please place this on the appropriate agenda for the next Committee meetings scheduled for September 18, 2012. Thank you. PH/dh att ( 51112A1) Planning Dept. Exhibit_l___, Comm. No FrZ Ref. To: Serving the Interests of the People of Our Island Date 1 Hawai`i County Is An Equal Opportunity Provider And Employer • Y �A • COUNTY OF HAWAII '• 6 STATE OF HAWAII BILL NO. 291 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25,ARTICLE 6, DIVISION 1 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The Hawai`i County Council finds that: • A Planned Unit Development(P.U.D.) is both a type of building development and a regulatory process. • A P.U.D. is a designed grouping of varied and compatible land uses, such as housing, recreation, commercial centers, and industrial parks, all within one contained development or subdivision and may include provisions to encourage clustering of buildings, designation of common open space, and incorporation of a variety of building types and mixed land uses. • A P.U.D. is planned and built as a unit thus fixing the type and location of uses and buildings over the entire project. Potential benefits of a P.U.D. include more efficient site design, preservation of amenities such as open space, lower costs for street construction and utility extension for the developer and lower maintenance costs for the County. • The area for redevelopment is planned all at once so land uses complement each other. While a P.U.D. allows for flexible project design and for innovative uses of spaces and structures to achieve planning goals, standards are needed to protect public health and safety and to assure design quality and conformance to an overall plan. The Council recognizes that the P.U.D. process must clearly spell out the review process, opportunities for Council and public involvement, and procedural guidelines. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend the Hawai`i County Code to clarify procedural guidelines, define the requirements of a P.U.D. project, and to add the Planning Commission(s) and the County Council to the review and approval process for a P.U.D. SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 6, division 1 of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) is amended to read as follows: "Division 1. Planned Unit Development(P.U.D.). Section 25-6-1. Purpose. The purpose of planned unit development (P.U.D.) is to encourage comprehensive site planning that is compatible with the surrounding community and that adapts the design of development to the land, by allowing diversification in the relationships of various uses, buildings, structures, open spaces and yards, building heights, and lot sizes in planned building groups, while still insuring that the intent of this chapter is observed. The P.U.D. requires a high standard for the protection and preservation of environmentally sensitive lands, well planned living, working and shopping environments and the timely provision of essential utilities and streets. Section 25-6-2. [ .J Reserved. [ -- , . . . .. . . . . . : - • - .] Section 25-6-3. Application for P.U.D. [permit]; requirements. An application for a P.U.D. [permit] may be filed by a property owner or any other person with the property owner's consent, shall be on a form prescribed for this purpose by the director, and shall be accompanied by: (1) A filing fee of$500. (2) A written description of the proposed project, including the following information: (A) A description of the property in sufficient detail to determine the precise location of the property involved[;] including a metes and bounds description of the property prepared by a surveyor; (B) A statement of objectives and reasons for the requested P.U.D. [permit-ineluding -1-0]; (C) A list of all requested deviations or variances from the requirements of chapter 23 (subdivisions) and chapter 25 (zoning), Hawai`i County Code; (D) A preliminary schedule for the timetable of the proposed development; [ate] (E) An analysis of the relationship of the proposed development to the general plan[.-] ; and A preliminary site plan of the P.U.D., showing: (1) Property boundaries; (2) Proposed land uses, densities,and acreage of land involved; (3) Proposed land uses, size, gross square footage, character and disposition of buildings and structures on the site; (4) Natural, historic, and cultural features; (5) Approximate location of all roadways and access drives proposed within the P.U.D.; (6) Location of all adjacent streets, thoroughfares, and public utilities; (7) The proposed P.U.D. in relation to surrounding streets and property located within six hundred feet in all directions of the development site; 2 The location, height, and land use of all existing buildings and structures immediately adjacent to the development site and (9_) A description of each of the open space areas proposed for the P.U.D. for cultural and environmental purposes, including those open space areas preserved because of natural hazards such as floodways. [(3) ' . : ., . . . •: . _ " .. - - - _- - - • - • . --_ . dr 114iZIAgti T'Q (D) Parking areas; (E) Public areas and uses; and (F) Landscaping and open spaces.] [(4) Architectural drawings for all buildings other than single family dwellings [(5-)](3) A list of the names, addresses and tax map key numbers of all surrounding owners and lessees of property interests in property within the boundaries established by section 25-2-4. [(6)](4) Any other information or plans required by rules adopted by the director in accordance with chapter 91, Hawai`i Revised Statutes. Section 25-6-4. Notice of action on P.U.D. application. [(a)]Upon acceptance of a P.U.D. application, the director shall fix a date for the director's action on the application. Within ten days after receiving notice of such date, the applicant 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. •[ . - - . _ . . • - . •_ . - - .. - . - - - -- - - . • :• - : - • decision.] Section 25-6-5. [ ' . . • . • _ . . . , • • • , • • . . • .. . •- . •- • •1 Reserved. [• - . . . ' . . ' • -• . . . .. . . . . . : ..