Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-01 TPULUWAI PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 1, 2004 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of PULUWAI LLC (ORD. 92-7) was called to order at 9:41 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Second Vice-Chairman Hannah Springer presiding. PRESENT:Hannah Springer ABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones C. Kimo Alameda Jeffrey McCall Bill Graham Andrew Iwashita Allen Salavea Rene€ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel ChristopherJ.Yuen,PlanningDirector Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 13 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PULUWAI, LLC (ORDINANCE NO. 92-7) Continuation on the request for time extensions to comply with Condition B (submission of water commitment payment), Condition C (submission of subdivision plans) and Condition O (submission of annual report) of Ordinance No. 92-7, which rezoned approximately 6.0003 acres of land from an Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) to a Single Family Residential  10,000 square foot (RS-10) district. The property is located along the north side of Kawailani Street, adjacent to and east of the Life Care Center complex, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-4-3: portion of 21. SPRINGER:Our first item is unfinished business, the applicant is Puluwai, LLC regarding Ordinance No. 92-7, this is a continuation on the request for time extensions to comply with Condition B (submission of water commitment payment), Condition C (submission of subdivision plans) and Condition O (submission of annual report) of Ordinance No. 92-7, which rezoned approximately 6.0003 acres of land from an Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) to a Single Family Residential  10,000 square foot (RS-10) district. The property is located along the north side of Kawailani Street, adjacent to and east of the Life Care Center complex, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-4-3: portion of 21. Norman? HAYASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair, and Good morning, Members of the Commission. As far as this application is concerned, the original applicant was Kawailani Limited Estate Partnership who was and still is the owner of the property. Since then, Puluwai, LLC, who€s the purchaser of this particular property has submitted the request for amendments EXHIBIT B to the current ordinance that was adopted back in 1992. Some of these time conditions has since lapsed. However, there are no initiations of the revocationof the ordinance since 1992. Just as a matter of information, the property is located in this yellow-shaded area with this red dot. It is situated along the north side of Kawailani Street. This would be towards the Kinoole, Kilauea Avenue; and this would be the mauka area. The colors on the map indicate the various zoning districts. The blue shaded areas are lands that are currently zoned for Agriculture 3-acre. We also have lands across the street, and those lots are within the Single Family Residential zoned district; and those are lots, properties that have already subdivided into Residential sized lots, and also substantially built up with single family dwellings. The applicant back at that time, back in 1992, requested the rezoning in order to establish a 21- lot 10,000 square foot property, and this was the general configuration of the proposal at that time. Since then, the Puluwai, LLC has submitted a request to purchase the property and they alsowereapprisedofcertainconditionswithtimerequirements;andthesewere:ConditionB, Condition B basically stated that they had to submit a water commitment payment to the Water Supply within a 980-day period, which was not done. Condition C basically stated that the subdivision plans had to be submitted within, I believe it was one year from the date of approval of the original zone change. They since received an administrative time extension; and that was granted until 1996. That time has since expired also. And, finally, on Condition O, that basically states that the annual progress report must be submitted to the Planning Department annually within one year from the original date, which was 1992. That was not done So, at this time, the applicant, Puluwai, LLC is requesting that these conditions be extended, the time requirement be extended, for a period of time. And we are recommending approval of the proposed changes. We€re also recommending that the Planning Commission and the County Council impose additional conditions relative to fair share contribution. We also have a revised condition relative to the new affordable housing policy and certain drainage improvements and standard conditions that we are imposing for similar type of zone changes. So, basically, that€s the staff€s background report ad recommendation. Are there any questions at this time? SPRINGER:Commissioners, are there any questions of Mr. Hayashi at this time? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Norman, do I understand correctly that since €96 they have not submitted the annual report and they€re applying now for this, but they still haven€t submitted even an annual report for 96/€97? HAYASHI:Yes, that€s my understanding. They haven€t done that. SIRACUSA:That€s a long time. HAYASHI:Yeah -. SIRACUSA:They have a lot of catch-up to do. 2 HAYASHI:Perhaps the applicant€s representative can respond to that particular question. SIRACUSA:Yeah. SPRINGER:Thank you, Norman. Are there any other questions for the staff at this time? Seeing none, will the applicant or their representative please come forward. ANDRADE:Good morning -. SPRINGER:Thank you. Will the applicant -. ANDRADE:Chairwoman Springer and Commission Members. My name is Ed Andrade, do you want me -? SPRINGER:Yeah, if we could just wait a moment, please. Thank you for coming forward.Arethereanymembersoftheaudiencewhowouldcaretotestifyonthismatteratthis time? Okay, seeing none, will the applicant and his representative please raise your right hands. