HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-08-2022 Applicant's Concurrence to Defer Hearing LPC Item#1 Kula Nei, LLC (PL-PUD-2022-000002)
8/8/2022 Applicant's Concurrence to Defer Hearing
Email Response from Robert Lee
Mori, Ashley
From: Robert Lee <robertrleegroup@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 11:06 AM
To: Kay, Christian
Cc: Nohealani Baptista; Darrow, Jeff,Jackson, Maija
Subject: Re: Additional information needed to consider an approval recommendation for the
Kula Nei PUD Application (PL-PUD-2022-000002)
Aloha kakahiaka! Christian, after reading your email I agree that we should wait until all your points are answered before
moving forward. I would like to have a conversation with you tomorrow at mid morning 10:00/10:30 if your available
with my daughter Nohea. Mahalo, Robert Ewane Lee Jr.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 5, 2022, at 5:22 PM, Kay, Christian <Christian.Kay@hawaiicounty.gov>wrote:
Aloha Mr. Lee,
As we have been discussing, I am in the process of drafting the background and recommendation
reports for the next Leeward Planning Commission hearing on August 18.
Through the review&analysis process against the criteria for approving a PUD permit, I am finding that
the application is lacking sufficient information necessary to justify approval of several of the individual
exceptions from the code that you have requested to facilitate the PUD development. Please note, the
application was also reviewed and vetted by the Administrative Permits Division, who are responsible
for applying the subdivision code and previously processed PUD applications. Based on the preceding,
and after discussing the issues with Deputy Director Darrow(who oversees the department while
Director Kern is on vacation)we cannot recommend approval for several of the requested exemptions
requested in the PUD permit at this time.
Our Zoning Code compels us to go to hearing within 90 days of acceptance of a complete application,
which is the next Leeward Planning Commission meeting on August 18, 2022, unless a deferral is agreed
to by the applicant. If you like to still move forward with that hearing date, we will do so, but it will be
with a denial recommendation. Alternatively, if you are willing to defer the hearing to provide us with
the additional information needed, we will be happy to work with you to get to hearing as soon as
possible.
If you choose the latter option, we need the following additional information to continue to process the
application toward an approval recommendation:
1. General Information needed.
• The Master Plan Concept(Figure 1) indicates that the shaded area consists of, "+40
open space not to be mass graded or clear cut but used to protect native Hawaiian flora,
provide for agricultural purposes and maintain local rural character consistent with open
space preservation
objectives of the Kona CDP."Please provide more detail about the proposed
management, maintenance, and uses within the proposed 40%open space/agricultural
1
reserve area surrounding the proposed lots. For example, what type of agricultural uses
are you envisioning for this area? Do you intend to build agricultural structures within
that area?Will that area include the project nursery you mention in your foreword
letter or was that project envisioned on one of the numbered lots? Do you intend to
protect the area in perpetuity though deed cove nants/CC&Rs/conservation easement,
etc.)
• The foreword to the PUD states that, "The driving force behind the design we are
submitting for our PUD is the preservation of the many significant cultural and
archaeological sites."However, except for Burial Site 24768 and features 1-36 of Site
24776 the remaining 3 archaeological sites slated for preservation are situated within
the proposed lots. Additionally, most of the preservation requirements outlined in the
preservation plans for these sites require avoidance with a 20-foot buffer, but do not
require any long-term, physical buffer around them. Will you please provide us with an
update on compliance with short, medium & long-term preservation treatments
outlined in the approved Preservation Plan and Burial Treatment Plan?Will you please
also submit a new PUD site plan that includes all the Sites to be preserved (including the
burial) and associated buffers required by the PP & BTP?
• Please indicate why the proposed pavement within proposed Road "A"falls short of the
southern property boundary at the proposed stub out? Right now it shows to end
parallel to the middle of proposed Lot 4, and is indicated as a dashed line on the master
plan.
• The application states that, "The Petitioner/Developer shall provide for a Grantor
Reservation of Easement or other form of legal binding contract so that this section of
roadway shall remain open without gates in perpetuity to allow for public vehicular
access to the adjacent parcel to the south.."Please provide more detail on how and
when that easement will be granted (e.g., prior to receipt of Final Subdivision Approval,
etc.).
2. The next section will address additional information/justification needed for the following
individual variance/exception requests.
• Variance#1,Section 25-4-30. Minimum Street Frontage.The application requests a
blanket waiver of the entire section of code and doesn't specifically address why relief
from each subsection is needed. Additionally, please address where the alternative to
the standard requirements should be applied within the PUD master Plan (e.g., which
lots, road sections, etc.) and why the application of the alternative standards will
"maintain a rural image, preserve some of the sites natural features and to avoid
excessive roadway.The justification for the request needs to be more specific.
• Variance#2,Section 25-4-31. Minimum Building Site Area; Minimum Average
Width. Please explain why you are asking for a 1-acre minimum lot size when the
application represents that the smallest proposed lot is be 2.046 acres? If no specific
reason, please change the request to a minimum of 2 acres.
• Variance#3,Section 25-4-32. Reduction of Building Site Below Minimum Area.
Please explain why you are asking for a 1-acre minimum lot size when the application
represents that the smallest proposed lot is be 2.046 acres? If no specific reason, please
change the request to a minimum of 2 acres.