• : - : - . .•. . . - . . - - • - . . . . -- I.-.! . -- . :: • . . - 3 (:)„ Section 25-6-6. [ • . • • • . . . '. . !. . . . • . .] Procedure for processing P.U.D application.•[(a - - . - - - - - - ; , - - . . , • . - - . -- . . - • - . . - , • • , .. . - . . .. . . - ; . . . condition of a P.U.D. permit. The conditions may include, but not be limited to the fol lowing: (6) Utilities to be furnished; and [(c) The director may, within the sixty day period after acceptance of a P.U.D. permit - - •:•-. . . - - , . . .' . . ` _.. • - : - - : . .. - . .- - -- - • -- - - [(d) When plans and drawings are submitted after a partial approval of a P.U.D. permit . . •. . .. . . , - .• - . . . - .. -- - .• .. , - ... . . I. _.`. . --- . .. . . -- . . . • _. . - .. - • --- - •, - • - - subsection) [ • _ . . . _ .. • . --- . . ' . . - - • - . - . . P.U.D. erit ; c,a.] tal Within one hundred twenty days after a P.U.D. application has been accepted by the director, the director shall forward the application to the commission, which shall include the following: (1) The director's recommendation on the proposed P.U.D.; A proposed P.U.D. ordinance which establishes the P.U.D. and provides P.U.D. standards and conditions, including permitted land uses, accessory uses, densities, heights, setbacks, and variances from the requirements of this chapter, and from chapter 23 (subdivision control), if applicable; (3) The preliminary site plan for the P.U.D.; (4) An analysis of the relationship of the proposed development to the eneral plan the local community development plan, and any other regional plans; and 4 151 A schedule for the timetable of the proposed development. (b) The commission shall review any P.U.D. application and shall forward its recommendation on the application to the council through the mayor for the council's consideration and action. (l) In reviewing the application, the commission shall hold at least one public hearing in the district in which the proposed P.U.D. is located. The commission shall provide reasonable notice of the date of the hearing to the applicant. The commission shall also publish notice of the hearing, as provided in this chapter. (2) Within ten days after receiving notice of the date of the public hearing, the applicant shall serve notice of the hearing 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 commission may find to be directly affected by the proposed P.U.D. (3) Within ninety days after receipt of the application from the director, unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the commission shall transmit the proposed P.U.D. ordinance together with its recommendation thereon through the mayor to the council. The commission shall recommend approval in whole or in part, with or without modifications, or rejection of such proposal. In the event that the commission fails to act on the application within the ninety-day period, such inaction shall be considered an unfavorable recommendation by the commission, and the application shall be transmitted through the mayor to the council with such recommendation. Section 25-6-7. [Resented.] Conditions imposed on P.U.D. (a,) The council may impose conditions on the use of the property subject to the P.U.D., provided the council finds that the conditions are: (1) Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to the public health, safety, and welfare; (2) Reasonably conceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land uses proposed with respect to protection of the public from the potentially deleterious effects of the proposed uses, or fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the proposed uses; a). Necessary to assure consistency with the general plan, community development plan, or any other regional plan in effect for the area; and (4) Necessary to protect natural, historic, or cultural resources located on the subject property. (b) In addition to the conditions described in subsection(a), the council shall review the P.U.D. ordinance in order to ensure the following requirements are included: (1) A description of each of the uses proposed in the P.U.D.; (221 The overall densities and uses of structures established in the P.U.D.; (3) Any infrastructure requirements for the P.U.D.; (4) Any open space requirements for the P.U.D.; and (5) The proposed uses are consistent with the underlying zoning. 