Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-18 TKIC PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT March 18, 2005 KAMEHAMEHA INVESTMENT A regularly advertised hearing on the application CORPORATION AND KEAUHOU KONA RESORT CO. (SMA USE PERMIT NO. 286) was called to order at 9:38 a.m. in Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel, Hau/Lehua Room,62-100 Kaunaoa Drive, Kohala, Coast, Hawaii with Chairman Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Earl FujikawaABSENT & EXCUSED:Rene' Siracusa C. Kimo Alameda William Graham JeffreyMcCall Francis Smith Hannah Springer Fred Galdones Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Sharon Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works And approximately 14 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANTS: KAMEHAMEHA INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND KEAUHOU KONA RESORT CO. (SMA USE PERMIT NO. 286) Time extension request to Condition No. 2 (time requirement to secure final plan approval of Phase II) of Special Management Area Use Permit No. 286, which allowed the development of 212 condominium units and related improvements. The property is located at the southern corner of the Kamehameha III Road  Alii Highway intersection, Keauhou-Kona, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-8-10: portion of 78. GALDONES:Commissioners we are on agenda item #3. Applicant is Kamehameha Investment Corporation and Keauhou Kona Resort Company, SMA Use Permit Number 286. This is a request for a time extension request to condition number 2 which is a time requirement to secure final plan approval of phase 2 of Special Management Area Use Permit Number 286 which allowed the development of 212 condominium units and related improvements. Jeff. 1 EXHIBIT C DARROW:Thank you Mr. Chairman. If I may direct your attention to the location map on the board. The location of this application is within North Kona. More specifically in Keauhou. This white- correction this white line here traveling in a north, south direction is Alii Drive. This thicker white line here is the King Kamehameha III Road that is traveling in a mauka-makai direction. This wide white line running in a north-south direction parallel with Alii Drive is the Alii Highway. The application location is at the corner of King Kamehameha III Road and the Alii Highway on the southeast side of the road. It is identified here on the blue dot. Previously special th management area use permit number 286 in August 8 1989 to allow for a 280, 276 unit residential condominium unit project and related improvements oriented toward a retirement community that was to be constructed in phases. In 1991 they received an administrative time extension to comply with condition number 2 which was the timeframe to secure final plan approval. The time had lapsed over a 10 year period and the applicants had- we now have new applicants for this application and they had requested an amendment to special management area 286 and it done- had brought down the number of units from 232 for phase 2 to 168 units. Phase 1 was- was set apart from phase 2 and was given its own restrictions and conditions for the special management area permit. They also requested time extension for condition number 2 and 3. We are here today to request a time extension for condition number 2 to be able to secure final approval for phase 2 for special management area use permit number 286. If I can bring your attention to a revised condition number 5, basically reflecting the comments that the Planning Department has received from the Department of Public Works. The Planning Department has not received any letters of opposition or support for this application. The Planning Director is recommending that this application be approved by the Planning Commission. Are there any questions? GALDONES:Commissioners any questions of Jeff? Seeing none. May we have the applicant or its representative please step forward. LIM:Good morning Mr. Chairman, Steven Lim for the applicant. With me today is Dr. Gregory Chun, the President of Kamehameha Investment Corporation and Bishop Holdings Corporation. GALDONES:Good morning. Mr. Lim will Mr. Chun be providing any testimony? LIM:Yes he will. GALDONES:Mr. Chun, may I have you sworn in? Could you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? LIM:I do. CHUN:I do. 2 GALDONES:Thank you. Mr. Lim we already have you on record. Mr. Chun could you please state your name and your residence address. CHUN:Gregory Chun. 78-6740 Makolea Street, Kailua-Kona, 96740. GALDONES:Thank you. Mr. Lim have you folks received the background report and the recommendations and the conditions state forth and do you have any comments to them? LIM:We received both the background and the recommendation from the Planning Director and have no comments. We do have some comments on the proposed conditions but we can discuss those later. GALDONES:Okay. Commissioners are there any questions of Mr. Lim or Mr. Chun? FUJIKAWA:I have a question. GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Jeff, can you point out the exact location of this application? DARROW:The location of this application is located on the southeast corner oftheKingKamehamehaIIIRoadandtheAliiHighwayidentifiedhereonthebluedot. This area here which is a 20.8 acre parcel is identified as phase 2. This portion here was- is- presently Kaulana at Kona phase 1 and that is off of Kaluna Street. FUJIKAWA:I see. Okay, thank you. GALDONES:Further questions? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:From what I€m seeing it would seem that this has no particular relationship to the land use commission proceedings that Kamehameha Investment is proceeding with right now for a larger parcel which I think is more up near the main highway. Is that correct- my understanding? LIM:That is correct. The land use commission proceeding involves lands that are mauka of the railroad right of way which is that brown line you can see near the top of the project area in Keauhou. GRAHAM:Okay. Thank you. GALDONES:Seeing no further questions from the Commissioners- is there anyone here from the public to testify on this subject matter now before the Hawaii 3 County Planning Commission? Seeing none, Mr. Lim do you have any closing statements? CHUN:Yes, thank you for your time this morning Commissioners. I just wanted to share a little as to the purpose of this request for this extension at this time. The subject parcel is part of Kamehameha€s master plan for Keauhou. And implementation of that master plan is predicated on us identifying and selecting a development partner that we would be working with. That process has been ongoing for the last 8 months. That process has been delayed due to a number of complications in the- the complexities of this particular master plan. We anticipate that we will be able to- our original timeline was that we would have selected a development partner by the end of the first quarter this year. We anticipate now that that selection won€t be done or not completed until within the- this year by December of this year. And thus, the request for the extension. GALDONES:Thank you for that- for that information Mr. Chun. Commissionersanyfurtherdiscussion?CommissionerSpringer? SPRINGER:Thankyou.HearingDr.Chun€stestimonyIfeeltheneedtorecuse myself from this agenda item. I did some consultant work for one of the respondents to the request for a proposal on the development of the master plan. GALDONES:So noted that Commissioner Springer is recusing herself from voting on this subject matter. Seeing no further discussion of the- Director recommends that this request be approved by the Planning Commission and a motion is in order. LIM:Mr. Chairman. GALDONES:Mr. Lim. LIM:I have a couple of comments on the proposed conditions. GALDONES:Proceed. LIM:As you notice, the Planning Directors recommending that the final plan approval in condition number 2 recommending that the final plan approval be secured from the planning department within 2 years from the effective date of this new amendment and that is acceptable to us. When you go to paragraph, condition number 5, they have essentially replaced the former condition 5 with a new condition 5 which reflects the verbatim statements from the Department of Public Works on this application and my discussions with Mr. Ki Emler from Department of Public Works this morning, I think he confirmed that this does not mean that there€s going to be additional improvements but that- it€s reflected but their current statement on all these rezonings, I think that- he€s thinking that- at least the Public Works department is thinking that there may be additional improvements to the intersection near Kamehameha III and the Alii- current Alii Drive. And those improvements will be addressed at the time- probably at 4 the time that the land use commission proceeding lands mauka of the railroad right of way are constructed and that€s why you see that statement in there, on the last sentence that says that the construction of the improvements can be deferred if we post bonds so that we can time the construction to coordinate with the mauka lands development. So we don€t have to build out improvements and tear them down when the intersection is rebuilt because of the- the larger project. GALDONES:Mr. Emler you concur with Mr. Lim€s statement? EMLER:Public works (inaudible) I think in this condition says, said improvements may be deferred until required by the Department of Public Works. So I believe the conditions (inaudible). I€m happy with the condition as written but I do in general concur with the representative. GALDONES:ThankyouMr.Emler.Commissionersanyfurtherdiscussion? FUJIKAWA:Excuseme. GALDONES:CommissionerFujikawa. FUJIKAWA:Howdoyouwantitreadoutonthecorrection,isthereany correction staff? GALDONES:It is my understanding, it is just, the way that it is going to be interpreted by the parties how it€s going to be applied. So there€s not going to be any amendment to what is already written before us. FUJIKAWA:Okay. LIM:Mr. Chairman. GALDONES:Mr. Lim. LIM:My last comment is on paragraph number 12 which is the standard time extension. The Planning Director is proposing that the time extension paragraph be removed entirely from the permit and as Dr. Chun described- this is a rather complex process in selection of the master developer and until that developer is selected they won€t be able to get their feet on the ground. And we would request that the Planning Commission retain condition number 12 as previously exists in the current SMA permit because as a practical matter even if you take it out and we€re not able to get it done in 2 years we€re going to come back anyway. So, I€d like the- to request that the Commission include that time extension condition like- I think most every other SMA permit has so that we are then able to petition the Planning Director for a time extension and prove to him that it€s warranted in the next 2 years and if we fail to do that after that we€d have to come back to the Commission anyway. 