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? ANDRADE:I do. SPRINGER:Thank you. Now if you could please give us your name and address. ANDRADE:Okay. My name is Ed Andrade, my address, it is PO Box 4394, Hilo, although my residence is in Mt. View. Hank? CORREIA:Hank Correia, 215 Hualalai, Hilo. SPRINGER:Thank you. You may proceed, gentlemen. ANDRADE:Okay, just to give a little bit of background, I guess, and maybe we can help answer Ms. Siracusa€s question. As Norman had mentioned, this property was owned by a, or is currently owned by a corporation by the name of Kawailani Estates; and they went through the rezoning process back in €92 and got approval from the County Council, Planning Commission and County Council back then. Right after they got the zoning changed, as most of us know, the real estate market on the Big Island kind of went into the tank; and since then they haven€t had the funds to develop the property. Hank and I, along with another partner, another local boy by the name if Brian Anderson, we€ve put in an offer to purchase the property and then do the project, do the subdivision. One of the conditions of us purchasing the property is to get these time extensions, because the prior owner had not complied with all of the time extensions of the original zoning. So with those time extensions, then we can go on and start doing the things that are necessary that the ordinance calls for to develop the property into residential lots. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa? 3 SIRACUSA:So it€s my understanding then that, how long is it that you acquired the property? ANDRADE:Well, we haven€t, we€ve put in an offer to acquire the property. So -. SIRACUSA:Oh, okay. So that€s still pending? ANDRADE:That€s pendingCommission approval. SIRACUSA:Okay. ANDRADE:Once we get approval from theCommission and the County Council on the extensions, then that was a condition of purchase, then we will actually purchase the property. SIRACUSA:Okay, so it€s my understanding then that Kawailani did not do anything withthepropertyalltheseyears? CORREIA:Letme,IcanstepinbecauseIwasinvolvedwithKawailaniEstates. That€s right. They entitled the property back in €92, got the zoning change, and then around €92, you know, the market had crumbled; and so economically they couldn€t proceed with the development. So it has been sitting there for some time. SIRACUSA:Okay, so it has just been sitting doing nothing. So it seems to me then that an annual report would only have to say no action, no activity. CORREIA:Right. SIRACUSA:And I don€t understand why it should take 10, 11 years to submit an annual report that says that. CORREIA:We weren€t involved though. You know, that was the owner or current owner. We€re in the process of purchasing the property. So we€re stepping in to, so to speak, take the ball and run with it. So why they didn€t file, I€m not sure, and we cannot comment. SIRACUSA:Okay. But you are now going to be, if this is granted, you will be responsible for filing? CORREIA:Correct. SIRACUSA:And how long do you think it would take to file reports for those previous years? CORREIA:I don€t know that we would have to file for the previous years because we weren€t involved in the previous years. But I think that fromthis point on, once we purchase the property and are subject to the conditions of this zoning ordinance, then we would do whatever is necessary under that Zoning Ordinance. 4 SIRACUSA:So it would still be Kawailani that would be responsible for filing those old reports? SPRINGER:Excuse me, Commissioner, perhaps, at this time either the staff or the Planning Director can help explain the circumstancesthat Commissioner Siracusa is questioning upon. HAYASHI:Yes. If this time extension request were to be approved by the Council, then the applicant, Puluwai, would be responsible for submitting the annual report, so whoever the landowner would be that€s going to be developing the property. SPRINGER:And, Norman, the reports that have not been submitted in a timely fashion, would those years still need to be reported on? HAYASHI:No,Idon€tbelievetheyneedtodothat.Perhapsinthefirstreportthey can state what had happened over the years, and then take it from there and explain to the Commission and the County Council as to what the development€s timetable is or where they are in the development. SPRINGER:Thank you, Norman. Commissioner Siracusa, does that satisfy your question? SIRACUSA:Yes, it does. Thank you. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. Any other, Commissioners, questions either for the applicant€s representative or the staff? Once again, this is a public meeting. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to testify on the matter before us now? Mr. Correia? CORREIA:We€d like to add something. I think Eddie and I, as well as another gentleman, is in pursuit of the project because, so to speak, it has been entitled, you know. We were hoping that we could come forward, get approvals and time extensions and, so to speak, run with the project, you know, kind of the way it left off. We have concerns now in something that has come before us that we didn€t anticipate, it€s fair share. At the time in €92 that this ordinance was established and approved, there was no fair share cost, now amounting to $203,000 exactly. And we had hopes that the Planning Commission can approve the ordinance of €92 as it was in €92. Aside the fair share we have no, you know, concerns. We€re paying a good price for the property to be able to develop it. And with that additional expense, it almost makes it prohibitive. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Correia. Mr. Director, can you speak to that, please. YUEN:As a matter of standard practice, whenever we have one of these time extensions from old zonings that does not have a fair share requirement on it, we are recommending that it be added, just the same as if a property were coming in for zoning today. Otherwise, the point of the fair share contribution is as development occurs to create a fund for the off-site cost of development, because every project will add some traffic to the road system, every project will add people that will use the park systems off site. So if you have a piece of 5 property, we have zoning on the island where say the zoning was granted in the eighties, there€s no time conditions, there€s no fair share, there€s no affordable housing. They do have the ability to go forward under that basis. But when projects come in that have missed, that do have these time extension requests that are needed, we think that they should be treated the same as if they were coming in for zoning today. Otherwise, and this applies both to fair share and affordable housing. There was an affordable housing requirement on this project already, so we€re just updating it to the current affordable housing, but we feel this way for fair share and affordable housing. So we€ve been taking this position consistently for some time now. And I believe the Council has been passing the time extensions with these additional fair share and affordable housing requirements when they weren€t on them. IWASHITA:Madam Chair -. SPRINGER:Just, if I may have some follow up before you proceed, Commissioner Iwashita.DirectorYuen,hasthisbeenanumberofmonthsoryearsnowthattheseconditions have been applied? YUEN:I think it has been at least a year. I€m not sure exactly how long. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Iwashita, thank you for waiting. IWASHITA:My question addresses the concern that you brought up right now. And, I guess, if the Commission considers and approves the request with the fair share requirement, is that something that you can accept or -? When you say that you talked about the project not being feasible, was the fair share assessment included? And so I would like to know whether or not you would really consider going forward with the project or not with that in there. CORREIA:The reason we pursued the project initially, again, is because you know, so to speak, it was entitled, we could walk in, and we were in the hopes that we would take over the project where it was left off. If we get caught into a fair share cost with site improvements on that particular project, it€d be almost infeasible economically; and more than likely we would have to walk away, and it€d sit there like it has for the last 12 years. So, yeah, to answer your question, we€d probably have to walk away if we€ve got to, you know, foot out another $202,000. IWASHITA:So my understanding of what you just said is that if the fair share is included that you would not want to really proceed with this subdivision? CORREIA:Right, right. IWASHITA:Thank you. SPRINGER:At this time, I have a question of our Deputy Corporation Counsel Torigoe as far as process. The decision that we make today will be one to make a recommendation to the County Council of Hawaii. Our action today is not biding, that action would be taken by the County Council. Should we pass this application as recommended by the Department, the applicants would have the opportunity to debate further with the County Council, is that correct? 6 TORIGOE:That€s correct, Madam Chairman. SPRINGER:Thank you. Thank you for waiting. Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:My question is would it be possible, cause I don€t know the particulars of your agreement with the seller, would it be possible for you to then go back, assuming we are, you know, recommending approval, and negotiate with the seller because of this development on the fair share? CORREIA:Right. Good point. We€ve already done that. Actually, prior to coming to this meeting, I made an attempt to do that with the hopes that maybe we could, you know, negotiate that fair share thinking that would offset some of that expense. The seller is not willing to do it. SPRINGER:Thankyou,Mr.Correia.CommissionerGraham? GRAHAMIhadonekindoffollow-upthoughtfromaplanningperspective,Ithink, coming from what the Planning Director said. I remember when I was new to the Commission and we were dealing with back then about time extensions, you know, when zoning had lapsed and all like that and got into a discussion, you know, why do we even have the time extent -, why do we even have the time requirements if we€re just going to keep extending it all the time. And I think part of what came out of that discussion was that the idea is to avoid what I might call pie-in-the-sky kind of rezonings where somebody just rezones to get some added value to the land but has no particular project in mind. So it feels to me that if we go ahead and grant time extensions, and kind of lock in the same conditions that happened back at the time somebody starting the zoning, then we€re really kind of defeating that purpose of pie-in-the-sky rezonings; and we might be encouraging more of that in the future. CORREIA:And I can understand your position as well. If you can imagine the project, I was involved with it in €92 and the developer at that time had the full intention of developing the project. As a matter of fact they had a bond in place, I believe, and the bank was waiting on some presales to close the construction loan. Because of the market down-turning, those presales fell apart and they couldn€t proceed on, you know, the groundwork construction. So it was one of those things economically that just couldn€t happen. Now we are a different group, we€re coming in now to pursue this project. So I could see if the original developer was before you trying to get an extension to entitle it to sell it to our group, that would be one case. But we are a totally different group, so -. And I can understand your position. GRAHAM:Sure, yeah, thanks for that follow-up. CORREIA:Thank you. ANDRADE:If I could follow up with Mr. Iwashita. What this, as Commissioner or Chairman Springer said and our Corporation Counsel, you know, this has to go to the County Council for actual approval. And so, you know, whatever happens here, you know, we will 7 pursuethisat least to that level before we turn around and walk away from it or, you know, pursue it to the end. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Andrade. Commissioners, are there any more questions of the applicant€s representatives? ALAMEDA:As a -. SPRINGER:Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA:Kind of a comment -. Aloha. You know, I€ve been on the Commission for about a year now and we€ve added that condition to prior developments, you know, with old zoning and all. And it€s kind of tricky, I think,too, you know, like what makes your particular application different from the past. And so like if we go ahead and say, you know, like do away withthose,withthatconditionoffairshareandall,thenIfeelkindofuncomfortablebecausewe didn€t do away with it in the past, you know, for the previous applicants. So this kind of, I€m thinking in my mind I€m a little uncomfortable with that. CORREIA:I tried to find precedence as to which particular case I could, and maybe we can research further, and who is the actual applicant before the Planning Commission? Was it the original developer that was in pursuit of, you know, getting the property entitled and not meeting conditions asking for an extension? We€re totally a separate group altogether. So, and there€s nothing, I believe, in the law that requires, under any statute or ordinance, that requires the County to say on these old ordinances to impose these fair share costs. So it€s an arbitrary thing. It€s, you know, yeah, it€s a recommendation, but it€s a recommendation that is not required by law. So maybe that might address your concern. ALAMEDA:Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you, Commissioner Alameda. Thank you, Mr. Correia. Director Yuen, do you have any comments to make into the discussion at this time? YUEN:Well, I definitely hold to our position. And this is something that is going to come up repeatedly. It has come up a number of times, it will come up again as projects -. There€s quite a bit of old zonings out there that was done in the late eighties or early nineties where time conditions have lapsed; and it€s going to come back in front of the Council and in front of the Planning Commission. We should make these subject to the same rules that we would bringing, that we would have for somebody coming in with zoning today. There€s no reason why it should be any different. If they were coming in for zoning today, we would put in this fair share. And some of the old ones, this one I thought I said already has affordable housing. But the same argument could be made on affordable housing, why put it on when it wasn€t there before. We need, as we develop, this community is developing very fast now, we have a lot of growth coming in. As we develop, we need to make sure that the development pays for itself and that we have both a fund to deal with the off-site impacts of new development and also that there€s affordable housing in the development. And you can€t make your decision based on a statement of it kills the project. It doesn€t kill the project. Every project has to stand on its own financially. There are lots of things that get required in a zoning. You can say the same thing for somebody whose project is very close to financial viability. You may say the 8 same thing for a deceleration lane, a left-turn lane, any number of kinds of things that we normally put on projects. If the project doesn€t fly, we shouldn€t make our requirements, we shouldn€t tailor our requirements based on whether the project is viable or not viable. You have a standard set of requirements, you put them on the project. If it€s not viable with that, then the project doesn€t get built. SPRINGER:Thank you, Director Yuen. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. I€d just like to, for the record, say that I completely agree with the statements of the Director that the developments that go forward, you know, in our community should be able to pay for itself. And being new, I€m not sure if this is appropriate, but I€d like to, I want to make it very clear on the record that these conditions should be made part of an approval, if that€s where we€re going with this; and that when it€s sent on to the Council it be made very clear, our position, that those conditions should remain part of any approval. SPRINGER:Your comments are certainly part of the record. Thank you, Commissioner.CommissionerWatanabe. WATANABE:Inlightofthisrecentdevelopment,I€dliketodirectthequestiontothe Director. Originally when I came into this meeting, I was in favor of your recommendations, seeing that, okay, if there€s a need for housing, etc. And I€m kind of concerned that maybe we would deny it and some other developer would have to go through the entire process again. Do you have any new recommendations now that -? Basically what these potential buyers are saying is if you attach these conditions they€ll likely not going to go through with the project. But then if you let them lapse then the next buyer has to go through the entire process again, and it will take that much longer for it to be available for housing. You see what I€m getting at? YUEN:Unless she actually went and revoked the former ordinance it€s still a matter of getting a time extension and updating it. If the decision here were completely to not extend the