5 Section 25-6-8. [Reserved.] Review and approval of final site plans. (a) After adoption of a P.U.D. ordinance, the applicant shall submit to the director detailed final site plans for the P.U.D. The final site plans shall conform to the P.U.D. ordinance and shall include the following: (1) Uses, dimensions, and locations of proposed structures; (2_1 Widths, alignments, and improvements of proposed streets and pedestrian and drainage ways; Any proposed subdivision of property for individual parcel sale; (4) Parking areas; (5) Public areas and uses; (6) Architectural drawings for all buildings other than single-family dwellings demonstrating the design and character of the proposed buildings and uses; (7) All items required for a plan approval application, as provided by section 25-2-72. Plans for required infrastructure improvements; (9) A list of all requested deviations or variances from the requirements of chapter 23 (subdivisions) and chapter 25 (zoning), Hawai`i County Code; and (10) Any other information required by rules adopted by the director in accordance with chapter 91, Hawai`i Revised Statutes. (b) In reviewing final site plans for a P.U.D., the director shall consider the proposed development and uses in relation to the surrounding properties, improvements, streets, traffic, community characteristics, and natural features. The director may approve the final site plans subject to conditions, or the director may approve the final site plans subject to certain changes when, in the director's opinion, such conditions or changes are necessary to carry out the purposes of the P.U.D. ordinance, this chapter and the considerations contained in this section. The conditions imposed by the director shall be justifiable based on their consistency with the P.U.D. ordinance. (c) The director may require conditions or changes to assure: (1) Adequate light and air, proper sitting and arrangements of all structures and improvements are provided; (2) Existing and prospective traffic movements will not be hindered; (3) Proper landscaping that is commensurate with the development or use and its surroundings; (4) Unsightly areas are properly screened or eliminated; (5) Adequate off-street parking is provided to serve the development or use; Access to the parking areas will not create potential accident hazards; and (7) Within reasonable limits, any natural, historic, cultural, and man-made features of community value are preserved. (d) The director may also require changes or conditions related to the following requirements: (l) Commencement and completion time frame for the project; (2) Boundary and density changes approved in the project; Uses that are prohibited or limited; (4) Specifications for the minimum development standards; Specifications for street improvement and dedication; (6) Infrastructure and utilities to be furnished; and (7) The extent and limitations upon the variances permitted. 6 ire' Within sixty days after acceptance of the final site plans, the director shall either deny or approve the final site plans. If the director fails to render a decision on the site plans within the prescribed period, the site plans shall be considered approved without further certification by the director. Lf The director may approve final site plans for a P.U.D. only if the applicant has complied with all of the conditions contained in the P.U.D. ordinance and the final site plans conform to the standards contained in the P.U.D. ordinance. The director may approve the site plans subject to conditions, or the director may approve the site plans subject to certain changes when, in the director's opinion, such conditions or changes are necessary to carry out the purposes of the P.U.D. ordinance, this chapter, and the considerations contained in this section. Section 25-6-9. Reserved. Section 25-6-10.[ • • . : . • _ . 1. !. . • •• ' ] Reserved. [ . --• - • . :. . . •• - -- - - -- -•• : • :1 [ 3 �• - . . .. . . . . _ - . - . ..-.1 [{-d) - . . - - , . = . _ - - - -- - . • - .- - .• - - - . . - " - - • . - _ . • . .., • • . . . . _ • . . . • •1 - . s _ •. . - 7 as Section 25-6-11. [ .] Construction in conformity with approved final site plans. [Ea-) ' . .• _ _ . .. _ ... - . ._.. ---• --. - .. -_ .. . -- - . • - - • - - . - .1 Every structure, development, and use contained in final site plans for a P.U.D. approved by the director shall be constructed and developed in accordance with the terms, specifications, and conditions of approval for those site plans. Section 25-6-12. [• . . . . . . . , . • • . . • . . . . - P-44120:-permit] Plan approval issued by approval of final site plans. Re3 ' - .. . _ . ._ .. '.. --• . - . .• - . • - . -- . - = ! --• any variance or use approved under a P.U.D. l chapter.] Plan approval shall be considered issued when final site plans for a P.U.D. are approved by the director, as provided by section 25-6-8, and no further action is required for the issuance of plan approval under this chapter. Section 25-6-13. Effect of P.U.D. [permit] approval on other zoning provisions. Any P.U.D. [permit] approval issued shall be subject to all of the conditions imposed in the [pefmit] approval and shall be exempted from other provisions of this chapter only to the extent specified in the [permit.] approval. Section 25-6-14. Time extensions and amendments. (a) Any request for a time extension or an amendment to a P.U.D. [ of a P.U.D. permit] approval may be granted by the director upon finding that no change has occurred in relation to the property since the P.U.D. [permit-was-issued] final site plan was approved or that the approval is still valid with respect to any changed conditions. (b) The director shall act on any request for a time extension or amendment within forty-five days after the receipt of the request. [ - _ .. _ . •- _ - . .. - -- - -- • _• - .- - - - - •- • •- - • - of the P.U.D. permit.] If the director fails to render a decision within the forty-five days after the receipt of the request, the request shall be considered denied without further certification by the director. (c) Any amendment to the conditions and standards contained in a P.U.D. ordinance shall be processed in the same manner as the original P.U.D. ordinance. A request for any amendment shall be submitted in writing to the director, in lieu of the application required for a P.U.D. 8 d (d) The request shall be accompanied by a filing fee of$500. Section 25-6-15. [meals:] Appeal of director's actions on P.U.D. final site plans. (a) If the director denies approval of a P.U.D. [permit,] final site plan., 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] approval of a P.U.D. [permit decision] final site plan may appeal the director's action to the board of appeals, in accordance with this chapter, within thirty days after the date of the director's written decision." SECTION 3. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed and stricken material, and underscoring need not be included. SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRJfQDUCED BY: /� F . . . itiiI COUN L EMBER, C• Y OF ,Hawai`i Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: REFERENCE Comm. 824 9 Planning fundamentals for public officials and engaged citizens Af:A re sercrrch strrff+vlr camnburaom " rroar tiionrsl e rrrnglavr e ipe ts. Understanding Planned Unit Development A planned unit development(PUD)is a large,integrated development adhering to a comprehensive gar plan and located on a single tract of land or on two or more tracts of land that may be separated only by a street of other right-of-way.PUD is a form of development that,although conceived decades ago, can be used today to advance a number of important smart growth and sustainability objectives.PUD has a number of distinct advantages over conventional lot-by-lot development.Properly written and administered,PUD can offer a degree of flexibility that allows creativity in land planning,site design, and the protection of environmentally sensitive lands not possible with conventional subdivision and land development practices.Moreover,properly applied,PUD is capable of mixing residential and y nonresidential land uses,providing broader housing choices,allowing more compact development, Showcasing a 120-acre regional permanently preserving common open space,reducing vehicle trips,and providing pedestrian and • multi-purpose public park,pedestri bicycle facilities.In exchange for design flexibility,developers are better able to provide amenities and infrastructure improvements,and find it easier to accommodate environmental and scenic attributes. wetland system,tem,the end o 1500+acre wetlnnd system,the P,uckwalter PUtJ PUD is particularly useful when applied to large developments approved in phases over a number of and the Buckwalter Place urban cen years,such as master planned communities.PUDs are typically approved by the local legislative ter in Bluffton,South Carolina pro body(city council,board of supervisors,county commissioners)after a comprehensive review and more multiple aspects of sustainable recommendation by the planning board or commission,which normally includes a public hearing, development. Communities considering adoption of a PUD ordinance should be mindful that while planning boards and commissions are given a good deal of discretionary power in acting on PUDs, appropriate standards are essential.Moreover,a delicate balance must be found between the desire to be flexible in order to take into account unique site characteristics and the need to spell out conciete standards and criteria. WHY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS POPULAR PUD has gown increasingly popular,in part because standard subdivision and zoning ordinances have serious limitations.Many older vintage zoning ordinances prohibit mixed use.Single family, multifamily,and nonresidential uses are often not allowed in the same zoning district.Older conventional ordinances also contain uniform site development standards that teed to produce monotonous outcomes.Subdivision control ordinances deal with narrow concerns,such as street, curb,and sidewalk standards and lot and block layout.The lack of meaningful amounts of well- placed,accessible open space and recreational amenities is another shortfall of conventional development controls. TYPES OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Planned uni*developments can take many forms,ranging from modest residential developments e°wee housing units are clustered and open space is provided,to mixed use master planned comnlur;rtiec rho*.cover thousands of acres. Planning Dept.Residential Cluster.Srlole(luster „^ s c -,or-.e rnr sre air Ala g.e t.cr:•oermat n,e, li preserved':or-r' .n Goer _.. __a s_e., he'e or the Est° nla'- i' boards Exhibit hibit co +ec,n e t t . ti air awe _ _ r,d ;^C; +r..ro;r...1 suns'.i:'�' rat J al features. res s.A `l as streams ann t'parar,areas,` .. r,di Dc c ^nos, c a es,ano - take'r1 J.. _ 1ar id i ..t and area-!.).. c I'..' COMM unf ties may ether lira t the gross density Qf the tract to At at would be permtted J lner r'ren,t o 3l zn'n t,,cv nra 'h(>C�e tC c'f'er den $ ,! .5 al'auk t r,ter- .Planning Association q Ore unF s tsar .vt..d,:her- F4. wise be allowed.By allowing a bonus,the community can require a greater percentage of the tract as common open space.Theoretically,communities can choose to allow any residential type(or combination of types)on a parcel in the cluster plan—single-family houses,attached houses,town houses,garden apartments,or high rises.As a practical matter,however,cluster subdivisions are developed mostly for single-family homes on individual lots. Mixed Uses.PUD builds on the simple residential cluster idea by allowing nonresidential uses,often at higher densities.Retail and service establishments,restaurants,schools,libraries,churches, recreation facilities,offices,and even industrial uses can be included in PhDs.Downtown or village center development with apartments above shops and live-work arrangements are also possible. The extreme case is the master