5 GALDONES:Jeff, perhaps you can enlighten us the reason behind the deletion of condition number 12 and the statement- how would the- would apply if we put it back in as requested by Mr. Lim. DARROW:Condition number 12 allows for an administrative time extension. Once an administrative time extension has been exhausted then at that point the Planning Director and the Planning Department are not allowing an additional administrative time extension. So basically, any request for a time extension from here on would require the applicant to come back before the Commission. GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa. FUJIKAWA:Just going to stay like that? Just how I was reading (inaudible) we€re not going to adjust anything? GALDONES:What is before us right now is to delete paragraph- condition number12. FUJIKAWA:Right. GALDONES:Istodeleteit. FUJIKAWA:Delete it. GALDONES:Yeah. That is what is before us unless the- unless the Commissioners are willing to consider Mr. Lim€s request to have it reinstated. GRAHAM:I€d like to have some discussion on that if we could. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:On the face of it- what Mr. Lim said sounds reasonable to me and I wasn€t quite sure that I understood Jeff€s comment. Like maybe letting it in is not appropriate because of the- of what we€re doing today or- or could the Planning Department give us some understanding about why they chose to remove that condition which would allow for an administrative time extension. GALDONES:Mr. Yuen. YUEN:As a matter of standard practice we€ve been taking a position of- your original permit has a administrative time extension then after that you have to go to the Planning Commission or sometimes to the Council. Then after every time extension you get you should go back to the Planning Commission or the Council. If you know the applicant thinks that they can€t do the project in the time period they€re being allowed on a time extension- they€re pretty sure that they can€t and they are going to need another 6 time extension I think they should ask for more time with- on the time extension rather than an administrative extension. GRAHAM:Maybe my memory is not so good but somehow it feels to me that it€s common that even when we give time extensions we often allow for an administrative extension thereafter with other applications over the last year or so. Am I remembering wrong or- how about other items we have on today€s agenda like the Waikoloa one- where the highlands- where they€re asking for a time extension- is there no administrative attached onto that also? YUEN:There is yes. They requested the possibility of an administrative time extension and we do not have that on- nor do we support that. GRAHAM:So is- your renewal of this is consistent with your department policy. YUEN:Yes. GRAHAM:Thankyou. GALDONES:Furtherdiscussions?Commissioners,beforeusisa recommendation from the Planning Director to have this thing approved by the Planning Commission. You may- if you would like to- to consider Mr. Lim€s request to have condition number 12 reinstated. Just to be sure that I have already covered it? Is there anyone here from the public here to testify on this subject matter? Okay, thank you. Seeing none. Chair is prepared to entertain a motion. Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:On this one here- let€s see- yes, I would make a motion to accept the amendment to Special Management area use permit number 286 with a condition of Mr. Lim€s request to be accepted, to reinstate item number 12. Was there another change? That€s it. SMITH:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Fujikawa and seconded by Commissioner Smith. Kamehameha Investment Corporation , Keauhou Kona Resort Company amendment to Special Management Area Use Permit Number 286 be approved by the Planning Commission with the amendment that Condition number 12 be reinstated. This goes along with accepting the background report and the other recommendations. Further discussion? Commissioner McCall. MCCALL:I guess at this point of time, I don€t see a whole lot of argument for reinstating the time extension. I€d like to hear from other Commissioners about what they think. If it has been that the Planning Department has been consistently taking this out in time extensions then I think we should stay consistent with that and keep it out. 7 So, as it stands, my preference would be to take it out or I€d vote against this. I€d like to hear what the other Commissioners think. GALDONES:Question to the department. If condition 12 is accepted and the administration decides that it will not grant the continuance or an extension then the applicant may come before the Planning Commission as it is doing today to ask for that extension is that the process? DARROW:They would have no other choice but to come back before the Commission for a time extension at that point. GALDONES:So there€s an appeal process that- it could very well come back to the Planning Commission even if we accept condition number 12. DARROW:Correct. GALDONES:CommissionerGraham. GRAHAM:I€mwonderingifmaybethere€sa-we€reinalittlebitofatime constraint here in the sense of the sequence of events that have led up to today if the applicant applied for a 2 year extension thinking that he would have access to an administrative extension beyond that and then he finds the Planning Comm- Planning Department policy is not to make such a administrative extension available maybe he would prefer to have applied for a 3 year time extension or something like that. And I guess we