Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0393.000 1998-2000 tv a William G. Davis Stephen K. Yamashiro ,C• 'H°"°g'"gD'ratOr Mayur , • _ Henry Cho ~.a•Me'?~ Depaty Mawging Director ~II1t2T~~1 II~ ~tIfII~CiT 25 Aupuni Street, Raom 215 Hilo, Hawaii 967264252 (808) 961-8211 Fax (808) 961-6553 KONA: 755706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 Kailas-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808)329-5226 Fax (608)326-5663 CD CO July 15, 1999 pn c G O Fr-• T7 _ m O _j I~l Honorable James Y. Aralcaki, Chairman 3 and Members of the County Council 1-~ ~ ~ ~ County of Hawaii ~ ~ °o C' 25 Aupuni Street - ~ Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 99-005) Request: Agricultural and Urban to Rural Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-013) Request: Agricultural (A-Sa) and Residential (RS-15) to Residential and Agricultural (RA-.Sa) Applicant: Dr. William C. and Patricia C. Bergin Tax Map Key: 6-4-01:124 and 140 Change of Zone Ordinance No. 85-48 (REZ 500) / Applicant: North Kohala Land Co. Request: Delete Condition G (Construction of an Agricultural Standard Roadway) Tax Map Key: 5-5-1:60 & 64; 5-5-3:17, Por. 9 & 16; 5-6-1:20 & 21 Proposed Street Name - Pukalani Road Historic Access to Pulcalani Stable Waimea Village, Waimea, South Kohala Tax Map Key: 6-7-2:17 Proposed Street Name - Kauakea Road Tax Map Key• 6-4-17.67 Lot 113-A (SUB 5151 & 5389) ~i ll /~`f Comm. No. File No. Z K Ref. To: ~i Ref. Date 2 8 1999 Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 July 15, 1999 As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 5-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regazding the above-referenced requests. Sincerely, ep~Y hiro Mayor r.o~oz~.MnY Enclosures cc: Planning Department L~ o.."•'~ Stephen K. Yamashiro Mayor • ~Q1IIi~~1 II~ ~2i~tltt PLANNING COMMISSION 25 Aupuni Strtet, Raom 109 • Hib, Hxwxii %720.4252 (808) %1-8288 Fix (808) %1•%15 JUL 1 4 1999 Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members: Change of Zone Ordinance No. 85-48 (REZ 500) Applicant: North Kohala Land Co. Request: Delete Condition G (Construction of an Agricultural Standard Roadway) Tax Map Key: 5-5-1:60 & 64: 5-5-3:17. Por. 9 & 16: 5-6-1:20 & 21 The Planning Commission, after a duly held public hearing on July 2, 1999, voted to recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bill to amend Change of Zone Ordinance No. 85-48, which changed the district classification of approximately 1,700 acres of land from Agricultural (A-20a) to Agricultural (A-la), Agricultural (A-2a), Agricultural (A-600a) and Open (O) zoned districts. Although the applicant requested the deletion of Condition G (which requires the construction of an agricultural standard roadway) in its entirety, the Commission found it more appropriate to recommend an amendment to Condition G. The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of the request: The purpose of this request is to amend the performance requirements of Ordinance No. 85-48, by deleting Condition G (construction of an agricultural standazd roadway) and to allow the property to be developed in a manner that ensures that the infrastructure impacts and concerns are addressed in a manner that is fair to both the County and the owner. Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 In its place, the applicant is proposing that it provide a roadway stubout for future connection to adjacent land. This amendment will bring the conditions of the rezoning in line with current practices related to ensuring that infrastructure is provided commensurate with the impacts being generated by the project. In their letter of March 11, 1999, to the Planning Director, the applicant has requested a deletion of Condition G (construction of an agricultural standard roadway). The applicant has stated that, "At the time the existing subdivision application was made, Chalon envisioned a broader scope of development and land use in the surrounding Kukuipahu area which suggested that the company could benefit through certain economies of scale by accepting additional subdivision conditions other than those that were warranted for the Maliu Ridge Phase III project alone. Unfortunately, the deteriorating economic and market conditions both locally and globally have made this greater scope of development impossible. We question whether, given current circumstances, there would be a legal basis to impose such an onerous condition upon this project. "We believe that a roadway stubout is prudent and sufficient to allow for a future connection to adjacent lands or projects. We therefore propose to provide a future stubout in the plan. The off-site road required by Condition G, however, is problematic, not necessazy and causes the project to be unfeasible in today's economy." In addition, the applicant has investigated the feasibility of providing this off-road by: 1) looking at field conditions; 2) considering the liability issues to the county and various landowners adjacent to the contemplated road; 3) evaluated the economics of trying to recover the substantial costs associated with the road from a real estate market which is substantially down from original projections; 4) studying current traffic generations and the need for the alternative access to the subdivision. Approval of this amendment request would not be contrary to the General Plan nor would it be contrary to the original reasons for granting the change of zone. The applicant has continually worked to secure Final Subdivision Approval of the project area subject to Condition G. Over the many yeazs, the applicant has developed Maliu Ridge, Phases I and II. This consists of a total of 104 lots. Presently 65 of the lots are occupied. Condition G requires construction of an agricultural standard roadway to Maliu Road and improvement of Maliu Road prior to final subdivision approval. This improvement would provide eventual access to Akoni Pule Highway and was intended to have been done as part of Chalon International of Hawaii, Inc., lazger Kukuipahu Development. The previous owner, Chalon International of Hawaii, Inc. and the Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 applicant have shown perseverance in managing the many requirements which they have and to deal with. The applicant has either complied with, or initiated the process of compliance with other conditions of approval within the subject ordinance. Further, the reviewing agencies have no objections to the requested amendment. Based on the above findings and further discussion relative to the roadway, it is recommended that the favorable recommendation for an amendment to Condition G be forwarded to the County Council. For your favorable consideration, an amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 85-48 is transmitted. We are enclosing a copy of the application, a copy of the staff background, and a copy of the transcript of the hearing for your information. Sincerely, Leonard S. Tanaka, Chairman Planning Commission LNorth02.PC Enclosures cc: R. Ben Tsukazaki, Esq. North Kohala Land Co., Inc. Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply West Hawaii Office Kazu Hayashida, Director/DOT-Highways, Honolulu BNotth01. emm-06\15\99 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BA K RO RFpnuT NORTH KOHALA LAND CO. DELETE CONDITION G (CONSTRUCTION OF AN AGRICULTURAL STANDARn RO WAYI OF CHANrF OF OI\ O INN F 1v0 85-4.8 NORTH KOHALA LAND CO. (formerly Chalon International of Hawaii) has submitted a request to amend Change of Zone Ordinance No. 85-48, which changed the district classification of approximately 1,700 acres of land from Agricultural (A-20a) to Agricultural (A-la), Agricultural (A-2a), Agricultural (A-600a) and Open (O) zoned districts. The amendment is to delete Condition G in its entirety, which requires the construction of an agricultural standard roadway. The property is located between the Kohala Mountain Road and Akoni Pule Highway, southwest of Hawi Village, Kaauhuhu, Kahei, Kealahewa 1st, 2nd & 3rd, Honoipu, Puakea, Kukuipahu, IIio Lahuiki, Awalua, Haena and Kapunapuna, North Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 5-5-1:60, 64; 5-5-3:17 and portions of 9 & 16; and 5-6-1:20 & 21. (See Exhibit A -Location Maps) Ai. INFO MATION 1. Land ownership: North Kohala Land Company is the owner of the subject property. The property was recently purchased from Chalon International of Hawaii, Inc. CHRONOI.O('I' . 2. June 20, 1985 - Change of Zone Ordinance No. 85-48 was approved by the County Council which rezoned approximately 1,700 acres of land from Agricultural (A-20a) to Agricultural (A-la), Agricultural (A-2a), Agricultural (A-600a) and Open (O) zoned districts. The approval allowed for the development of approximately 170 rural house lots ranging between 1-6 acres. 3. October -December 1986 -Final Subdivision Approval (SUB No. 5467) granted by the Planning Director for Maliu Ridge Phase I for 61 lots. 4. November 1988 -Final Subdivision Approval (SUB No. 5704) granted by the Planning Director for Maliu Ridge Phase II for 58 lots. r 5. October 15, 1992 -The Planning Director granted tentative subdivision approval (SUB No. 89-181) for Maliu Ridge Phase III for proposed 58 lots. 6. September 2, 1994 -The Planning Duector granted an extension of time for submission of final plat map until October 15, 1995. 7. December 21, 1995 -The Planning Director granted an extension of time to comply with all conditions of Tentative Subdivision approval until December 31, 1997. 8. January 26, 1998 -Applicant's request for time extension for submission of final plat map is submitted for technical review by applicable agencies. 9. February 20, 1998 -The Planning Commission revoked Special Permit No. 620, granted to Oceanic Properties, Inc., which allowed the establishment of a temporary real estate office in a model home within the State Land Use Agricultural District. 10. Condition G of Ordinance No. 85-48 states the following: "G. an agricultural standazd roadway shall be provided prior to final subdivision approval of the third increment, from the Agricultural one and two acre zoned parcels down to Maliu Road. Maliu Road shall be improved, as may be required by the Department of Public Works. Each parcel shall be granted a perpetual easement to utilize the subject roadway as an alternative access to the subdivision;" PROPOSED DEVEi.OPMENT 11. Request: In a letter dated Mazch 11, 1999, the applicant has requested amendment to Condition G of Ordinance No. 85-48, by deleting Condition G in its entirety. (See Exhibit B -Letter dated March 11, 1999) 12. Objectives: "At the time the existing subdivision application was made, Chalon envisioned a broader scope of development and land use in the surrounding Kukuipahu area which suggested that the company could benefit through certain economies of scale by accepting additional subdivision conditions other than those that were warranted for the Maliu Ridge Phase III project alone. Unfortunately, the deteriorating economic and mazket conditions both locally and globally have made this greater scope -2- of development impossible. We question whether, given current circumstances, there would be a legal basis to impose such an onerous condition upon this project. "We believe that a roadway stubout is prudent and sufficient to allow for a future connection to adjacent lands or projects. We therefore propose to provide a future stubout in the plan. The off-site road required by Condition G, however, is problematic, not necessary and causes the project to be unfeasible in today's economy. " STATE AND COUNTY pi NS 13. SLU: Agricultural. 