Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-19 Leeward Exh B (Amend REZ 1039 and Amend SMA 441) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 19, 2016 ALI‘I PALMS, LLC (formerly LEHUA A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of LANI, LLC) (AMEND REZ 1039/AMEND SMA 441) was called to order at 10:01 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Vice Chairman Collin Kaholo presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Collin Kaholo, Nancy Carr Smith, Scott Church, Barbara Nobriga and Sonny Shimaoka RECUSED: Keith F. Unger ALSO PRESENT: Danny Patel (Counsel for the Commission), Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Planner), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And approximately 80 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: ALI‘I PALMS, LLC (formerly LEHUA LANI, LLC) (AMEND REZ 1039/ AMEND SMA 441) Request to amend Condition B (time extension to secure subdivision approval), Condition J (drainage improvements) and Condition V (fair share payment) of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 04-56, and Condition No. 4 (time extension to secure subdivision approval) and Condition No. 6 (drainage improvements) of SMA Use Permit No. 441. In 2004, the property was rezoned from Agricultural- 5acres (A-5a) to Single Family Residential- 7,500 square feet (RS-7.5) and SMA Permit No. 441 was issued to allow the development of a 58-unit single family residential house and lot subdivision and related improvements. The property is located along the east (mauka) side of Ali‘i Drive, between the Ali‘i Lani Condominium and the Ali‘i Garden Marketplace and across from the Kona By the Sea and Kona Riviera Villas condominium nd complexes, Puapua‘a 2, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 7-5-020:071 and 072. UNGER: Item No. 2. Applicant Ali‘i Palms, LLC, formerly Lehua Lani, LLC, Amend Rezone \[REZ\] 1039/Amend SMA 441, request to amend Condition B, time extension to secure subdivision approval, Condition J, drainage improvements, and Condition V, fair share payment, of Change of Zone Ordinance 04-56, and Condition No. 4, time extension to secure subdivision approval, and Condition No. 6, drainage improvements, of SMA Use Permit No. 441. At this time I’m going to be recusing myself; I own the property directly to the south of the subject property. And Commissioner Kaholo will be chairing this portion of the agenda. KAHOLO: Thank you, Chair, Commissioner Keith Unger. At this time I’d like to ask staff to present the presentation. 1 EXHIBIT B JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The next item on the agenda is a request for an amendment to a Change of Zone Ordinance and a Special Management Area Permit. The applicant is Ali‘i Palms, LLC. and the subject property is located in the North Kona District, just along Ali‘i Drive. It consists of two properties that are outlined in red kind of in the middle of the slide. You have Ali‘i Drive running in a north-south direction on the makai side of the property and Kuakini Highway also running in a north-south direction above that. And then you can see the future right-of-way for the Ali‘i Parkway along the mauka boundary of the property. The property is zoned Single Family Residential-7,500 square feet, and you can see that a lot of the properties nearby are also zoned either Single Family or Multi Family Residential, which is shown in the light browns and the yellow colors. The property just to the south, which is where the Ali‘i Garden Market Places is located, is zoned Agricultural and that’s shown in the light green color. The General Plan designation for the property is Medium Density Urban, which allows both single-family and multi-family residential development as well as commercial. And the Kona CDP map – it’s a little hard to see the property, I’ve outlined it in the red circle here – the property is located outside of a Transit Oriented Development Area; those are shown by the large blue circles. But it is in Concurrency Zone L, and Concurrency Zone L calls for the construction of Ali‘i Parkway as well as the Lako Street Extension; it identifies those roads as priority road areas, I mean, priority road projects for the area. And this is an aerial photo of the property and surrounding area; you can see it’s currently vacant. You have the Ali‘i Lani Townhouses to the north, Ali‘i Garden Market Place to the south and Kona By the Sea condos, and then Kahakai Estates Residential Subdivision is located mauka of the development. This vacant area just mauka of the property is the future Ali‘i Parkway right-of-way. So in 2004 the applicant received a Change of Zone to rezone the property from Agricultural-5 acres to Single Family Residential-7,500 square feet. And they also receive an SMA Permit to allow a 58-lot single-family residential development. In 2006 they received a Planned Unit Development Permit, and they submitted a preliminary subdivision plat map, and received tentative approval for that. This is a slide showing the applicant’s preliminary subdivision plat map that they submitted back in 2006; you have Ali‘i Drive on the left side of the slide, the access to the subdivision would be located in this area, and then you can see the lots, there is also a park area next to the Ali‘i Parkway, and then an archaeological preserve in this area here. So the applicant is currently requesting to amend Conditions B, J and V of their Change of Zone Ordinance, and Conditions 4 and 6 of their SMA Permit. And Conditions B and 4 are identical in both the Ordinance and the Permit. It required that final subdivision approval for the development be completed