don€t have any background as to whether that would be acceptable or not so I€m just sort of wondering if the process is such that if we follow- I tend to agree with Commissioner McCall that if the Planning Department Policy has been a one way in the past we should stick with that and I€m just wondering if- if we do stick with that if perhaps the applicant could between now and when this- excuse me I was thinking this was going to go to the Council and that he could maybe adjust his situation but it certainly is not going to go to the Council if it€s an SMA permit so- LIM:On the applicant€s behalf if the Planning Commission is leaning towards deleting the time extension for the administrative time extension then if possible we just ask for a 4 year time extension on this date then we would- you know that should- hopefully we get that done by then. I can€t promise cause it hasn€t happened yet but- but that might be the way to resolve it. I think- just to be clear, the reason- the distinction between the Planning Director€s deletion and our request to put it back in is just that in 2 years we would possibly get a time extension from the Planning Director under my scenario and under his we would have to come back to the Planning Commission. So it would- I thought save you folks some time and energy but if that€s the Planning Director€s current policy then I understand that- you should understand that the- that- that€s a change in policy fairly recently. This is the first one that I€ve seen where he completely takes out the time extension condition. 8 GALDONES;Well, Commissioner Graham if my interpretation is incorrect Jeff please let me know but- the way I view this is condition number 12 was part of the original approval process so I don€t view this as a policy that has been adopted by the Planning Department that condition number 12 not be part of any future applications or conditions. I believe that- I have a comfort level that the department would be able to address the administrative extension if requested by the applicant and if there is some problems then there€s always the appeal process that it will be coming back to the Planning Commission. And also- this is also- will alleviate some of the workload off the Planning Commission too. Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:I€d like to hear the Planning Director€s comment on the request for a longer extension which is just sort of coming in during the meeting here now for 4 years instead of 2 and all. YUEN:Idon€thaveaproblemwith3yearsI-itseemsthat-thatwegrant these permits with an idea that people are going to develop a project and they have a time frame so- and it turns out that that€s not the case- it will just lapse and go on forever. As far as what the practice is this- this came up when we started noticing that on rezoning ordinances particularly  the rezoning ordinance itself has condition that says an extension can be granted after the initial- administrative time extension can be granted and then after that you go to the Council. When you just copy the ordinance and you don€t think about what you€re doing and you put that in again, that has the effect on creating a new round of administrative time extension. The original ordinance the original permit- let€s say- the rezoning ordinance or SMA permit starts off with a framework that you have so many years on your time then you have one administrative time extension and after that you go to- back to the Planning Commission or the Council. Now when you go back for that time extension to the Planning Commission or the Council that- it shouldn€t start this cycle of administrative then go back to the Planning Commission or Council again but not your administrative. So- from this point- from that point you get the one administrative time extension that comes right after you first get your permit for your rezoning then every time after that you should go back to the Planning Commission or Council. GRAHAM:Thank you. I will- certainly- it€s certainly up to Mr. Fujikawa to make the motion as he chooses but my sense would be that since the Planning Director is willing to go for a 3 year that perhaps we consider a 3 year with no administrative time extension thereafter. GALDONES:Mr. Lim. LIM:The applicant will agree to the 3 years if adopted by the Planning Commission. FUJIKAWA:Is that it? GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa? 9 FUJIKAWA:The 3 year acceptance. GALDONES:So- Commissioner Fujikawa you are amending your motion then that condition number 12 will be deleted, the time extension will be amended to reflect 3 years. FUJIKAWA:3 years. SMITH:Second also. GALDONES:Okay. Commissioner Fujikawa has amended his motion. It has been seconded by Commissioner Smith that the original motion be amended to reflect that condition number 12 will be deleted from the conditions and the time extensions will be adjusted to reflect 3 years instead of 2 years. Further discussion. Seeing none. Jeff. DARROW:Thank you Mr. Chair. Commissioner Fujikawa. FUJIKAWA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Smith. SMITH:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:CommissionerMcCall. MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commis-Mr.Chairman. GALDONES:Aye. DARROW:Themotionpasses6to0. GALDONES:Thank you Jeff. Mr. Lim, Mr. Chun you will be informed of today€s actions in writing. LIM:Thank you. 10 GALDONES:You€re welcome. The discussion ended at 10:12 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynette Sanemitsu, West Hawaii Secretary 11