14. GP LUPAG MAP: The LUPAG Map designates the area for "Intensive Agricultural" uses. Land designated Intensive Agricultural have relatively fertile soils and aze basically used for sugar, orchazd, diversified agriculture and floriculture. 15. North Kohala Comm~ity Development Plan (CDP): The North Kohala CDP was adopted by Planning Commission by Resolution 2 84 on September 2, 1984. The Land Use Concept Map within this document designates the subject azea as "Small Scale Agriculture/Planned Unit Development". This designation is intended to "encourage the use of smaller scaled agricultural lots and as may be appropriate, the density transfer and agricultural cluster concept for development of appropriate agricultural lands to maintain and/or provide for greater agricultural opportunities on agriculturally zoned lames." 16. County Zoning: Agricultural (A-la), Agricultural (A-2a), Agricultural (A-600a) and Open (O) zoned district. 17. SMA: The subject property is not situated within the Special Management Area boundary. D - iPTiON OF PROP .RTY A SfTRRO Tl~ IN ARF ~ 18. Project Area: Portion of the project azea has aheady been subdivided into 1- and 2-acre pazcels which are Maliu Ridge I and II. Those phases consist of a total of 104 agricultural lots with one 5.4-acre pazcel for open uses. 19. Surrounding Zouing/Uses: Lands surrounding the project azea aze a mixture of A-la, -3- A-3a, A-Sa, and A-20a zoned designations. Surrounding land uses include scattered single family residences, pasture, macadamia nut orchards, vacant land, and small scale agricultural activities. A .NCI . ' .OMMENI'S 20. Department of Public Works (June 10, 1999 Memo): "We have reviewed the subject application and our comments aze as follows: 1. Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis Report dated March 1999, we have no objectioas to the subject's request." 21. Department of Water Supply (June 23, 1999 Memo): "We have no objections to the subject request as it does not affect any Department of Water Supply requirements." 22. Police Department (June 2, 1999 Memo): "Staff has reviewed the above-referenced application and does not believe the request to eliminate Section G (improvements to Maliu Road) will negatively impact traffic safety or police services in the azea. Further subdivision development beyond Phase III could require the improvements to Maliu Road oullined in Section G." 23. State Department of Transportation (June 10, 1999 Memo): "Thank you for your transmittal requesting our comments on the subject application. The amendment will not involve or affect our State transportation facilities. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments." 24. Fire Department: ¢ee Exhibit C -May 18, 1999 Memo) AGENCIES - NO FCPnN.SF, 25. Real Property Tan Division PUBLIC CO .NTc 26. The Department has not received any comments or objections from the general public or adjacent landowners on the subject request. -4- rw rrw urr.w 1Y t` + w t .w ~ T r.w ~~rw ~ w MALIU j r.w rw uwr wwa ~rw ~ ` wry y / I/ L 1 'A J~ `b` ^ - t M ~ ~ t ~o ` ^ •a • L O ~ L y ~ O - , ~ . ~~1 r _ r ~ ' ~ _ ~ r C r/o i ~ ' orwr - ~ ~ i j ~r `S ~ S• Y~ , i ti - ww CEO - ~ s • r _ ~ A' S` • L 1 3 ~ y~'-~ Y \ t ~ - ~ I LOCATION MAP.: MALIU EXHIBIT ~n~ NORTH Kukuipahu, North Kohala, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii . ,RY. M.RTR I • I1 I' 4Y. iTw MY. / ~r 1 ~ j / r/ K ~ ~ MfM r ' 1 1 A-Y~ • ~ L / ~ / • ! /Yi I` i , /i /~j// ~ / ~ / ~ / , / /w\1 ~ Mrs. - ~w ~iM / /'J1 r/\ O -•y f / pia V ~ Y / / ! Y1~ - Y /~,/j/i/ i . / ~ r. y. IMROfV'Ai 1 • / / ~ OAfRIWITVRAI (A-9dl ` f T tlwrCULTVr•AL A-ti) f ' ~ Y!M .11.N0 ACRD ti MRffL f' 1 ~fl V f Aer•rWLTYRAL (A-'Jee1 I / / y`\\\ O Te AfRICULTYRAL ~A-.e) Y•~~ ~ ~M ti / ws \ ARfA 71.)e.• ArRtf Y OAOmCVLTYRAL A-24) Te tlRICULTUR~.L 4r•) / ARfA . 1a.+fA ACwm ~ -'i MRCSL 'f' ` A•9~ ~1} //r' OAf RrCYLTURAL /A.1«I yam- 1 ~ / TO AORICVLTVRAL (A-y) 1 • j ARfA. 10.70a AGRf! Y•r MRCfL "C UC AsmevLTYRAL rA-14) Ii' w-s ' w:•. ~ r / _l ARf~ .•rll lse Kress I f/ ) / nrmsfL I r L"1 1 OAeRrCYLTURgL rA•10d Y.r. I TO AORrCULTURAL A-1e) r ~ ARfA. 1f1.ITf AQRfe 1•ARCfL 'J- _ rs~ O tlRKYLTYRAI [A•1e~1 TO e - ro.reuL+uRAL a:-ara.i .1 .-a. NffA . els.lfa ACSSf ~ }I•RCfL'R" \ Yf~ nAnlfr .Rye OAfRrGYLTVRAL A-20~'~O . •.ilwMgLl. I il.e-~- r AemCYLTVRAL \••6Ce~' w/~ I~Yf ^ -r4~. f ARfA . e21.6ZC AC'tf \ ,ham ~ \ 1 I OAA~CVLTVRAL [A.10~j rw \ I Te epfrv s) ~ R" ~ J I A~tr~ ARfA. 6.e! ACRee x/ ~ MRCfL TI~ ~ \ A 'A.r. OAfRrNLTYRAL (A-14) A~1r rwR•vr~+•~ TY OMM el i , I r ARfA • ss~f .•CRff i4MENDM6NT TO THQ ZONING CODL~ Q~~ R,e L lA-~°-% MfA • a.oes AGRO ' A/M7NOIN7 7CCTION 2701 (NORTH AND 70MTT1 RONALA DIfTR10T! aONC MIAP/ ARTICLC CNAPTRR 27 (ZO•N1V0 0007) OP TH7 1MNrleJ1 OOVNTT CDDQ, DT GFIAN4N•IQ TN! D17TRICT CL.A091PIGA- AORICUITRURAL~(A lea), A®1ltOYt.T1=JR~.L~(A-YOeeu AN0 OpftN ,(e) e..Rar+^Tae wwaRrwo Te AT KAAVHVHI.Ir KAH61, KQALANO WA 17T 2Np ANO 31Rp, HONOIIeV, e ~ ~INKBA, KVKVIPAHV, ILl O LANNIKI, AWAI..1M, NAONA AND KAPtY NMIINA, NORTH KONALA, HAWAIL ' I.lafw•r,1es oT . PLAfVNINO pCpARTMCN'T COVMTY Or IMYMr1 T?•R • f•f •Il: ee 6•' p ~ O- ee ~ n rM+n Pr1R'wIM9 M y e M e if.0r:10 1t m a Z `0 \ aAo ~ ~ 4 ~ d ' 'AJG r ~O W F- A C7 m ~ W _ w ~ L O a i a w 1 ~ _ y N W a ~ O a ~ ~ ~ ~a m c E 0 j' a d 0 I ' / a peo?/ ni~ew I Y Y I \ I ~ i - Z,. I z. ~i \ R~ Oq 1~~~ a~ a~ ~~N /O / / ~.yl / f9A,, r~O / C/ N1 ~ /y// ~O /C/ ~ / a / c /y// Y/ °w > - /a/ NFM ~ /0 / H /a / //a/ ~ /o/ ~ o/ o ~ /d/ /O/ / F// _ n' o ~ / ~ / x ~ n ys~~ ~ _L - V ~ ~ - ~ _ ~ ~ ys - ~ ~ - _ N ~ AFB ~ ~ ~a ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ _ ~ v+-~ - _ z s'a' - ~ ~ - - o` ~ ~ - - - - ~ . - N ~ 3t b_ - -.A-. _ ~ ~ N \ ~ ~ ~ i u b~" ~ N V ~ - v N _ ._4 M ~ _ . w t ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ N-. ~~e v"~ ~ 8~ ~ _ ~ Nk 1 , ~ i~ _ - - - ~y' ' ~ ~I - - ~ \ , ~o , 9 i ~ ,sif - _ sl~~,-_ - _ ~0p` ~ " - _ ~ ~ _ - v i-~ X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .M .H ~ ~ L1 ~ go ~ L, ~1 . , ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ Menezes Tsukazaki Yeh & Moore STEPHEN MENEZES ATIi7RNEYS AT LAW R. BEN TSUKAZgICI THOMAS L.H. YEH MIQ-IAEL W. MOOAE 100 Pauahi Street Svite 204 Hilo, Hawau %720 ielephone: (608) %1-0055 FAX (808) %9.1531 r March 11, 1999:-.': , ; „ ~ Virginia Goldstein , , , Planning Director County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Re: Tax Map Key:(3)5-6-OOl:por 021 Request for Deletion of Condition G of County Zoning Ordinance No. 85-48: Maliu Ridge Phase III. North Kohala Deaz Ms. Goldstein: This firm represents North Kohala Land Company which has just purchased the subject property from Chalon International of Hawaii, Inc. ("Chalon'. North Kohala Land Company intends to construct and market lots in this area in general conformity to the current plans of Chalon's Maliu Ridge Phase III, containing approximately 57 agriculturally zoned lots. This letter is to request your consideration of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 85-48 by deleting Condition G of said ordinance. Condition G reads as follows: "an agricultural standazd roadway shall be provided prior to final subdivision approval of the third increment, from the Agricultural one and two acre zoned parcels down to Maliu Road. Maliu Road shall be improved, as may be required by the Department of Public Works. Each pazcel shall be granted a perpetual easement to utilize the subject roadway as an alternative access to the subdivision;" Our client has investigated the feasibility of providing this off-site road by: 1. Looking at field conditions. 2. Considering the liability issues to the county and various \ landowners adjacent to the contemplated road. 3. Evaluating the economics of trying to recover the substantial construction costs associated with the road from a real estate market which is substantially down from original projections. EXNIBIX Menezes Tsukazaki Yeh & Moore ATTORNEYS AT LAW Virginia Goldstein Planning Director County of Hawaii March I1, 1999 Page 2 . 4. Studying current Maliu Ridge traffic generation, future demand and the need for this "alternative access to the subdivision". M&E Pacific was retained to conduct a traffic study to help our client further analyze the possible need for the off-site road. A copy of that study's report is enclosed for your review. At the time the existing subdivision application was made, Chalon envisioned a broader scope of development and land use in the surrounding Kukuipahu area which suggested that the company could benefit through certain economies of scale by accepting additional subdivision conditions other than those that were warranted for the Maliu Ridge Phase III project alone. Unfortunately, the deteriorating economic and market conditions both locally and globally have made this greater scope of development impossible. We question whether, given current circumstances, there would be a legal basis to impose such an onerous condition upon this project. We believe that a roadway stubout is prudent and sufficient to allow for a future connection to adjacent lands or projects. We therefore propose to provide a future stubout in the plan. The off-site road required by.Condition G, however, is problematic, not necessary and causes the project to be unfeasible in today's economy. Based on this, we respectfully ask your consideration of this request. Please contact me for any further information you may need on this matter. Very truly yours, MENEZES TSUKAZAKI YEH & MOORE R. BEN TSUKAZAKI RBT:sr Enclosure xc: North Kohala Land Company, Inc. (w/o encl.) Roger Hams (w/o encl.) •b~ •2 Stephen K. Yamashiro Edward Sumncay ~9or rn,e mss/ .,s+.•` w• tLD1ITCt~'I IIf ~tlfllMSt FIRE DEPARTMENT 771 HlLuea Aveuue • 84111,aae, prom 6 • Hilo, HawW 96720.4739 _ _ (808) 961.879r • rix 1808) 961.8796 May 18, 1999 ' To: Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director From: Edward Bumatay, Fire Chief - SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE N0. 85 48 (REZ 500) APPLICANT; NORTH KOHALA LAND CO. REQUEST: DELETE CONDITION G (CONSTRUCTION OF AN AGRICULTURAL STANDARD ROADWAY) TAX MAP KEY: 5-5-1:60 & 64; 5-5-3:17, POR. 9 & 16; 5-6-1:20 & 21 Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.207: "Fire Apparatus Access Roads "Sec. 10.207. (a) Geaeral. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section. "(b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story is located more than 150 feet from fire department vehicle access as measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. "EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified. ' "2. When access roadways cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief may require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.301 (b). ~P~1 CO4 1 ~aw~~t~r - ..C , cam ~~3 ~ To: Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director Page 2 May 18, 1999 "3. When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M Occupancies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided, in the opinion of the chief, fire-fighting or rescue operations would not be impaired. "More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is de*_ermined by the chief that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. "For high-piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109. "(c) Width. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall meet the requirements of the appropriate county jurisdiction. "(d) Vertical Clearance. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. "E%CEPTION: Upon approval vertical clearance may be reduced, provided such reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs are installed and maintained indicating the established vertical clearance. "(e) Permissible Modifications. Vertical clearances or widths required by this section may be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. "(f) Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all- weather driving capabilities." (20 tons) "(g) Turning Radius. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be as approved by the chief." (45 feet) "(h) Turnarounds. All dead-end fire apparatus access roads ` in excess of 150 .feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. To: Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director Page 3 May 18, 1999 "(i) Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as access under this section, it shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections of the Building Code and using designed live loading sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus. (j) Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed the maximum approved by the chief." (15~) "(k). Obstructioa. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any manner including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all times. "(1) Sigas. When required by the fire chief, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both." Water supply shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.301: "Sac. 10.301. (a) Type Required. The chief shall designate the type and number of fire appliances to be installed and maintained in and upon all buildings and premises in the jurisdiction other than private dwellings. This shall be done according to the relative severity of probable fire, including the rapidity with which it may spread. Such appliances shall be of a type suitable for the probable class of fire associated with such building or premises and shall have approval of the chief. "(b) Special Hazards. In occupancies of an especially hazardous nature or where special hazards exist in addition to the normal hazard of the occupancy, or where access for fire apparatus is unduly difficult, additional safeguards may be required consisting of additional fire appliance units, more than one type of appliance, or special systems suitable for the protection of the hazard involved. Such devices or appliances may consist of automatic fire alarm systems, automatic sprinkler or water spray systems, standpipe and hose, fixed or portable fire extinguishers, suitable asbestos blankets, breathing apparatus, manual or automatic covers, carbon dioxide, foam, halogenated and dry chemical or other special fire-extinguishing systems. Where such systems are installed, they shall be in accordance with the applicable Uniform Fire Code Standards or standards of the National Fire Protection Association when Uniform Fire Code Standards do not apply. To: Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director Page 4 May 18, 1999 "(c) Water Supply. An approved water supply capable of supplying required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed, in accordance with the respective county water requirements. There shall be provided, when required by the chief, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow. "Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow. "The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire flow shall be protected as set forth by the respective county water requirements. All hydrants shall be accessible to the fire department apparatus by roadways meeting the requirements of Section 10.207. "(d) Fire Hydraat Markers. When required by the chief, hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. "(e) Timing of Iastallatioa. When fire protection facilities are to be installed by the developer, such facilities including all surface .access roads shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. When alternate methods of protection, as approved by the chief, are provided, the above may be modified or waived. "(f) All fire alarm systems, fire hydrant systems, fire extinguishing systems (including automatic sprinklers), Class I, II, III (combination standpipe system) and combined systems, basement inlet pipes, and other fire protection systems and appurtenances thereto shall meet the approval of the fire department as to installation and location and shall be subject to periodic testa as required herein. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to installation." IDW B TAY Fire Chief v EB/mo PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT July 2, 1999 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of NORTH KOHALA LAND COMPANY was called to order at 9:09 a.m. in the Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel, Hau Room, 62-100 Kauna'oa Drive, South Koala, Hawaii, Hawaii, with Chairman Leonazd S. Tanaka presiding. PRESENT: Leonard S. Tanaka ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Lin McIntosh Richazd Baker, Jr. Mildred Mosher Geraldine Giffin Florence Kubota James Souza Grant Togashi Fred Giannini, Deputy Corporation Counsel Tom Pack representing the Depaztment of Public Works Bruce McClure representing Department of Water Supply Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director Alice Kawaha, Staff Planner Pam Harlow, Staff Planner Eleanor Mirikitazu, Staff Planner And approximately 39 people from the public in attendance TANAKA: Item No. 2 on the agenda, this is the application by NORTH KOALA LAND COMPANY (formerly Chalon International of Hawaii). This is a request to amend Change of Zone Ordinance No. 85-48, which changed the district classification of approximately 1,700 acres ofland from Agricultural (A-20a) to Agricultural (A-la), Agricultural (A-2a), Agricultural (A-600a) and Open (O) zoned districts. GOLDSTEIN: Actually, they're not part of Chalon. This is a new company that bought this, the parcel. TANAKA: Okay, a clarification on that, North Kohala Company had bought a pazcel from Chalon International. The amendment is to delete Condition G in its entirety, which requires the construction of an agricultural standard roadway. The property is located between the Kohala Mountain Road and Akoni Pule Highway, southwest of Hawi Village, Kaauhuhu, Kahei, Kealahewa 1st, 2nd & 3rd, Honoipu, Puakea, Kukuipahu, Ilio Lahuiki, oh, they're testing me out, Awalua, Haena and Kapunapuna, North Kohala, Hawaii. Whew, aloha. Okay, we'll turn some time over to staff for a brief overview. MIRIKITANI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The condition that they would like to delete in its entirety is Condition G of Ordinance 85-48 which states the following, "an agricultural standard road shall be provided prior to final subdivision approval of the third increment, from the Agricultural one and two acre zoned pazcels down to Maliu Road. Maliu Road shall be improved, as may be required by the Department of Public Works. Each pazcel shall be granted a perpetual easement to utilize the subject roadway as an alternative access to the subdivision." I'd like to direct your attention to the site map. The pazcel is located in this red hatched azea. This is Maliu Road, Hawi Road. North would be Kohala Mountain Road to Waimea, and this is the Akoni Pule Highway. The yellow azea here is Phase I which has been developed; and Phase II Maliu Ridge has also been developed. That's in the orange. This light purple azea is Phase III which has not been developed. If you can see this little red line here, this is the potential road stubout location. And this also is Maliu Road, and this is Maliu Road here. This is Akoni Pule Highway. The entrance to the Maliu Ridge Phase I is Pu'u Mamo Drive which extends from the north, the Kohala Mountain Road into the subdivision, and it stops at the end of Phase III. KAWAHA: Phase II. MIRIKITANI: Phase II. TOGASHI: Sorry, Eleanor TANAKA: Commissioners? TOGASHI: But TANAKA: Commissioner Togashi. TOGASHI: Yes. Can you point out the proposed stubout? I wasn't listening on that, sorry about that. MIRIKITANI: The proposed stubout is located here at the end of Maliu Ridge Phase III's boundary. TOGASHI: Okay, thank you. TANAKA Okay, any further questions? Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: Eleanor, can you tell me historically what was the reason for the stubout originally. -2- MIRIKITANI: It was not for the stubout. That's what they're proposing to have, is the stubout. What they actually were required to have as a condition of their subdivision was an agricultural standazd roadway. GOLDSTEIN: That extended all the way down to Maliu, there. MIRIKITANI: Yes. GIFFIN: Okay, that's what I How faz down? MIRIKITANI: To where my pointer is. GIFFIN: Okay, and that road is identified as? MIRIKITANI: Maliu Road. GIFFIN: Thank you. TANAKA: Commissioner Baker. BAKER: So with the proposal now they will not have that road, is that what it is? MIRIKiTANI: That's correct. BAKER: And they will do it at a later date? MIRIKITANI: At a later date when the finances aze better. And I'm sure that the developer will be able to answer more of your questions. TANAKA: Eleanor, I had a question. Nor[h Kohala Land Company purchased the one parcel which is now labeled as Maliu III, Phase III, is that correct? MIRIKITANI: That's correct. TANAKA: And that's the only parcel that they own. The pazcel to the lower side of the map, where you showed the road extension that connects to Maliu Road, is not wanted by them, is that correct? MIRIKITANI: Yes. TANAKA: Who owns that pazcel, right there where your pointer is? MIRIKITANI: This one here -3- BAKER: Chalon. MIRIKITANI: Chalon International, I believe. TANAKA: Okay, so they're just kind of, they own that land right there and nothing else surrounding it? MIRIKITANI: No. TANAKA: Not even the pazcel where the intended roadway was going to go through? MIRIKITANI: This and, where my pointer is, it says Richazd Smart. TANAKA: Okay, I'm just trying to identify that North Kohala Land Company owns just that one parcel right there MIRIKITANI: Right here. TANAKA: And nothing surrounding it? MIRIKITANI: No. TANAKA: Okay. Commissioners, any further questions? And we'll clarify the intent by the developer. You mentioned something about providing a roadway at a future date. I didn't read that in, any where in the record. GIFFIN: Yeah. TANAKA: But we'll clarify that with the applicant. Okay, if not, we'll have the applicant or its representatives come forward, please. And we'd like to sweaz everybody in at once. I have three listed to testify today -Bill Graham, Jon Adams and Ed Michelman. Is there anyone else that would like to testify on this agenda item? Okay, if you would, if you'd all please stand. I'd like to sweaz you all in at once; and if you would raise your right hand. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. TANAKA: Okay, thank you. Okay, we'll start with the applicant's representative; and your name and address please for the record. TSUKAZAKI; Thank you, Mc Chairman. Ben Tsukazaki. I'm the attorney for the applicant. With me here this morning are Mike Prohoroff, who's a principal with North Kohala -4- Land Company, Roger Hams who's a planning consultant in this matter and also Ed Hazada from M&E who has done the traffic impact analysis. Mr. Chairman, if it's appropriate, may Imake acouple ofcomments TANAKA: Sure. TSUKAZAKI: About what the information was that was provided. Generally, I think the background report does a good job giving the Commission a chronology of what has happened in the past and how this particulaz condition was established. I think the Chairman's clarification is an important one to make in that the condition requires the construction of a roadway which is not on the site of the subdivision. It's anoff-site requirement over somebody else's property. And so that's an important factor to note, I believe, because, you know, it has a lot to do with whether this is warranted and whether this is appropriate at this time. I would also like to add one bit of background information. Chalon International of Hawaii is the entity that sold this particulaz Maliu Ridge Phase III Subdivision azea to my client last yeaz. Chalon is the entity that in the recent past which, has done a lot of planning for development in this azea and even the sun•ounding property, and Chalon is the entity that pursued the development. Actually Chalon did subdivide Phase II and sold lots there, satisfied conditions as well as started planning for this Phase III subdivision project. So Chalon, you know, for a number of years now has carried the ball on that. That is reflected somewhat in the background report. But I wanted to point out that, you know, when this condition was created in 1985 or in Ord. 85-48, Chalon did not own the property at that time, actually it was Castle and Cooke. So Castle and Cooke in that particulaz ordinance was granted zoning for about 1700 acres, that's reflected in your background report. And Castle and Cooke did proceed with the first phase of this subdivision. So I wanted to, you know, shaze with you that background, too, so that you can see from 1985 there has been a succession of different entities involved in this azea; and at present North Kohala Land Company owns the portion which is the Phase III, which is to be developed as Phase III. On, I would also like to clarify on the stubout, what was shown on the graphic referred to in the staff s presentation. I believe Eleanor referred that to as a potential stubout location. That, the, my client proposes and agrees to a stubout to a boundary; but that particular location is just a tentative one. Normally, roadway stubouts aze reviewed in your actual subdivision plat map. And when the plat map for this subdivision is finalized and submitted to the Planning Department, my client will indicate where the stubout should be at that time; and the Planning Department will determine, you know, whether that's appropriate. Basically, what I'm saying is right now the final layout is not set so the actual location of the stubout will be determined later on prior to final subdivision approval. Okay? I've submitted a letter which outlines the reasons for this request. Mr. Chairman, if I may just summarize those for everyone's benefit. -5- TANAKA: Maybe before you go into that, if you could further clarify, a comment was made by staff that possibly you will do something in the future about this roadway. TSUKAZAKI: Oh, yes. TANAKA: Was that your intent? I TSUKAZAKI: Thank you. Thank you. That is not the intent. As what was indicated in this letter request, basically, the construction of an off-site road as envisioned in this pazticulaz case, the cost of doing something like that makes this subdivision infeasible. This subdivision will not be able to be built if the, if this off-site roadway has to be built by my client. So there is no, we have not suggested, we have not proposed in any way that my client would build that at some future date. What we aze proposing in place of that is to create the stubout so that if and when there is ever, from the County's standpoint, a need to connect Akoni Pule through whatever roadway system you choose to this particulaz subdivision, that there will be a roadway there planned and built so that the connection can be made. And I should also say, you know, that it's not, I think the stubout will also serve the purpose of what the County has been doing for a long, long, long time, which is to allow for and perhaps in some cases encourage internal circulation between developments. So while the function of providing another access to Akoni Pule may have been the driving force behind this condition, the stubout serves other purposes, too. TANAKA: Okay, before you go on, I had a question. This Maliu Road I take it like it's a ranch road, basically? TSIJKAZAKI: Yes. TANAKA: And I see a connection on the map where it connects to the highway down below on the makai side. Where does it finally end up on the mauka side? Does it connect up to the Kohala Mountain Road? TSUKAZAKI: No. I believe it connects up there to a road called Puu, Puuhue Honoipu Road, it intersects; and that particulaz road ends up kind of where it's, it's kind of that straight line across the graphic on the left there and that road ends up, and I've seen physically where it stops, towards the bottom of a puu. TANAKA: Okay, so it's basically a ranch road; and I'm assuming that there's gates TSUKAZAKI: Oh, yes. TANAKA: At certain intervals and TSUKAZAKI: Oh, yes. The azea is used for grazing cattle. -6- TANAKA: Okay, okay. So at some point somewhere if you use this road you've got to go through the ranch, hit a pasture, go through the gates, open and close, and to wherever you're going TSUKAZAKI: Right, and, you know, in reviewing the files on this, it was cleaz that that issue was long discussed. It has been an issue for quite some time. So, the Planning Commission, I guess, just should be aware that it was, this is not meant as a thoroughfaze, you know, where you wouldn't have to stop. So in terms of providing direct and free access, shall we say, to the Kohala Mountain Road, that was never going to be the case because you have other landowners and you have agricultural activities going on so the, your mention of gates and so on, that was mentioned for years as one of the things that would constrain access. Related to that, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that, as I mentioned in our letter request, that there aze very serious liability concerns that we have in our client having to construct the road on somebody else's property and with the fact that we do not have control over activities on those properties. And you have a situation like we were talking about where you have gates and any time you have any kind of obstruction you have other kinds of issues that create potential liability. So that's just one part of the overall analysis which lead my client to the point where he felt that we needed to remove this condition in order for this project to proceed. TANAKA: Yeah, it would seem to create kind of a, not only a lability factor but an unsafe condition, and the question about maintenance of this road also comes to my mind, yeah. Okay, Commissioner Togashi TOGASHI: Yes, one question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned something, there was a comment in your letter about from a legality standpoint that this, can you address that. TSUKAZAKI: Yes. I, you know, I was not representing Chalon or Castle and Cooke or any of the previous entities, so I just want to make that clear. In taking a look at the condition and, again, looking at what the current circumstances aze, I have some serious concerns as to whether there's a legal justification for that kind of a condition. And I think the reason is this, and I think the Planning Department has acknowledge this in their recommendation in this case, when you, when government imposes a requirement that someone build off-site infrastructure, there has to be a relationship between what you're asking that person to build and the impacts created by that person's project. Okay, so sometimes that's been referred to as a nexus, a rationale nexus between what you're asking somebody to pay, the burden that you're placing on somebody, and the impacts of the project. And just looking at this case and looking at the traffic impact analysis which indicates from an engineering standpoint there's no warrant for this kind of road, I believe that that condition is very, very questionable as applied to this situation. So that was the reason why I made that reference I have some very serious concerns about. TOGASHI: Well, your feeling is that they're really, or the applicant's feeling, is that -7- there really is no nexus between this proposed condition and, I guess, from a legality standpoint? TSUKAZAKI: Yes. TANAKA: Commissioner Souza? SOUZA Mr. Tsukazaki, you mentioned that your client feels it's unfeasible to develop the property if he has to put the road. But when he bought the property, that was a condition. TANAKA: That's right. SOUZA: Don't you think that in buying it seems you're kind of putting the cazt before the horse? TSUKAZAKI: Commissioner Correia. SOUZA: Wrong already, one against you. TANAKA: Souza, Souza. TSUKAZAKI: Souza, Commissioner Souza. Gee, I got a lot of sleep last night, too. That's a good point. And I've talked to my client about that and this is how I can respond to that -When my client was looking at purchasing this pazticulaz azea, there is an investigatory period, it's called a due diligence period sometimes; and you basically investigate anything that has to do with the property so that you know what the benefits and burdens aze, so to speak, that go along with the property. And so the conditions were reviewed at that time. He was awaze of this condition. But during the due diligence period, what he did then was to talk to Chalon, was to talk to engineers at the Department of Public Works. I believe there were also some consultation with the Planning Department as to whether under current circumstances it maybe possible to remove that condition. He also did studies to determine whether, what the implications would be of having to build that mad. So he determined at [hat point, yeah you know, that if the road had to be built the project would not be able to be, would not be feasible. I believe he started also looking at that point at some of the other liability issues that might arise that we talked about a little bit eazlier. Basically, he took the risk, he took the risk. He took the risk based upon some feedback that he was getting from people in the surrounding azea as well as with the County that, yeah, that that particulaz roadway condition did not look appropriate, you know. It' s not the kind of condition, we believe, and the Planning Director can speak to it herself if she wishes, but I don't believe under the same circumstances you would see the County imposing that kind of condition today. So he went through with the transaction, you know, with the hope and some degree of confidence that it would be given a fair shot, you know, people would look at it in terms of all of the circumstances today. -8- TANAKA: Okay, thank you. Any further questions, Commissioners? Okay, I think we interrupted your testimony so you may continue with your other comments. TSUKAZAKI: Well, I, let me just, you know, all I wanted to do was summarize and I guess a lot of information I was going to go over has already been covered in my responses. Again, the subdivision really is not feasible