time, if the decision of the Planning Commission was to not extend the time, or the Council was to not extend the time, I would think that they would then direct us to rezone the property back to something else. But as it stands, the property is zoned RS-10 but they€re not in compliance with the conditions of zoning. So -. WATANABE:So it€s just in reference to the extension and not the zoning per se, yet? YUEN:Right, right. So, in other words, if this group walks away and another group wants to buy it, if they were to actually drop the request for time extension and just completely stop at this point, unless we went ahead to revoke the zoning which I am not, would not be planning to do because the zoning is basically correct for the property for a residential zoned area, the zoning is basically correct, it€s still available to somebody else to come and say, well, we€d like to develop the property, we€ll come in for a time extension. WATANABE:So then am I understanding you correctly denying the time extension won€t change the zoning and it won€t hurt anything else? YUEN:Well, if the Council denies the time extension completely, my expectation is that they, what they€re saying is they don€t want the property zoned RS-10; and I would expect 9 them to give me some direction to rezone the property to something else. And then we would initiate that, I can initiate the rezoning, whether in fact the Council can initiate the rezoning. If they put it, if they allow it with conditions that the applicant does not like, the ordinance stands with those conditions. And then the applicants, of course, they cannot develop the property if it doesn€t pencil out for them, just like any other situation where you have requirements on the zoning and the applicant, there are many situations like this where the market does not sustain it and then the project just doesn€t go forward. The rezoning would happen, but the time extension would happen with those conditions, but perhaps the project would not get built. But that€s the same thing that happened in 1992. But just, as I say, if they withdrew, if there were not requests for a time extension on this project, it would just be sitting there with this zoning. And with this RS-10 zoning, anybody who wanted to come in and do something with it would have to go through this process. Until we actually initiated a rezoning to something else, they could still come in for a time extension; but it would havetobeanamendmenttotheordinanceandgototheCouncil,justlikethisone. SPRINGER:Atthistime,I€dliketoremindusofaguidancethatthePlanningDirector has given us frequently, that we should be evaluating these applications based on their merits rather than the applicant who€s making the application. And in terms of process, I€ll be asking shortly, if there is no further discussion, for a motion. The motion can come with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Director or staff, or the Commission can adjust those conditions themselves. So is there any further discussion? IWASHITA:I -. SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Just a clarification. I guess I€ll address it to the Director. My understanding then is we can go ahead and approve the request with the conditions as presented in our materials and that would go on to the Council. Then if the Council adopts it with the conditions, then the applicant here can decide whether or not at that time they want to go forward or not; and, if not, the owner might find another developer that would be willing to go forward and meet the deadlines. Is that correct? YUEN:It€s correct that the Council can adopt it with the conditions; and the Council can adopt it with conditions that the applicant does not like. Then the applicant, or the owner, or whomever can decide whether or not to go forward with the project. As far as between the applicants here and the present owner as to what their contractual arrangement is and whether the applicants here can get out of that contract at that time, that I have no opinion on. And I, you know, naturally, I don€t know. Okay. SPRINGER:Thank you, gentlemen. Commissioners, any further discussion on this matter? We€re ready for a motion then. Does anyone, may we have one? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I€d like to move that we recommend approval of the extension as the Director has recommended, inclusive of the conditions for housing, as well as fair share development. 10 IWASHITA:Second. SIRACUSA:Did you say exclusive? WATANABE:Inclusive. SIRACUSA:Okay. SPRINGER:It has been moved by Commissioner -. SIRACUSA:Second. SPRINGER:I believe there was a second from Commissioner Iwashita, thank you CommissionerSiracusa,thatafavorablerecommendationtoamendConditionsB,C,andOof Change of Zone Ordinance No. 92-7 be forwarded to the County Council, taking all the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Director into consideration. Is there any discussion on this motion? Seeing none, Norman, may we have a roll call vote. HAYASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to be clear, it is as recommended, all of the recommendations, all of the conditions as recommended by the Commission, is that correct? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Okay, with that -. Commissioner Watanabe? Motion is to approve as recommended by the Planning Director. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM?Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Springer? 11 SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Madam Chair, motion carries, eight-zero. SPRINGER:Thank you. You will be informed in writing of our decision today. CORREIA:Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioners. ANDRADE:Thank you. SPRINGER:Good day. The discussion ended at 10:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, SharonM.Nomura,EastHawaiiSecretary 12