by May of 2014. The applicant is requesting a five-year time extension to those two Conditions. And then Conditions J and 6 required construction of drainage improvements prior to final subdivision approval. The applicant is requesting to provide a surety bond so that the subdivision approval can be granted, and then the drainage improvements will be constructed shortly after that. And lastly the applicant is requesting to amend Condition V of the rezone ordinance. Condition V required that their fair share 2 EXHIBIT B contribution for the subdivision be paid prior to final subdivision approval. The applicant is requesting to defer payment until each of the lots are sold rather than one payment at final subdivision approval. And those payments would be made through escrow to the County. These are some site photos of the property. This is from Ali‘i Drive looking mauka, and this is along Ali‘i Drive; the image on the left is looking north towards downtown Kailua and the image on the right is looking south towards Keauhou, so the property is located here and here. The Planning Director is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Council to amend Conditions B and J; that was for the request to, for the time extension to secure subdivision approval and to bond the drainage improvements. But the Director is also recommending an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded for the request to amend Condition V, which was to change the fair share payment. And then for the SMA Permit, the Director recommends approval of the amendment to Conditions 4 and 6. And I just wanted to go into some of the reasons the Director is recommending an unfavorable recommendation for Condition V. We did consult with the Department of Finance to talk about the applicant’s request. And some of the concerns both the Planning Department and Finance Department had was that the request wouldn’t be fair and equitable because it defers the payment to the close of sale for each lot. Currently other developers that have received Change of Zone Ordinances, they have conditions that require that they pay at final subdivision approval; so this would change that, that system of payment. The request would also not be consistent with how the County currently collects fair share payments. If the request is approved, the Planning and Finance Departments would need to administer two systems of fair share payment, which would logistically be difficult and may increase the potential for audit issues because it would be difficult to track which lots have or have not sold. And lastly, the current fair share payment program is the most fair and efficient way for the County to collect these payments. Approval of the request would cost the County more money to administer, but since the fair share payment amount would not increase, there would be no benefit to the County and its taxpayers who staff the positions to monitor and track the system. So with that, that concludes my presentation. Are there any questions? KAHOLO: Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any questions for — CHURCH: Yes. I have a couple of questions over here, Collin. KAHOLO: Okay. CHURCH: I didn’t see it in the recommendation the amount of time between final subdivision approval and the improvements for the drainage. JACKSON: In their application they mention that they would likely install the improvements within six months of receiving a new grading permit. CHURCH: Okay. So is that one of the conditions or? 3 EXHIBIT B JACKSON: No, it wouldn’t be a condition. Typically when they bond the drainage improvements, we enter into an agreement, the Planning Department and the developer, and often times the agreement specifies the time that they have to perform. CHURCH: Okay, so you’ll be reviewing that or you will see that. JACKSON: Yes. CHURCH: Okay, fine. The second thing is, what is the, has the amount for the fair share been determined for this project? JACKSON: The amount varies depending on when the fair share payment is made. So for example, let’s say a year from now they were to receive final subdivision approval, we would calculate the fair share payment based on the rates that are in your recommendation right now for the 58 lots, and the payment would be made all at once. If the condition were to be changed as the applicant is requesting, we would have to calculate fair share payments through the course of possibly, you know, two or three decades depending on how long it takes each lot to sell. CHURCH: Okay. Any estimate, though, any, just a, just a broad estimate of what it would be if it were all improved in one phase? Do you have any idea? I’m just interested. JACKSON: I can do the calculation, if you could just give me one minute. CHURCH: Sure. KAHOLO: Any more questions from the Commissioners? None. CARR SMITH: Chairman, I was wondering why the five-year extension wouldn’t begin from the 2014 date, which was when they, that was their previous date. So what happens between 2014 and 16? JACKSON: Yeah, so typically we just give them the additional time from the date that the action is taken to grant the amendment for time extension. That’s fairly standard with how we grant time extensions. If the Commission would want to do it differently, they have option to do that. CARR SMITH: Thank you. JACKSON: Commissioner Church, for your question, you would take the 58 lots and multiply that by the approximately 13,000-dollar fair share amount, so it would be 754,000 dollars. CHURCH: Okay, not an insignificant amount. JACKSON: No. 4 EXHIBIT B CHURCH: Yeah. KAHOLO: Any more questions? None? Thank you, staff. At this time I’d like to call up the