if this type of roadway, this kind of connector road must be built. My client has looked at, tried to look at the entire picture whether it's warranted. You know, he commissioned a traffic impact analysis that was done, he has looked at field conditions, he has looked at potential legal problems, liability problems that might occur down the line. And it came to the conclusion that this is, this request was necessary, it's mandatory in order for him to proceed. We'd like to proceed with the project. North Kohala needs some economic activity. The current zoning, the North Kohala Community Plan, everything for this azea supports this subdivision. So we're not proposing to proceed with something that isn't supported by your existing zoning and planning. What we're saying is under today's circumstances as opposed to ten yeazs ago there isn't a way to make this project viable if this road has to be built. I won't go back over the legal concerns I have, I think I've made that clear. So we're really just seeking the Planning Commission's support in being able to move ahead because, you know, if this condition is not deleted then basically my client will not be able to proceed with this subdivision. Thank you. TANAKA: Thank you, Mr. Tsukazaki. We'll ask you to step back; and we have a couple people signed up to testify. We'll start off first, since we have two chairs up here, Bill Graham, Graham, and Jon Adams. If you'd come forwazd, please. Mr. Graham, we'll start with you and if you could, for the record, introduce yourself with your name and address. I'm looking at the wrong guy, sorry. GRAHAM: That's all right. I'm Bill Graham. I'm a resident of the Hawi azea in North Kohala, actually, in the azea quite close to this development. And is that enough for introduction? TANAKA: Go ahead, yeah. You may proceed. GRAHAM: I was also involved both with Castle and Cooke back in the eazly'80's and with Chalon at a later date in the negotiations with the community about the conditions for this particular road, this requirement you're looking at. And I wanted to say that it was myself and Henry Ross and just one or two other people involved in these negotiations, both originally with the Community Association and Castle and Cooke and later with Chalon. And these were not sort of adversarial negotiations. I mean, they were negotiations where all parties were in agreement and, anyway it was certainly agreed to by all parties with good intentions and with good will. I also don't mean to in any way dispute what you've heazd from Ben Tsukazaki in the sense of this is a lazge substantial costly requirement for this developer to undertake, and I can certainly understand how it could perhaps kill the whole project because ofthe expense involved. -9- However, I am in opposition to your removing this requirement, and so Pd like to speak to that just a little bit. TANAKA: Go ahead. GRAHAM: First, as Mr. Souza brought up, Mr. Tsukazaki was saying the nexus of building this road as a requirement of this project on properties adjacent to it which aze not owned by the developer, he thinks perhaps that's not the proper legal foundation. I just want, again, come back in Mr. Souza's sense. You're not making a requirement on this developer, this requirement was made before. He's asking you to remove it. So you're not imposing anything illegal upon him. He bought something with this requirement already in place. So I think that's very key on a legal azgument that Mr. Tsukazaki brings. The reason, the tricky part about all this is the reason for this requirement is because of the whole traffic flow running through the Hawi azea. At this point now, let's say if you're starting down here and you were going to live in that Maliu Ridge III Subdivision, the way you get home is you drive all the way up, you go through Hawi town, you go mauka up Hawi Road, and then you start going towards Waimea, and you turn down the subdivision to come all the way through Maliu Ridge I and II to get back to your place. So it's sort of a long tortuous path you have to make. And when we originally negotiated all this, the idea was to keep that kind of traffic just coming and going to home from having to go through Hawi itself which has a very unusual intersection right by the Shell Station, used to be Chevron Station right in Hawi; and, also that Hawi Hill Road does not have proper shoulders, so that's sort of a dangerous road going up the hill. So the whole reason for this requirement was to try keep some of that traffic out of Hawi, just people going coming. On the other hand, the reason was not to make a bypass road so that you come from here, and you're going to go to Waimea, and you can just bypass Hawi and go up there. So if this were to be made sort of a, you know, Class I road system, I can see how other people that don't live in Maliu Ridge might want to go short cut through that way not to go through Hawi, and the intention was not to make that happen. And I think that's how, you know, the final product of an agricultural standazd road and all was felt to be such that you wouldn't turn it into a thoroughfare going into Waimea; but it would, you know, supply, would serve as a real need for the residents of the subdivision. I also would like to point out as faz as the process From the public's point of view, when you look at that lazge map with the lazge pazcel which I presume is Chalon's ownership in the azea, and then on the right-hand side you see the dazk, on the right-hand map the dazk pazcel which is the parcel bought by this developer which is a small part of it, from the public interest point of view this was put in place to deal with traffic effects, this requirement. Now at a later point, part of it is owned by a different developer. Chalon itself if they continue to own this property would not come to you folks and ask you to take away this condition. They have not done that in the past and they would not do it now. They would not do it now because it would sort of break -10- faith with the community to come forwazd and do this after they negotiated, after there was a true need, it addressed a true need for the community. So I'm saying this not to convince you of just, I think it's true, I think it's kind of obviously true. But because a small part of it has been sold to another developer, that developer doesn't have the reach that Chalon has in Kohala and all. You know, they can ask for this. But from the public's point of view it doesn't matter who owns it. From the public's point of view, if it is a requirement that Chalon would feel obligated to meet, it's a real requirement. And from the public's point of view, I think it should be met. And because it passed, a part of it passes ownership to somebody else who has a whole new set of problems with the requirement is not really the public's issue. So I feel like deleting this requirement is sort of doing disservice to the public because of the nature of how this was transferred to a small party. And I don't mean this in criticism either of Chalon or the new owner at all, it's just the situation that you find yourselves in. I'm just bringing that to your attention just for your consideration. TANAKA: Commissioners, any questions? Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: Mr. Graham? GRAHAM: Yes. GIFFIN Historically then when you were involved in the early days with Chalon and the community, was Pazker Ranch involved with that as well since they aze listed as one of the owners that the road would go through? GRAHAM: I believe that really came up in the second phase when we talked with Chalon. And we actually went over specifics of the alignment of the road, and the quality of it, and would they be able to get the easements they needed to make this happen, you know; and they felt they could. So, but we didn't have Pazker Ranch sitting at the table with us at the time. GIFFIN: What about the liability issue? Was that ever discussed? GRAHAM: Yeah, it was appazent. It was apparent to Chalon and it was apparent to Castle and Cooke. COOKS: And it was something that they were comfortable with? GRAHAM: Yes. I mean I can't say they were happy with it; but they understood it and we spoke of it, and they were willing to go ahead with this requirement. GIFFIN: But now Castle and Cooke would not be involved in any liability? -11- GRAHAM: Castle and Cooke at this point, no. But, of course, that liability was present when they sold the lands to Chalon. GIFFIN: Right. And you said that Parker Ranch was not involved in any of that dialogue? BAKER: Yeah, what dialogue, what dialogue Chalon or Castle and Cooke might have had with Pazker Ranch, I don't know; but they were not present at the table when we discussed. GIFFIN: But easements were obtained? GRAHAM: You better ask Bill Shontell or someone from Chalon to give you the specifics on the easements because I don't know that. GIFFIN: Okay, thank you. BAKER: Mr. Chairman? TANAKA: Commissioner Baker. BAKER: What was it, Graham? TANAKA: Graham. GRAHAM: Graham. BAKER: Yeah. What I look at, and what you're explaining, I don't see a major impact of that road being, if that road was built, I mean, in the traffic flow or by anything, whether it's built or not. It's not going to be a major impact on any of the traffic because that is a road that hooks up to a back ranch road that's hazdly ever used anyway. So I cannot see your rationale about impact. If that was a main travelled highway that was hooking to another outlet, I could see your rationale. But I'm really confused because I'm familiaz with the Kohala azea since my wife comes from that azea and that's a back road that's hazdly ever used that it's going to hook to, so I don't see what the impact would be. GRAHAM: Well, the impact is just to remove the additional traffic from having to go through Hawi town, and by the additional traffic I mean the people who will live in this Phase III. BAKER: But they wouldn't be going along that Maliu Road through that ranch road. In practical common sense, they would be going through the easier road. They wouldn't be -12- going through a road where they would be opening gates all the time and going through. Most of the John Q public would be going the other way anyway. GRAHAM: So you're saying essentially even if they built this road it would never be used, is that you're saying? BAKER: Very seldom, hazdly used, unless it became an extensive future development and Maliu Road became a through, through highway that we would, or developed roads in the yeazs to come. That's the way I see it. GRAHAM: Okay. I just want to say like I live myself way up on the top, right neaz where the Maliu Road, Maliu Ridge Subdivision Road opens at Kohala Mountain Road there. TANAKA: Is that Maliu Phase I? GRAHAM: Yes. I don't live in Maliu Phase I but I live just adjacent to it, okay. But anyway, when you're driving home from here today and you're coming up from Mahukona, you can see where we live right up there; but you've got to go all the way down through Hawi, and come all the way up, and come all the way back again. So you're looking like a, you're two or three miles away but you're driving seven miles to get there, right? So I'm saying even though you're correct that the standazd of this road will not be up to the standard of the roads you're used to driving on, you're still only talking about for these folks maybe driving a mile or two miles max on this road as opposed