planned community,which usually involves substantial acreage and combines employment,office,retail,and entertainment centers with associated self-contained neighborhoods.This can include diverse housing types as well as retail,entertainment and office centers. WHICH ORDINANCE,WHICH AGENCY? Individual state planning statutes control how communities handle the deliberative process leading to a decision about a PUD.In most states a PUD provision can be made part of the zoning ordinance or it may be written as a stand-alone ordinance.In either case,the decision to approve, approve with conditions,or disapprove a PUD falls to the legislative branch of local government. Some communities permit a PUD through a discretionary review process.such as a conditional or special use permit.These permits can be approved by the legislative body,planning commission, or board of adjustment,depending on the state enabling legislation and local policies.Some communities provide for the administrative approval of mixed use developments that normally require a discretionary PUD orocess. The zoning ordinance is the roost appropriate place to locate planned unit development regulations. Basic legislative decisions on use and density are normally the responsibility of the legislative body. Street design and infrastructure could also be resolved through PUD approval,though these considerations are normally built into a unified development ordinance.Decisions about plan details can be left to the planning board or commission and planning staff. ZONING FOR PUD REFERENCES Communities face a number of questions when deciding how to fit planned unit development regulations into theif zoning ordinances.One alternative is to provide for planned unit development 1.Published by American as-of-right.Under this guideline the ordinance would sbecrfv the requirements for a planned unit Planning Assodalbon development,and discretionary review and approval procedures would not be necessary. Mt.111Cleikt rr,l7anrel R 100 .Planned Unit Ur',elopments.Planning Advisory Service Stand-alone PUD ordinances are now fairly common.Although there are variations,a tvoical R^ro,c n<;.5 4s.Chicago:American ordinance will include a purpose clause;a statement of the type or types of PUD that a e Planning Association. authorized;zoning procedures;and standards for approval.The he ordinance rr ay conta n defin'tions. Mandelker,Daniel R.2007.'Planned tint r levt4 prnents and Master Planned CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN rr>rr+rnunities:Review and Approval Consistency with the comprehensive plan should be required,especially if the PUD has a major effect l"ocess'Zoning Practice,M ri.h. on growth and development in the community and on pjbiic facilities.This w it be true of master plan ec commun t-' Mar statutes now require zor og 0 be consisrer',r.riti'a comprvhvns:ve 2,Other Resources plan an,7 cy can be'eg.rired try ordinance .c,: a no stat'Jiwy ma-idate Pratt ocl ncnl u,und r rYni t-4i.vrt7!±IZr.'Pp S99. ir ttit,r,�. • COUNTY OF HAWAII :• �:�;r i • STATE OF HAWAII BILL NO. (Planning Dept. ) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 6,DIVISION 1 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The Hawai`i County Council finds that: • A Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) is a regulatory process that encourages comprehensive site planning that adapts the design of development to the land,by allowing diversification in the relationships of various uses,buildings, structures, open spaces and yards,building heights, and lot sizes in planned building groups while still ensuring that the intent of the zoning code is observed. The area for development is planned all at once so land uses complement each other. • A P.U.D. approval allows for a comprehensive set of deviations and variances from the zoning and subdivision codes related to building site standards such as lot width and size, building height, yards and open space, and road standards. These deviations and variances provide flexibility in project design in order to encourage the protection of important natural resources such as floodplains, woodlands and wildlife habitat, and historic and cultural resources; the protection of important agricultural lands; the provision of open space; and the provision of support infrastructure that is in harmony with the character of the surrounding area while providing for an environment of sustained desirability and stability. • While a P.U.D. allows for flexible project design and for innovative uses of spaces and structures to achieve planning goals, standards are needed to protect public health and safety and to assure design quality and conformance to an overall plan. • A P.U.D. approval does not change the zoning district of the lands upon which the development is proposed. The proper regulatory process for establishing a comprehensive development containing a mix of land uses is the Project District zoning district which is enacted by ordinance by the County Council. The Council recognizes that the P.U.D. ordinance has not been amended since adoption of the Puna, Kona, North Kohala, and South Kohala Community Development Plans. Planning Dept. Exhibit 3 The Council also recognizes that the P.U.D. ordinance must clearly identify the purpose of a P.U.D., spell out the application and review process and procedural guidelines, and provide opportunities for public involvement in the P.U.D. approval process. The purpose of this ordinance is to amend Chapter 25 of the Hawai`i County Code to clarify the purpose of a P.U.D., clarify procedural guidelines for submitting a P.U.D. application, define the requirements of a P.U.D. project, and to provide an opportunity for greater community involvement in the approval process for a P.U.D. SECTION 2. Chapter 25, article 6, division 1 of the Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) is amended to read as follows: "Division 1. Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). Section 25-6-1. Purpose. The purpose of planned unit development (P.U.D.) is to encourage comprehensive site planning that is compatible with the surrounding community and that adapts the design of development to the land, by allowing diversification in the relationships of [ ,] buildings, structures, open spaces and yards, building heights, and lot sizes in planned building groups, while still insuring that the intent of this chapter is observed. Approval of a P.U.D. allows a comprehensive set of deviations and variances from the zoning and subdivision codes to be applied to a development in order to encourage creativity in land planning, site design, and the protection of environmentally sensitive lands not possible with conventional zoning and subdivision standards. In return for greater flexibility in site design requirements, a P.U.D. requires a high standard for the protection of environmentally sensitive and important agricultural lands. Section 25-6-2. Minimum land area required. The minimum land area required for a P.U.D. shall be two acres. Section 25-6-3. Application for P.U.D. [mot]; requirements. An application for a P.U.D. [permit] may be filed by a property owner or any other person with the property owner's consent, shall be on a form prescribed for this purpose by the directors and shall be accompanied by: (1) A filing fee of$500. (2) A written description of the proposed project, including the following information: (A) A description of the property in sufficient detail to determine the precise location of the property involved; (B) A statement of objectives and reasons for the requested P.U.D. [permit], including an analysis of how the request satisfies the standards contained in section 25-6-10; (C) A list of all requested deviations or variances from the requirements of chapter 23 (subdivisions) and chapter 25 (zoning), Hawai`i County Code (D) A schedule for the timetable of the proposed development; and 2. (E) An analysis of the relationship of the proposed development to the general plan and applicable community development plan. (3) Drawings and plans comprising a general development plan covering the entire area of the P.U.D., and providing the following information: (A) Uses, dimensions, and locations of existing and proposed structures; (B) Widths, alignments, and improvements of proposed streets and pedestrian and drainage ways; (C) Any proposed subdivision of property for individual parcel sale; (D) Parking areas; (E) Public areas and uses; [and] (F) Landscaping and [open spaces] open space areas proposed for the P.U.D. for cultural and environmental purposes, including those open space areas preserved because of natural hazards such as floodways. (G) Natural, historic, and cultural features; (H) The proposed P.U.D. in relation to surrounding streets, thoroughfares, public utilities and property located within six hundred feet in all directions of the development site; and in The location, height, and land use of all existing buildings and structures immediately adjacent to the development site. (4) Architectural drawings for all buildings other than single-family dwellings demonstrating the design and character of the proposed buildings and uses. (5) A list of the names, addresses and tax map key numbers of all surrounding owners and lessees of property interests in property within the boundaries established by section 25-2-4. (6) A written community meeting summary described in section 25-6-7(d). [{6)](7) Any other information or plans required by rules adopted by the director in accordance with chapter 91, Hawai`i Revised Statutes. Section 25-6-4. Notice of action on P.U.D. application. (a) Upon acceptance of a P.U.D. application, the director shall fix a date for the director's action on the application. Within ten days after receiving notice of such date, the applicant 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] approval sought. The applicant shall also post a sign for public notification on the property as provided by section 25-2-12. (b) The director shall publish notice of the date of the proposed decision by the director and the date by which written comments must be received by the director in at least two newspapers of general circulation in the County, at least ten days prior to the director's proposed decision. Section 25-6-5. Procedure for processing application when use not permitted in district. An application for a P.U.D. [permit] that proposes a use not permitted either directly or as a conditional use within a district may be considered by the director only if a separate application for a change of zone or project district is filed concurrently with or prior to the P.U.D. [permit] application. The P.U.D. [permit] application and the change of zone or project district 3 application shall be considered concurrently, and any P.U.D. approved by the director shall be effective only when the change of zone ordinance becomes effective. Section 25-6-6. Actions by director on P.U.D. [per-nmiit] applications. (a) Except as provided in section 25-6-5, the director shall, within [sib] ninety (90) days after acceptance of a P.U.D. [pe rit] application or modification to a pending P.U.D. application, deny the application or approve it subject to