2
• Variance#4,Section 25-5-74 . Minimum Building Site Area. Please explain why you
are asking for a 1-acre minimum lot size when the application represents that the
smallest proposed lot is be 2.046 acres? If no specific reason, please change the request
to a minimum of 2 acres.
• Variance#5,Section 25-5-75. Minimum Building Site Average Width.This is another
blanket waiver request, but the application does not propose an alternative number of
feet for the minimum building site average width to accommodate the proposed PUD. If
no alternative width is provided, the final PUD could be created with oddly shaped
lots. Please provide minimum building site average widths based off the proposed
design.
• Variance#6,Section 23-29. Block Sizes. OK with this request.
• Variance#7,Section 23-33. Min Lot Size. Please explain why you are asking for a 1-
acre minimum lot size when the application represents that the smallest proposed lot is
be 2.046 acres? If no specific reason, please change the request to a minimum of 2
acres.
• Variance#8,Section 23-41. Minimum ROW&Pavement Widths. Is there a specific
design/functional reason for the proposed 'T' cul-de-sac roadway connections from
Road "A"to proposed lots 1 through 4? If so, please provide that specific information. If
not, please consider using flagpole connections with reciprocal easements within the
lots to satisfy the desire of the PUD to reduce roadways.
• Variance#9,Section 23-45. Grades&Curves. Please confirm with the Fire Department
that the proposed roadway curves/turn radii are consistent with Fire Code? If so, please
provide a statement to that effect.
• Variance#10,Section 23-48. Cul-De-Sacs. Please provide a more detailed justification
for this design element.The current justification is just a re-stating of the purpose of a
PUD. Be specific as to why a blanket waiver of this section and the alternative
landscaped cul-de-sac necessary(e.g., is it an aesthetic feature? How does it fit with the
surrounding rural character as stated, etc.)Additionally, it appears that there is direct
roadway connection from the proposed cul-de-sac to proposed lots 5,7 &8, but no
discussion of how lot 6 will be accessed. Please provide an explanation of why this
individual roadway access rather than a traditional cul-de-sac with frontage along each
lot. Please also confirm with the Fire Department that the proposed cul-de-sac
curves/turn radii are consistent with Fire Code?
• Variances#11413. OK with these requests.
• Variance#14. Right-of-Way Improvement. Please provide more detailed discussion &
specific examples of how the proposed ROW improvements are in keeping with the
surrounding, "rural" roadway designs that you represent.
3. Finally, the application did not include sufficient discussion on how the proposed project meets
the criteria for granting a PUD permit articulated in Section 25-6-10 of the Hawaii County Code.
Sections of those criteria applicable to your project are outlined below:
3
Section 25-6-10. Criteria for granting a P.U.D. permit. A P.U.D. permit maybe granted by the
commission upon finding that:
(a) The construction of the project can begin and be completed within a reasonable period of
time from the date of full approval.
Note:This criterion has been addressed.
(b) The proposed development substantially conforms to the general plan, any adopted
community development plan, other adopted master plan, and if applicable, any adopted design
guidelines and/or standards affecting the project area.
• Note:The application makes references to applicable General Plan (GP) policies, but fails
to adequately address how the proposed agricultural PUD is consistent with the Low
Density Urban GP LUPAG Designation (which is meant for residential and ancillary
community commercial uses, with a residential density of up to six units per acre.)
Please provide further discussion on how the PUD use will be consistent with the Low
Density Urban LUPAG Designation.
• Note:There is a general reference to the Kona CDP and how the proposed PUD was
designed to incorporate components of the Clustered Rural Subdivision. Please provide
additional information on how the proposed project is consistent with the CDP re:
development within the Kona Urban area and please provide additional detailed
discussion how the proposed PUD it is consistent with the guidelines for a Clustered
Rural Subdivision.
(c)Any residential or agricultural development shall constitute an environment of sustained
desirability and stability for the district that is in harmony with the character of the surrounding
area, that results in an intensity of land use no higher than that otherwise
specified for the district, and that maintains the standards of open space at least as high as
that otherwise specified for the district in which the development occurs.
• Note:The application identifies surrounding zoning and uses but does not adequately
address how the proposed PUD constitutes an environment of sustained desirability and
stability for the district that is in harmony with the character of the surrounding area.
Please provide a more detailed discussion of the character of the surrounding area
(including surrounding subdivisions and uses) and provide a more detailed discussion of
how the proposed PUD is in harmony with that character.
• Note;The application does discuss the intensity of land criteria, however it should be
noted that the proposed 40%open space/agricultural reserve mentioned above is
technically a 91" lot, so we will likely add a condition prohibiting it from future
subdivision or built structures in that area.
(f) The development of a harmonious, integrated whole justifies exceptions, if required, to the
normal requirements of this chapter, and the contemplated arrangements or use make it
desirable to apply regulations and requirements differing
from those ordinarily applicable under the district regulations.
• Note:The application does not address this criterion, specifically, why the requested
PUD exceptions are justified vs. traditional subdivision development.The application
indicates that the PUD process is necessary to achieve the proposed subdivision design
but does not provide specific reasons as to why the exceptions as a whole are justified.
4
Will you please let us know by the end of the day on Monday(8/8/2022) how you would like to
proceed? Please let me know if you have any questions.
Mahalo,
Christian
5