to driving five miles on a mad all the way azound. BAKER: I don't see it that way because my mother-in-law lives on Hawi Road, okay; and everybody has got to go up Hawi Road and you hit that stop sign, they turn Maliu and go down. There's no other way to go any other way. GRAHAM: But that's what we're talking about now, about another road. BAKER: And even if we build that small road there, I cannot go through, you know, if you're going to go through Maliu Road and you go up by Solomon Ranch and up there where the Carvalho family and Fernandez live, and all that, you're going to go through all different ranches, and it's going to take you longer. It's better to go the other way and most John Q public will go the other way. GRAHAM: Well, the idea is for the John Q public to continue to go the other way. We don't want to make this be a short-cut for John Q public. We only want to make a way for people to come and go from their homes from Maliu Ridge III; and the idea is not that it has to go all the way to Maliu Road. It's that other road there, too, Puehue Road which, again, now at this point is a ratty road, it's a real ratty road, and you wouldn't want to go up in a sedan. Okay, but the idea was that they would improve that road. So you go up that road, and then you cross onto a small section on Maliu Road, and then you go up the road stubout. So if they improved it -13- so it's a nice quality agricultural road and you would drive your sedan on it, then it would be used. If it is the way it is now, it's not going to be used and you're correct. TANAKA: I can see Commissioner Baker's point, you know, and I would have to concur. Because, you know, the question about liability comes up, who's going to maintain this road, you know, especially when you're talking about agricultural or basically in layman's rum, basically, a ranch road is what it is. And who would try to utilize that? In my opinion, going to go through all the gates, go through the ranch road, even if you aze going several more miles, the route that you're taking now through Hawi Road it saves you time, basically. So, yeah, I, too, would question the need for this, the nexus for this mad. But, anyhow, thank you for your testimony. Any new questions for Mr. Graham? Okay, Mr. Adams. ADAMS: My name is Jon Adams. I've been a resident of North Kohala for over 20 yeazs. When this subdivision was approved originally, I was opposed to this condition. I thought it was ridiculous, redundant and an added cost to the developer Ihat's not needed; and I'm opposed to it now. I think it does several things. No. 1, it lends itself for another access road up to that property in the future. Although when the original zoning was granted, this is all, they got cluster zoning to leave all the rest of this 600 acres as Ag land, which suffice to think it will probably stay that way. But the idea, a possibility of having an access road going into this subdivision I think is totally redundant and unneeded. The beauty of Maliu Ridge is that it is a private subdivision. It doesn't have two accesses, that's number one. Number two, I'm a businessman in Hawi. We don't want the traffic. The merchants do not want the traffic taking a short cut up the mountain road. We're lucky enough to have the tourists and the customers when they come up stop and go through our little town before they go up and decide to go to Waimea. So this as, again, this to me was an added expense that should not have been on in the first place. Why it was put on there was, we all have our own opinions of why it was done at the time. I think things have changed now. It' s not needed. The subdivision is needed. There's a great demand for the subdivision. Maliu Ridge I and II aze virtually sold out, there are a few resales. There's a demand for lots. People want to move into our azea and we'd like to provide more housing for them. So, why, my voice is obviously to delete this condition. Questions? TANAKA: Thank you. Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: Mr. Adams, aze you a realtor? ADAMS: I am also a realtor. I have three GIFFIN: In Hawi? -14- ADAMS; I have three businesses in Hawi, yes. GIFFIN: And one of them is ADAMS: A realtor. GIFFIN: You are a realtor? ADAMS: That's correct. GIFFIN: Okay. TANAKA: Okay, thank you. We'd like to ask Ed Michelman to step forwazd; and we can take one more. Is there anyone else that wants to testify on this agenda item? Please come forwazd. You've all been sworn in, yeah? TESTIFIERS: Yes. TANAKA: Okay, thank you. Mr. Michelman, your name and address for the record, please, name and address for the record. MICHELMAN: Mr. Chairman, my name is Ed Michelman. I live in Honolulu, 381 Haleamaumau Place, Niu Valley. I am currently building a home in Phase II of Maliu Ridge. And, first of all, I would like to say mahalo to the developers for keeping people who live in the azea informed of the progress and their intentions for Maliu Ridge Phase III because I think that that's a very neighborly thing to do and much appreciated. Listening to all the azguments pro and con today, there's, there aze a couple of azeas that I didn't hear addressed. First and foremost in my mind is the question of safety for the Maliu Ridge all of Phases I, II, and III residents. It seems to me that this development without the road would, there could be circumstances in which emergency vehicles could be prevented from reaching Maliu Ridge in a timely mazmer. I wonder whether the Fire Department, the Police Department, Civil Defense and so on or their representatives were consulted about this request, and if so what their response was. I personally called Harry Kim who, of course, is the respected Hawaii County Civil Defense Administrator, and he told me that it is the goal, although not the requirement of his agency, that all new subdivisions have multiple accesses. He points out that Kohala Ranch Road frequently is used for emergency vehicles and he said that there aze three azeas of concerns which should be considered before any elimination of an alternate access is taken. Those three considerations aze: First of all, the possibility ofrun-a-way fires; he pointed out there have been frequent bad brush fires in the Kohala azea during dry weather. Secondly, strong wind conditions, the entire island is subject to hurricane damage. And thirdly, flash foods, dry azeas he says aze the most -15- dangerous because of crumbling soil and loose rocks in the mountain. Kim said just because there has not been recent instances of flash flooding in a particulaz location does not mean it won't happen. And he reminded us that only last yeaz about 19 condominiums in Waikoloa were destroyed by flash flooding. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to realize that a natural or any other type of disaster could make portions of Akoni Pule Highway, the Hawi Road or the Kohala Mountain Road impassable to emergency vehicles. And I think that serious consideration should be given to those possibilities. Without a connector road, Maliu Ridge, in effect, becomes a 170-lot cul-de-sac; and I'm told that the County Building Code restricts subdivision cul-de-sacs to a maximum of 18 lots and a length of 600 feet. A subdivision with only one road in and out may or may not, probably would not meet the legal definitions of a cul-de-sac; but perhaps the rationale for imposing such restrictions should be considered in a sizeable development such as Maliu Ridge. Some other possibilities for retaining the road is for, of course, convenience, convenience for the residents. The connector road obviously would be a convenient short cut for Maliu Ridge residents bound for the beach or for Kawaihae, South Kohala, Keahole Airport or Kona itself. The azgument that the road might increase traffic within the subdivision, which was made by some of the developer's communications, it appears doubtful to me. At least I don't see any advantage for residents of Kapaau or Hawi, and as we heazd today those residents really don't want the traffic. Traffic from Kawaihae certainly would probably much favor using the Mountain Road much more conveniently and without any gates or other obstructions. And ifnon-resident traffic ever does become a problem, access to the road could be controlled by electronic gates. The developer's traffic impact analysis reports concludes that traffic at the intersection of Puu Mamo and Kohala Mountain Roads would not be significantly affected by Phase III, although it would be somewhat more difficult to fuming left from Maliu Ridge, especially during your peak traffic hours. However, the study appazently does not address the traffic impacts within the subdivision itself if the connector road is eliminated. When all 113 lots in Phases I and II aze occupied you could project the total of 226 vehicles. Assuming an average of two per household, stands to reason that the addition of an additional perhaps 114 vehicles from the 57 homes in Phase III will significantly increase traffic and create the potential for less relaxed driving conditions within the subdivision. Having said all this, I have no desire to see Phase III become financially untenable. However, the connector road requirement is not a new one. As Mr. Souza had noted and others have noted, it was a condition of the original rezoning approval. Phase III has had tentative approval since 1992. The new developers of Phase III were fully awaze of it when they acquired the property. A Maliu Ridge Phase III update was mailed by North Kohala Land Company to azeas residents in March of this year. The update featured a map labeled Exhibit B. It was included "to show how Phase III at Maliu Ridge relates to the rest of Maliu Ridge." The map cleazly shows the connector road eventually terminating at Akoni Pule Highway. Other maps given to perspective buyers over the years by Chalon International also include that road. -16- I'm not unalterably opposed to elimination of the connector roadway requirement; but I'm wondering whether an individual who relied on these representations before purchasing the lot in Maliu Ridge would feel the same way. And I think that's just about all the I have to say at the moment. TANAKA: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Thank you very much. Give us your name and address for the record first, please. HODSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Sandra Hodson, PO Box 1252, Kapaau, a resident of the community. And I'm here in support of this project. My husband is a contractor who lives up in Kohala and as well you know it's been awfully slow in construction in the last few years. And I really would appreciate if the Commission would really consider passing this subdivision through. We could really use the work up in Kohala. I, myself, work for a general contractor in construction and we have been really slow as well. And I would really appreciate the Commission if they would take their time and consider us, and we'll have a new subdivision and more work for us in Kohala. Thank you. TANAKA: Thank you. Commissioner Baker. BAKER: Ma'am? HODSON: Yes? BAKER: You've heazd the gentleman's statement about not having a connector road and HODSON: Yes. BAKER: Do you live in there? HODSON: I do not live in Maliu Subdivision. TANAKA: Use the microphone, please. HODSON: Oh, Sony. I do not live up in Maliu Subdivision. BAKER: Okay, thank you. HODSON: Okay. TANAKA: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the