conditions, unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant. (b) In reviewing the general development plan(s) for a P.U.D., the director shall consider the proposed development and uses in relation to the surrounding properties, improvements, streets, traffic, community characteristics, and natural, historic and cultural resources. The director may grant the P.U.D. approval subject to conditions, or the director may approve the general development plan(s) subject to certain changes when, in the director's opinion, such conditions or changes are necessary to carry out the purpose of a P.U.D. as described in section 25-6-1, or the intent of the general plan or applicable community development plan. [(b-)](c) The conditions imposed by the director shall bear a reasonable relationship to the P.U.D. [permit] approval. [issued, and to the approved uses, plans, and variances of project shall be required as a condition of a P.U.D. permit.] 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)](3) Specifications for the minimum development standards; [(3)](4) Specifications for street improvement and dedication; [(6)](5) Utilities to be furnished; and [(9](6) The extent and limitations upon the variances permitted. [(c) The director may, within the sixty day period after acceptance of a P.U.D. permit drawings have been reviewed and approved by the director and full P.U.D. permit construction.] [(d) When plans and drawings are submitted after a partial approval of a P.U.D. permit approval or full approval, the director shall review the drawings and shall either by the applicant. In the event of a denial of such request, the applicant may resubmit a revised request for further partial or full F.U.D. permit approval of the application and in accordance with this subsection.} [(e)](d) If the director fails to act upon a P.U.D. [permit] application within the prescribed [sixty day] ninety (90) 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 filed plans and drawings 4 considered as having been approved and a full P.U.D. permit issued.] Section 25-6-7. Recsser-vcd. Community meeting required prior to submittal of an application for a P.U.D. (a) No more than sixty (60) days prior to submittal of an application for a P.U.D., the applicant shall conduct a community meeting to present the proposed P.U.D. and solicit comments and concerns from the surrounding community. (b) A meeting invitation containing the following information shall be served on the owners and lessees of record of all lots according to the distances described by section 25-2-4; and any community, homeowner or business associations or organizations known to be active in the surrounding community: (1) The name of the applicant; (2) The precise location of the property involved including a location map; (3) The nature of the P.U.D. application including a general development plan; (4) A list of all requested deviations or variances from the requirements of chapter 23 (subdivisions) and chapter 25 (zoning), Hawai`i County Code; (5) A statement of objectives and reasons for the proposed P.U.D.; (6) The date, time and location of the community meeting; and (7) The applicants contact information. (c) At the community meeting, the applicant shall clearly explain the difference in developing the property pursuant to the provisions of the zoning and subdivision code versus the deviations and variances proposed in the P.U.D. application. (d) The applicant shall provide a written meeting summary to the Planning Department with the P.U.D. application that includes the following: (1) A meeting attendance list, (2) A copy of all presentation material that was provided to the community at the meeting, and (3) A description of community concerns and proposed mitigation measures to these concerns. (e) The applicant shall make a good faith effort to address community concerns by incorporating reasonable changes into the general development plan submitted with the P.U.D. application. Section 25-6-8. Reserved. Section 25-6-9. Reserved. Section 25-6-10.Criteria for granting a P.U.D. [pet] approval A P.U.D. [permit] approval may be granted by the director upon finding that: (a) The construction of the [project] proposed development can begin and be completed within a reasonable period of time from the date of full approval. (b) The proposed development substantially conforms to the general plan and applicable community development plan. (c) Any residential or agricultural development shall constitute an environment of sustained desirability and stability for the district that is in harmony with the character of the surrounding area, that results in an intensity of land use no higher than that otherwise 5 specified for the district, and that maintains the standards of open space at least as high as that otherwise specified for the district in which the development occurs. (d) Any commercial development shall not create traffic congestion which exceeds that which would have been produced under conventional development patterns, practices and standards in the district or interfere with any projected public improvements, shall provide for proper entrances and exits along with proper provisions for internal traffic and parking, and be an attractive center which does not adversely impact upon adjacent and surrounding existing or prospective developments. (e) Any industrial development shall be in conformity with desirable performance standards and shall constitute an efficient and well organized development with adequate provisions for freight service and necessary storage, and shall not adversely impact upon adjacent