Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2019/03/12 2018-2020 Committee on Planning 5th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii March 12, 2019 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 9:03 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member (came in later) Ms. Karen Eoff, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent: Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: (There were none.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Seeing no other testifiers, I will be closing public testimony at this time and moving on to business of the day. COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 146: NOMINATION OF HEATHER KIMBALL TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS From Mayor Harry Kim, dated February 22, 2019, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: April 7, 2019 (Section 13-4(1), Hawaii County Charter) PC-5 March 12,2019 Vote on Comm. 146: Mr. Richards moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Ms. Heather Kimball to the Board of Appeals. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Poindexter— 1. Excused: None. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Chair Kierkiewicz informed Ms. Kimball that she does not need to appear at the Council meeting for final confirmation of her appointment. Comm. 147: NOMINATION OF ARNE WERCHICK TO THE KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION From Mayor Harry Kim, dated February 22, 2019, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: April 7, 2019 (Section 13-4(1), Hawaii County Charter) Vote on Comm. 147: Ms. Lee Loy moved to recommend confirmation of the (Approved) appointment of Mr. Arne Werchick to the Kailua Village Design Commission. Seconded by Ms. Eoff and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Poindexter— 1. Excused: None. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Chair Kierkiewicz informed Mr. Werchick that he does not need to appear at the Council meeting for final confirmation of his appointment. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Order RESOLUTIONS: of Resolutions. (There were none.) Page 2 PC-5 March 12,2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Moving on to the next order of business. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills ORDINANCES: for Ordinances. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Mr. Clerk, if you could please read in Bill 33. Bill 33: AMENDS ORDINANCE NO. 06-107, WHICH RECLASSIFIED LANDS FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL— 10,000 SQUARE FEET (RS-10) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL—20,000 SQUARE FEET (CN-20) AT WAIAKEA, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 2-2-034:012 (Applicant: Makalika 521, LLC) (Area: 20,000 Square Feet) The Windward Planning Commission forwards its favorable recommendation for this amendment, which would allow five-year time extensions to Condition B (Time to Complete Conversion), Condition D (Future Road Widening), and Condition E (Off-site Infrastructure Improvements). The extension would allow the applicant to construct a new commercial structure intended for office and small retail types of uses. The property is located at 680 Manono Street, along the west side of Manono Street, midway between Kekuana6`a Street and Hualani Street. Reference: Comm. 134 Intr. by: Ms. Kierkiewicz (B/R) (Note: Comm. 134.1, from Planning Director Michael Yee dated March 1, 2019, transmitting Windward Planning Commission's draft transcript for the February 7, 2019, hearing, was circulated.) Motion to Approve: Ms. David moved to recommend passage of Bill 33 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Will the applicant and/or their representative please come forward? (Note: At this time, Planning Consultant Zendo Kern came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Good morning, Mr. Kern. If you could introduce yourself for the record and just provide a quick overview of what the applicant is requesting. MR. KERN: Good morning. Zendo Kern, Planning Consultant, sitting in actually for Mr. Fuke. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Planning Committee. So what we have here today is basically an amendment for a time extension for the off-site improvements, as was said. Page 3 PC-5 March 12,2019 This location is within the Waiakea Houselots. It's basically the area in Hilo which is being developed slowly but surely for a more of a residential infill into an urban commercial infill. Right across the street from this subject property is the complex that houses the Hawaiian Style Cafe, and right before it is a flooring there's a flooring store there, as well. This place had the Kilauea Kreations. The original owner got the rezoning done. They had—Kilauea Kreations were operating that store. They obviously never got to doing the off- site improvements. The current applicant acquired the property and was basically in the process of getting ready to do the off-site improvements. They have plans—basically got plans done and plans finalized and approved to do those. But in looking at the ordinance, basically having expired from the time extension standpoint, they felt it was incumbent upon them as far as being able to secure financing, et cetera,to get the time extension and various little amendments to the conditions. Originally, there was the intent from the original owner, basically to have that housed there and have the Kilauea Kreations. So there's amendments to that condition that would actually allow to basically build a retail office complex there. Overall, a relatively straightforward application. I'm happy to answer any questions. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Kern. Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Always a pleasure, Mr. Kern, for being here. Thank you. You know, I always ask this of our applicants, have you reviewed the conditions of approval and agree to it? MR. KERN: I have reviewed their recommendation and conditions, as well as Mr. Fuke has. I'll let him speak to that when he returns on the next one. But as far as I'm aware of, it's good. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. And I want to focus a little bit, which is Condition G which has been amended, and it's related to the drainage study. You mentioned during your presentation that, you know, a lot of times what happens is the conditions of approval. I'm trying to march it through the different agencies for their review and approval; it's taking a lot of time. So I'm reflecting on this particular condition because it is a drainage study. I just wanted to get your thoughts. Because there's five years, and then a five-year ministerial time extension, I'm just thinking out loud, are we setting up our applicants for failure,just because of the processes to get a drainage study done and the time it takes to get through our departments for its review and process? I just want to take a moment to get your thoughts. Because this body is beginning to see a number of time extensions on a number of change of zones. I Page 4 PC-5 March 12,2019 want to try and help applicants manage the expectation that if they're getting a change of zone and there are conditions of approval, that one, they can meet the timing elements; but it's also on us as the County and the administration to ensure that we're putting them in a process that they can complete within the time that's afforded to them within the change of zones. Would you mind sharing, Mr. Kern? Thank you. MR. KERN: Sure, absolutely. I think this is a really important conversation because we are seeing this quite a bit. You know, it does take awhile to get plans prepared and then jump through the hoops of County agencies, et cetera. What a lot of times happens, I see things will get approved and there will be a lot of conditions on there. The applicant feels like they've had a success, they got it approved, and great. And then they actually they run the numbers, and it's like "Wow, that's really, really expensive. I've got to wait a little bit. I've got to wait for financing." Then economic situations. Times change. Next thing you know, time is going on. They're getting close to the end of it. Maybe by then, they've got the resources, the funding to do it, but they're at the end of the deadline. And then they actually submit, and then they've got to jump through the hoops; and then kind of a situation like this. Now it's expired, and we've got to come back through it. So I think from a personal standpoint, making rezoning and applications actionable is critical. That may be done by additional time. Longer time periods, phasing, and certain conditions where there's a conversation that occurs that allows them to pencil out. Because when they're overly burdened, it just not going to happen. So while it's a yes, it's also kind of a no. Here on the island, we're very subject to economic conditions changing. What we've seen is—you know, during the great recession, there was a long period of time where nothing was happening. So things were expiring. There was no motivation. There's no money for lending, et cetera. I'm sure a lot of the applications you're seeing now that are coming up for amendment probably got done right around the time. So I think it's important to look at each one and potentially expand those timeframes. In this case, I haven't heard something specific about the challenge of that. But I think as far as the overall goes, I think it's critical to look at those conditions and understand the economics of it, and not sacrificing or jeopardizing, you know, public safety and welfare. It's always—it's a balance. We need good development, we need protection, but we also need it to be actionable. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you for those thoughts, Mr. Kern. I really appreciate it. Because managing the expectations, we want to see opportunities and new projects come along. But if we're strapping them with unreasonable or unmanageable time expectations—so with that, I actually want to call Ms. Self Page 5 PC-5 March 12,2019 forward. I just want to kind of understand how the department kind of comes up with this specific time limit, and what the rationale is behind that. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SELF: Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self. I'm actually going to defer to the Planner because they're the ones that come up with this. I don't create this. MS. LEE LOY: Okay, thank you. (Note: At this time, Planning Program Manager Jeff Darrow came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. Really, I'm sure you had the question. We just want to understand the rationale because we see these five-year time extensions. And clearly the department has some type of understanding on how to march through these various conditions of approval that are placed on these change of zone applications. But having been here for now three years, and just this first three and a half, almost four months I think we've seen four different time extensions come through. So it's trending that something clearly happened where meeting these timing elements has become a challenge. Would you mind sharing some of that rationale that the department uses while crafting the conditions of approval? MR. DARROW: Sure. First of all, good morning and aloha, Council Members and Chair Kierkiewicz. In regards to this specific question regarding Condition G that is relating to the drainage study, this was something that was actually changed in the zoning Code I believe around 2007 or so, in that area. And what happened, was during Plan approval it required a drainage study to be done during that process. One of the possibilities that could happen is to have some flexibility in that requirement so that it gives that requirement the—it gives the Department of Public Works the ability to be able to say when it's needed or when it's not needed. There are projects that come in that come in and that are clearly not needed, but it is a requirement. In regards to the trend of seeing these time extensions coming before us, we see the same reasons that are coming to the Planning Department for those time extension requests. Overall, it's the economic downturn in the economy. It seems like now is the time where landowners, developers, are able to get funding again. They can go to banks and get money to be able to begin their project again. So that's a good trend that we're starting to see, is that these projects that Page 6 PC-5 March 12,2019 have been stale for so long are now coming back before us, to be able to revitalize and come back alive again. MS. LEE LOY: Mr. Darrow, thank you for that insight. I guess my concern is, again we're managing expectations. They come in with an understanding of what the conditions of zoning are. But when we go through this process, now they're subject to a new set of rules which also includes our concurrency law. So we want to keep helping businesses move forward. You know, I guess I'm trying to get to a space where what they want to try and accomplish is, in Mr. Kern's words, "actionable." So thank you for that insight. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy, for that very interesting discussion. Any other comments from my colleagues? Mr. Richards and then Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. I'm just going to briefly springboard once again off of Council Woman Lee Loy. She's bringing up a conversation that I think we really need to have. We've discussed it in different committees as it pertains to our economy, and our building, and our business friendly perspective, so I'm not going to take any more time here. But I'd like to request, Chair, that a communication come forth. That we can put this on the agenda and have a very spirited and robust conversation on this subject matter. I yield. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Absolutely, Mr. Richards. Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Good morning. I just wanted to not take away from the time that we're talking about here. The amount of time it takes to go through the process, and not taking away from our people who are trying to do business and create projects and create jobs. I did want to ask—have the drainage study shall be prepared, and then a very general just prepared—and I'm wondering who does the preparation and why we're taking away the wording "by a licensed Civil Engineer." I'm not sure who to ask. But why are we taking out that clause? And who does the study then? MR. DARROW: It would still be done by a licensed engineer. That's one of the requirements for the drainage study when it's submitted to the Department of Public Works. I think what the Planner was doing in preparation for the condition, in revising it, was based on Department of Public Works' wording in their memo that was submitted regarding the drainage study. So they were just trying to reflect the similar language that was placed in the memorandum to Planning. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so it's just a generalization. We don't do this for every project. Just this project in particular? Page 7 PC-5 March 12,2019 MR. DARROW: Yes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Ms. Eoff. MS. EOFF: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm glad we're having this discussion, as well. Just so everybody knows, it would be timely for us to talk in a general—more about time extensions. I believe it's an item that will be on the Leeward Planning Commission's agenda. I believe like the 23rd of this month? MR. DARROW: March 21st MS. EOFF: Twenty-first, yeah. It's learning more about everything that's been talked about today, too. I think what you said is true. A lot of these rezonings have been languishing, and now there does seem to be a more vigorous need or opportunity to come through with some of the projects and go through the development, so I think that's why we're seeing these applicants coming forward. Thank you. I look forward to our discussions. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Ms. Eof£ I just want to point out, after going through the materials related to this bill—and Ms. Lee Loy started the conversation so perfectly. But there was an item in Mr. Fuke's document, that he submitted to the Planning Department, under Justification of Request. I'll just read it; it's just a couple of paragraphs: "The applicant acquired the property in 2017. It had every intention of developing it, as evidenced by their proceeding to address and complete the delinquent off-site infrastructure improvements. So a lot of progress were made by the applicant. They completed construction plans for sidewalk and other off-site infrastructure. The Applicant believed it could have completed the project in late July 2016 or early 2017 or, if an extension were needed,just a few months or less than a year after deadline. However, getting the required construction plans prepared and finally approved took longer than anticipated. As noted earlier, the construction plans were only recently approved in September of last year, six or seven months ago, but nearly two years after the deadline for this ordinance. Because of the construction plan approval delay plus the ambiguity of being able to construct a new building, the Applicant elected to defer the development of any building plans until these (time Page 8 PC-5 March 12,2019 extension and clarity on the ability to construct a new building) issues were addressed." So I think it is about time that we just have a very full and honest conversation about our process, because we really need to be positioning ourselves as a County and also developers, we need to position everyone for success. So I just wanted to make that point. And Mr. Richards, I will be working on a communication for us to have this discussion. It will likely happen after budget because Chair Chung wants us to be really focused on that very important task. So if there are no other questions or comments this is a very straightforward request from the Applicant—all in favor to move Bill 33 forward with a positive recommendation to the full Council please say "aye." Vote on Bill 33: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 33 on (Approved) first reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz–7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Poindexter–2. Excused: None. CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 9:39 a.m., Ms. Lee Loy moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Eoff, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Lee Loy, Richards, Villegas, and Chair Kierkiewicz–7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Poindexter–2. Excused: None. Page 9 PC-5 March 12,2019 CHR KIERKIEWICZ: Planning Committee meeting is over at 9:39 a.m. MR. KERN: Thank you all very much. MR. DARROW: Thank you. Approved: Ashley Kierkiewicz, Chair (Date) Planning Committee AK/na Page 10