public that would like to testify? Okay, if not, we'll, were you going to testify, sir? -17- HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission and the public, I'm Roger Hams, a planning consultant. I've been working with this with North Kohala Land for a yeaz and a half. Just a few quick comments about how these problems actually can be taken caze of. The, Harry Kim, the emergency access right now you can get emergency vehicles in from Chalon's land below through the pastures, through the pasture ranch roads without any improvements up into the site if you had to. So that it's, there really is a way to do that. The aspect of a subdivision without a second access or second exit, emergency exit in particulaz, there are really two other roads that, unimproved Ag roads that connect one to Hawi Hill Road in Phase I that can be used right now should there be a disaster, and another way you could go. The proper way ultimately to provide for a regional road network in the neighborhood is as Mrs. Giffin indicated, working with Pazker Ranch, and Chalon, and the County and the State in their regional planning; and ultimately this subdivision and the neighborhood would connect to whatever regional network comes into play. As we looked at it in the beginning and really did take the risk of coming to you and asking for this deletion, just the existing wording of that condition is so problematic; and when Public Works looked at it they, once you work on those Ag roads then you assume a liability. The right-of--way of Maliu Road is really what's probably a State-owned right-of--way and the other road is either State or County-owned right-of--way. There, it just gets really problematic; and that's been discussed at length. So we think in the long term this will work out. Adding another 571ots in the next few yeazs is probably fine. There aze emergency ways to go and I'm sure it will work out in the long run. Thank you. TANAKA: Do you think the County would want to take over the maintenance of this road if it were built? HARRIS: Only, only if Rothchild financed the improvements. TANAKA: I know the other residents would probably not want to do that, even with the developer. So, you know, here we aze stuck with the roadway if it was built with nobody to maintain it. So, you know, talk about unsafe condition. Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: I think I'd just like to add a few things that Mr. Hams said. Maybe 20 yeazs ago my husband and I, along with two other couples, developed a very rural subdivision on the Mana Road; and that same situation presented itself regazding the improvement on the Mana Road to the entrance of our subdivision. And aRer laborious and very costly discussions, we found out the same thing -that though the Mana Road is a public road, if we did anything in terms of improving it, if anything happened on that road, we became liable. And that's a very heavy thing to consider, in terms of our corporation, you know, that we had formed and personally. Where would we be 50 yeazs from now when our heirs would be involved? And that's a serious consideration. And I just wanted to add regarding Mr. Michelman's comments; and they were very well taken. But living in a rural community and rural subdivisions and if I heard you correctly you lived in Niu Valley on Oahu ? -18- MICHELMAN: Yes. GIFFIN: We're talking about not just apples and oranges but apples and maybe cantaloupes because they're light yeazs apart in ramifications. MICHELMAN: That's (Inaudible)...why build your house GIFFIN: Thank you. MICHELMAN: In Kohala. GIFFIN: And I'm glad you understand that. Thanks, Roger. TANAKA: Okay, any further questions for Mr. Harris? Staff? MIRIKITANI: I'd also like you to know that there was a letter from Allen Cattret. You ail have that? GIFFIN: Yes. MIRIKITANI: Would you like me to read that to you in the record or GIFFIN: We got it. TANAKA: Okay, we'll excuse Mr. Harris first. Thank you very much. HARRIS: Thank you. TANAKA: Okay, we have a copy of the letter. I think all of us Commissioners have a copy of the Allen Cattret and Mike Luce letters. We did, however, receive during the heating looks like a faxed copy from Councilman Curtis Tyler; and that I believe no one else has. GIFFIN: Not Curtis Tyler. MIRIKITANI: No, excuse me. That was for Towne Development. TANAKA: Oh, I'm sorry, okay. MIRIKITANI: That was for the next one. TANAKA: Okay, I'm sorry about that. Okay, Commissioners, any further comments, discussion? If not, Mr. Tsukazaki, you may come back to the table. -19- TSUKAZAI{I: Mr. Chairman, I just want to, for the record, respond to a couple of points. I'll try to be brief. I want to clarify that when I said that I had a problem with the possible legality of the condition that we're talking about here, it wasn't just with regazd to this third phase now. I also meant that, you know, if you look back in 1985 when the ordinance was passed and the condition was first raised, I looked at it, I looked at the road, what the requirement would be to build this road, and I have difficulties justifying it on the basis of 1701ots. It does not make sense to me in teens of impacts; and we talked about impacts earlier. So I guess what I'm saying in short I have concems about whether it was valid then, I have concerns about whether it's valid now, especially when we're talking about this third phase and what has been the experience in the first two phases, you know, also as supported by the traffic impact study. Mr. Graham, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Graham. I've known him a long time. I have difficulty with his statements that from the public's point of view this road is necessary and this, that by removing this condition it's a disservice to the public. I don't believe Mr. Graham speaks on behalf of the public. I believe he's very articulate in expressing his own views. At one point he represented the Kohala Community Association. But really who's the public that we're talking about? We're talking about, Mr. Adams is part of the public. He's a resident, he's a businessman; and he's articulating a particulaz view. I think the public is also Maliu Ridge residents and owners, too, the people who live within the first few phases here. And I wanted to make sure that I mention on the record that my client has sent out newsletters, he has served owners within Maliu Ridge who aze not required by your rules to be served. As update, and he has followed up with about 50 calls to try to have some dialogue with lot owners about this because obviously, you know, there aze benefits and burdens whichever way you go. And based upon that, those efforts, there has been one person who felt that there needed to be a road. The other people felt either that they wanted to be neutral on it or they did not object to the removal of this condition. So I just needed to put that on the record to make sure that the Commission understands that, you know, that Mr. Graham is not speaking on behalf of all of these people, because I don't believe he does. And in the large scheme of things, you know, Mr. Graham said Chalon would not come before you to ask that this condition be removed because of their history out there. But would the community prefer that nothing happened here, that this subdivision not be built? Is that what the community wants? Because that's what we're telling you, that if this road condition is not removed, this subdivision will not be built. So I really feel that, you know, Mr. Graham I respect his reviews as a person but I don't believe that he can speak on behalf of everybody on this. Again, what we're looking at is whether 1701ots And this, again this phase is only, you know, 56, 57 lots. So looking at the whole thing, Phases I, II and III would be approximately 1701ots. There is no nexus that I see between this condition and those 170 lots. TANAICA: Thank you. Commissioner Souza. -20- SOUZA: Couple of questions. First of all, I want to be cleaz in my mind, the road that is to be built if we don't delete it, on whose property will the, is there a County right-of--way, State right-of--way, or is this road to be build on Chalon's property? TSUKAZAKI: It's, at least part of it is Chalon's property. Mr. Hams is pointing right now to an area which is owned by Chalon. SOUZA: And your discussion in purchasing this piece of property from Chalon, was there any talk about this mad, how it will be done as a condition? Is Chalon willing to give you the right-of--way, give you the land? How are you going to obtain that land? Do you have to buy it? TSUKAZAKI: Chalon created an easement over the land that can be used SOUZA: So that's not a problem? TSUKAZAKI: For the construction of the mad. Right. SOUZA: So that's not a problem. TSUICAZAKI: Right. SOUZA: What about, after the road is built, there's an easement, the road is built, then what happens to the road? It's just there, who becomes the owner of the road? TSUKAZAKI: That's the question that was raised earlier. I said that I had some concerns from a liability perspective. I think Mr. Hams also brought out that Maliu Road itself, you know, which would be the road, this road would connect to, Maliu Road is also some type of public road but the County or State aze not in agreement as to who owns it. So, you know, it's not only the liability question over the connector road to be built but on Maliu Road who is liable. And I think as Commissioner Giffin reflected it's a pazadox that government may tell a private person to go improve a public infrastructure, a public road, and yet that private person by creating that benefit is then going to be liable. It doesn't make sense. And it's even worse, of course, when the County and State aze not in unison as to who has responsibility for the road. So a lot of serious issues, and I don't believe in light of all of that, you know, it's reasonable to look at this subdivider for these 571ots to beaz all of that burden and risk. TANAKA: Director Goldstein. GOLDSTEIN: Maybe staff, what I think, it might help if you would point out where Maliu Road is on the, maybe on the lazger map, as it intersects Akoni Pule Highway and goes all the way through. -21- MIRIKITANI: This is Akoni Pule Highway. GOLDSTEIN: Okay. MIRIKITANI: This is Maliu Road. GOLDSTEIN: Okay. MIRIKITANI: And it goes to this GOLDSTEIN: And then show the connection between Phase III and Maliu Road. What I'm trying to essentially show is that the connector road would then hook up to Maliu Road and then Maliu Road, you've gotta travel down Maliu Road to Akoni Pule Highway; and then the ranch road, that Commissioners Tanaka and Baker, then would be essentially Maliu Road. So just so you understand the picture of the roads that are in question. TANAKA: With gates, I guess, along Maliu Road and Maliu Road being somewhat like a ranch road. PUBLIC: It's impassable, completely impassable. Lower Maliu Road is fenced and - TANAKA: Thank you, thank you for your comment. Okay, Commissioner Souza, do you have anything else? SOUZA: Maliu Road is not in use now? GOLDSTEIN: Not all of it; and that's the road that there's a question over whether it's the County or the State that owns Maliu Road. SOUZA: If the County and the State is in disagreement, it's going to take a long time to solve. GOLDSTEIN: I think so. TANAKA: Yeah. You know, as a Commissioner, as Commissioners, as we go through these applications and hearing processes that