and surrounding existing or prospective development. (f) The development of a harmonious, integrated whole justifies exceptions, if required, to the normal requirements of this chapter, and the contemplated arrangements or use make it desirable to apply regulations and requirements differing from those ordinarily applicable under the district regulations. Section 25-6-11. Height exceptions authorized. (a) A building approved under a P.U.D. [permit] approval may exceed the height limit specified under the zoning district of the property and the height limits under section 25-4-22; provided, that the maximum height of the building shall not exceed seventy-five feet. (b) A building approved under a P.U.D. [permit] approval and situated within a zoning district which exceeds the height limits specified under subsection (a) may be permitted at the higher height limits prescribed for that zoning district. Section 25-6-12. Approval of variances[, ] issued under P.U.D. [permit] approval. [(-a-ANo separate or additional variance permit [or use permit] shall be required for any variance [or use] approved under a P.U.D. [permit,] approval. [:.-: .. .. • ., - . - . under a P.U.D. permit shall be considered to be in compliance with the required procedures [ . . . - - . . . . - . . . . . . - - - - - - - chapter.] Section 25-6-13. Effect of P.U.D. [permit] approval on other zoning provisions. Any P.U.D. [permit] approval issued shall be subject to all of the conditions imposed in the [permit] approval and shall be exempted from other provisions of this chapter only to the extent specified in the [permit.] approval. Section 25-6-14. Time extensions and amendments. (a) Any request for a time extension or an amendment to a P.U.D. [permit or to the conditions of a P.U.D. permit] approval may be granted by the director upon finding 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. (b) The director shall act on any request for a time extension or amendment within [forty five] ninety (90) days after the receipt of the request. In granting any time extension or amendment, the director may impose additional conditions to meet the intent of the P.U.D. [permit.] approval. If the director fails to render a decision within ninety days after the receipt of the request, the request shall be considered denied without further certification by the director. (c) The request shall be accompanied by a filing fee of$250. Section 25-6-15. Appeals. (a) If the director denies approval of a P.U.D. [permit], 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] approval of a P.U.D. [permit decision] may appeal the director's action to the board of appeals, in accordance with this chapter, within thirty days after the date of the director's written decision." SECTION 3. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed and stricken material, and underscoring need not be included. SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 5.This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII , Hawai`i Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: 7 o E we-N . ElOwt; -0 CU 0) 4) (1) m — ow zcuo . 0 o 1-1 4-1 c CD c o O (o CU .__ C CUr° C.7 C.° (341M) • L- (1) 0 = >% .- o c �p L o E .g.73 c Q Q) 13 E ' n� ra C� o . . c a" 4J c C ) to '- CU 4- L- . .- , CO 0 E ra ca ra ca � '� � a� .�' � o' -cs au E .- C Cl. ra oo 01 a •- sz.0 0L2 . oE. •- -oo p Uav � C EQ) . a) �,, CU L v D > c .U. d E ca.‘-0 a, z a o_L-- -5 >4.. (2. o c1) o D �1'' c -4-_-, c U a) a -o ,. a} L- C Cal o ` ca .. n Z3 I— NN0 H i U to _ to a U C CD C (f) 0 C r U .a 4) o > u = C 'U .3 � C) N 0 D a1 U Cl- o N Q, - C - c m c i. 0 ._ o L. (I) a V 0 ._ c = CL , EL E . Lim i fp U) U ° ling 43 , a 4 O. a Q � - C a "" 1- a d >' cu roc Q c 1- Gi Z c a_ co Q L u �` • L G V a c . 0 l'S% CU En C V) .— a) N- 73 > 4J N U Q1 la.) U C a, 0 U "0 -fl U .0 c a 'cn � 73 0c 0 Ea, � '� U a. cm U .0 �, -a D U 0 Q. C c rODOC a) C CU N •C a, 0 u ra 4) O R3 (U i C CO . fa >•• d1 D a 0 ..r.-)0 .- > D .E C v) v) y- N U 0 a` .;-� to -C UI C — N C N L- Q- > •°- WI " cu N 0 > a) fp Q a) era r 'a, � > .-- Q _ t!) C U) N ..o — Q U E ° IS) T2- 4J (a 20 DoE '6 v) cn (a) E i`* v) ci >.. U 2.3 o') c — 1- I-- C - c , ,� 'V o co .L .> 0 ra '15 _c C C U R CU O C • •- ,- CO n 0 v m•_ C a: > .0 .= UUUO a_ W U N X rn � .-y -- O N C ;7, — aa) U E o E � m CDQQ) 0c a o °' > c .- c cEn. L U a) U - Ero (U •— (.) .— (7, C 4-) 2 c > � C o cu 0OT 0 . ._ O c Ova a) O -O a) .� N 3 L 'O. V .Q a-' to C a) �O .� la)-�., 'Q a) = C 0 °- 0 a � � � . wt Q) C C — Ora) +� a a) U a) 4--,..,_ �,, c7. c N � 0 � �' a) O ° a) � � ro00 = 0 05 (ll � � 0 13 a) v) -ci .� 4O 2 -03 . IS 0 r0 0 , '0 -� C � � � � C E _ ; 4-+ 0 0 E > (l) Qra a ,ri, I._ (... ..0 a) CL 0 s,,, L._ a- L Eck , a > 4-, o N C aa pit.) 0) a c_ a) - - u • :�.:, a) e a z• 0 ca. cL:=- � Q a a. u 0— a. N co Q) CL aUrDD 'S < a IrQ .. CI) 0ra Nit gi.:g..7:Yd,:.:::L' AMt ':=:,,,,y,:, .M..h ' `. S�"gia,Yi 1„ ...ie+v x at k C C �O O c (Uj 7) •S- aJ E. 0 0 IMO MIMI Ca N U) L .� `C3 V) U C Q) 01 L- _ v tn° c v a CL � w cu D L) n 'p z n. au ccL z U — Q �.z O) VI < to a_ o 0 < 0 0. 0 L IO. U) r CD V s. o � CI. (I) c ucy, cri t0 .� . 0 C o (3) v 4+-- c 0. E E c Oa..) P a roc ( Uo G� "`—' r0 < 00 ,. IL s .o _ E � —3_� C o , ca NO‘) L O CC .. C 11.11 /5 .0 4-I O .0 = ill) .W C V O 0 0 O � �L. ti4L) i }+ i t V> . ,L , pV 0C. CO 111 MINI W II- in a-+ Om C cl E 0 = C. /3 .o = ,ono til W tp O '.., e. Iri t:Pi = C ON CeiNi . 0 • 03) (1) ....1 V .— .0 ■— 0 O Z E 0 .i.+ L.C (.) tU ,_ V .— i C71 L. III � O ale et/ i. C flU Clit 4- �C Cn i ea i •2 a7 1ff aim V V O -0 C "D C L. O C = C = O U * a) O a O• V! V f U OC f Fik hit -. . s i