we go through, the conditions and comments from all the different government agencies, when I read this application and I read Condition G, I thought to myself, boy, you know, how did the Commission, you know, come to the wording on this. Because if you think about it, not only would it be a financial burden because the applicant or the developer at that time would not only have to build this connector road connecting Maliu III to Maliu Road but also to improve Maliu Road along the entirety of its length. I mean, there is no way that even Chalon would be able to finance and meet these -22- obligations. So you know, I really question the mentality at that time to even having this condition, along with that the maintenance question, the legal issues, you know, the liability. TANAKA: Okay, Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Tsukazaki? Is there anyone else in the public that would like to testify on this agenda item? Okay, you may come forwazd. Did I sweaz you in eazlier, sir? MIKOLAJCZYK: No. I didn't TANAKA: Okay. Would you raise your right hand. Do you sweaz or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? MIKOLAJCZYK: No TANAKA: Thank you. If you would state your name and address first. MIKOLAJCZYK: I'm Ron Mikolajczyk. I live at 55-3303 Pu'u Mamo Drive. I, like Mr. Michelman, have lived on Honolulu and I have come from Honolulu to this little microcosm that we call Maliu Ridge. It is very much different than Honolulu. I feel that at least from my perspective that this bypass road that they're talking about is certainly not necessary as a resident there. We arrived in Maliu, we built our house in 1995 so we've been there for a while; and we have acclimated very well to this rural community. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask you if it's appropriate and if you so feel you would like to do it, maybe you could ask the audience how many people are from Maliu Ridge; because I believe there aze at least eight or nine of us here. And Graham, I believe his name was, I don't believe he spoke for the public that I am part of. Thank you. TANAKA: Yeah, I was kind of curious because we have a full room here and I'm looking at the other agenda items and I don't know if you 're all interested in this sign for the Bubba Gump Shrimp Company, although it's an important item on our agenda. How many of you are from the Maliu Ridge Subdivision? If you'll raise your hand RESIDENTS: (Eight hands raised). TANAKA: And how many of you feel as was just testified by Mr. Mikolajczyk that you're supporting the deletion of this item requiring the roadway? RESIDENTS: (Eight hands raised.) TANAKA: Okay, pretty much all of you that aze here. Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the public that would like to testify? Commissioner Baker? -23- BAKER: If not, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close the public hearing. GIFFIN: I second. BAKER: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Baker and a second by Commissioner Giffin that we close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. TANAKA: Any opposed? Okay, motion is cazried. Commissioner Baker? BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a favorable recommendation that the Condition G of the Change of Zoning be deleted and be forwazded to the County Council and renumber the conditions. GIFFIN: I second. TANAKA: Okay, I have a suggestion to the maker of the motion. In deleting Condition G, do we want to insert something that says the applicant shall provide a stubout per Department, at his property line, to his property line in accordance with DPW? BAKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that that is an important thing and, yes, we should have that in there. TANAKA: Okay, so is that your motion then? BAKER: That is pazt of the motion. GIFFIN: And I second. TANAKA: Okay, we have a new motion by Commissioner Baker and a second by Commissioner Giffin that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the North Kohala Land Company in rewording Condition G BAKER: Amending. TANAKA: Amending Condition G, and this is for the Change of Zone Ordinance 85-48 to state that "The applicant will provide a stubout to their property line for a future roadway connection per the Department of Public Works." Does that sound pretty accurate? BAKER: Yeah, that's fine. So that in its place it, they would provide the stubout, right? -24- TANAKA: Essentially, and it was stated in testimony that they would do it; and we just want to be sure for the record that it will be done. Okay. Is that your second, Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Yes, it is. Do we have the concurrence of the Director? GOLDSTEIN: Yes. GIFFIN: Okay, thank you. TANAKA: That was a yes. Okay, any discussion, Commissioners? Commissioner Souza? SOUZA: Mr. Chairman, this, I have reservations about the whole thing. And my, mainly I'm very much disturbed that a developer, any developer, not necessarily Kohala Land Company, but buys a piece of property with a condition and then comes back to the Planning Commission and want it changed to their benefit, even to say to the point that the project is not feasible unless we grant that condition. And I don't think that's the way business should be done in this County. Nevertheless, hearing all of the azguments and testimony and especially the fact of the road, I mean, it's in limbo. If we build this mad, it's definitely in limbo. No one, there's nobody that can put a finger of responsibility on it. So I think that here the need for the development in Kohala, the facts for approval outweighs my personal feeling about the developer coming in after the fact For a condition to be changed. So I'll be voting for the motion. TANAKA: Thank you, Commissioner Souza. Commissioner Baker. BAKER: I can see where Mr. Souza is coming from. I kind of had a funny feeling when I was told like it was a threat like or a statement that they're not going do it. Because if, I handle a lot of negotiations and if I was going to buy a piece of property I'd make Chalon pay for it as part of the deal, or try to work out some other kind of deal. You know what I mean? But to come here and try to put the Commission down, I can see how Mr. Souza feels that we're kind of caught in a spot. But I know the community azea and I feel comfortable that we're making a right decision here. And we're not doing it because of the way it was presented, like if you don't give us this we're not going to do it then, that kind of statement. TANAKA: I have a final comment. I think, you know, in regards to Commissioner Souza, yeah, you know, it's true that there was a commitment that was made. But, you know, we're looking at this application process that goes back to the mid-eighties and things change over time. The economic climate changes, the community changes and so forth. And this is why as Commissioners we see a lot of applications that were granted, there are amendments that come through because of these changes in time and the economy and so forth. So what was good back in the eighties, eazly eighties, might not necessarily hold true for what's happening in today's economy, and today's market, and today's needs. It could be either reduced or increased, okay. -25- So I don't see a problem with this deletion of the condition and with the requirement for the stubout. Okay, roll call. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Baker? BAKER: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Souza? SOUZA: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Commissioner Togashi? TOGASHL• Aye. MIRIKITANI: Chairman Tanaka? TANAKA: Aye. MIRIKITANI: Six ayes. The motion is carried. TANAKA: Okay, thank you very much; and we'll notify you in writing for the, today's results. The discussion ended at 10:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Shazon M. Nomura, Secretary Planning Commission -26- STEPHEN J. MENEZES Menezes Tsukazaki Yeb & Moore R. eEN TsuXAZna ATTORNEYS AT LAW THOMAS L.H. YEH M74-IAEL W. MOORE 100 Pauahi Street Suite 2(14 Hilo, Hawau %720 Telephone: (808) %1-0055 FAX (808) %9-]531 March 11 1999 - ~i i:~ i,. ,_J Virginia Goldstein Planning Director C , „ County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Re: Tax Map Key:(3)5-6-OOl:por 021 Request for Deletion of Condition G of County Zoning Ordinance No. 85-48; Maliu Ride Phase III. North Kohala Dear Ms. Goldstein: This firm represents North Kohala Land Company which has just purchased the subject property from Chalon International of Hawaii, Inc. ("Chalon"). North Kohala Land Company intends to construct and market lots in this area in general conformity to the current plans of Chalon's Maliu Ridge Phase III, containing approximately 57 agriculturally zoned lots. This letter is to request your consideration of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 85-48 by deleting Condition G of said ordinance. Condition G reads as follows: "an agricultural standard roadway shall be provided prior to final subdivision approval of the third increment, from the Agricultural one and two acre zoned parcels down to Maliu Road. Maliu Road shall be improved, as may be required by the Department of Public Works. Each parcel shall be granted a perpetual easement to utilize the subject roadway as an alternative access to the subdivision;" Our client has investigated the feasibility of providing this off-site road by: 1. Looking at field conditions. 2. Considering the liability issues to the county and various landowners adjacent to the contemplated road. 3. Evaluating the economics of trying to recover the substantial construction costs associated with the road from a real estate market which is substantially down from original projections. Menezes Tsukazaki Yeh & Moore AT'R)RNE15 AT LAW Virginia Goldstein Planning Director County of )`Iawaii March I1, 1999 Page 2 4. Studying current Maliu Ridge traffic generation, future demand and the need for this "alternative access to the subdivision". M&E Pacific was retained to conduct a traffic study to help our client further analyze the possible need for the off-site road. A copy of that study's report is enclosed for your review. At the time the existing subdivision application was made, Chalon envisioned a broader scope of development and land use in the surrounding Kukuipahu area which suggested that the company could benefit through certain economies of scale by accepting additional subdivision conditions other than those that were warranted for the Maliu Ridge Phase III project alone. Unfortunately, the deteriorating economic and market conditions both locally and globally have made this greater scope of development impossible. We question whether, given current circumstances, there would be a legal basis to impose such an onerous condition upon this project. We believe that a roadway stubout is prudent and sufficient to allow for a future connection to adjacent lands or projects. We therefore propose to provide a future stubout in the plan. The off-site road required by.Condition G, however, is problematic, not necessary and causes the project to be unfeasible in today's economy. Based on this, we respectfully ask your consideration of this request. Please contact me for any further information you may need on this matter. Very truly yours, MENEZES TSUKAZAKI YEH & MOORE R BEN TSUKAZAKI RBT:sr Enclosure xc: North Kohala Land Company, Inc. (w/o encl.) Roger Harris (w/o encl.)