applicant or its advisors. CARR: Good morning, Chair Kaholo. KAHOLO: Good morning. CARR: My name is Stanford Carr. KAHOLO: Let him take care of them first \[an individual organizing renderings for the applicant’s presentation\]. Will you raise your hand, please, right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission? CARR: I do. KAHOLO: Thank you. You may proceed. CARR: Aloha. Good morning. My name is Stanford Carr, president of Stanford Carr Development and managing member of SCD Ali‘i Palms. We are here before you today to request the proposed amendments to our Ordinance as well as SMA Permit. Ali‘i Palms will consist of 58 single-family detached homes off of Ali‘i Drive right below the future bypass, Ali‘i Bypass Road, and below Kahakai Estates, which is a neighborhood we developed 18 years ago. We have two different product types. In the interior of the neighborhood you’ll see the single-family detached that are alley-loaded, meaning there are no driveway cuts along the roadway; the homes are accessed via a back alley, which enables us to achieve much more superior streetscapes, looking at front yard the landscaping as well as architecture. This is a rendering here of a typical neighborhood street scene; again, we are here seeing front yard landscaping, a vernacular of architecture of contemporary plantation, seaside architecture and cottages. Just to further illustrate the renderings, three different architectural vernaculars with the use of various building materials to create a fabric of textures and colors within the neighborhood. Again, another rendering of the street scene with the traditional roadway, curb, parkway, with canopy tree plantings in order for a much more pedestrian-friendly neighborhood with shaded walkways, and then generous front yard setbacks for the front of the homes. So I’m here before you, thank you for the opportunity, to address any questions that the Commission may have. CHURCH: What do you say, if you did it today, what kind of price points would, what are the size of these units and what are the price points? CARR: There are three- and four-bedroom homes starting from 1,350 square feet to just under, just shy of 2,000 square feet. So we are looking at about the mid-500,000. 5 EXHIBIT B CHURCH: Wow, so, compact units, about 500,000 — CARR: Correct. CHURCH: — it’s in Residential Zoning. Would the CC&Rs prohibit any type of short term rental? CARR: Correct. This is a primary housing for residents. There is, CC&Rs will prohibit any vacation rentals or transit use. KAHOLO: Any more questions for the applicant? CARR SMITH: Chairman, I’m just curious. Is this a roadway in the front? CARR: Correct. Those are the —. CARR SMITH: So it is a vehicular pass-through, but it’s not going into any driveways, is that correct? CARR: No. What you are seeing there is front yard landscaping. The garages of these alley, carriageway homes are very similar to a community we built in Hawai‘i Kai called Peninsula. So all of the garages are loaded off of a back alley. It enables us to achieve not only visually superior streetscapes but it makes it much more, safer neighborhood without the driveway cuts along the roadway that can cause the friction between cars coming out and people walking or riding bikes within the neighborhood. CARR SMITH: Thank you. CARR: You’re welcome. KAHOLO: Okay. Thank you. CARR: Thank you. KAHOLO: Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak on behalf, on this applicant? None. PATEL: If I can, real quick, Mr. Carr, did you receive the Planning Department’s background and recommendation reports? CARR: Yes, sir. PATEL: So they are recommending an unfavorable recommendation as far as Condition V — AUDIENCE: We can’t hear you. \[Mr. Patel’s microphone was malfunctioning.\] 6 EXHIBIT B PATEL: Did you hear what I just — CARR: Yes. PATEL: Okay, so — CARR: It’s acceptable to us. PATEL: That’s acceptable to you. CARR: Yes, sir. PATEL: Okay. Thank you. CARR: Thank you. KAHOLO: Commissioners, can I have a motion? CHURCH: I’ll make a motion, Mr. Chairman. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application to amend Conditions B and J, and an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded with respect to Condition V, of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 04-56, REZ 1039 — KAHOLO: Commissioner Church — NOBRIGA: I second. KAHOLO: I’m sorry — CHURCH: — based upon the Planning Director’s recommendation, findings, and proposed conditions, which shall be adopted. Yes? KAHOLO: I apologize. CHURCH: Yeah. KAHOLO: At this time I’d like to close the hearing portion of the — SHIMAOKA: I so move. KAHOLO: Second? NOBRIGA: I second. 7 EXHIBIT B KAHOLO: Okay, moved by Shimaoka and seconded by Barbara Nobriga. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye \[unanimous\]. KAHOLO: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr. Church. CHURCH: Is it my time? Okay, let’s try it again. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application to amend Conditions B and J, and an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded with respect to Condition V, of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 04-56, REZ 1039, based on the Planning Director’s recommendation, findings and proposed conditions, which shall be adopted. NOBRIGA: I second. KAHOLO: Motion was made by Commissioner Church, seconded by Commissioner Nobriga. Can I have a vote on, oh, yes, is there any discussion? CARR SMITH: Excuse me, Chairman? I was unclear. Is there a recommendation as to what the concurrency would be? Or just that what the applicant asked for was — KAHOLO: The only recommendation is for Condition 4 and 6 — CARR SMITH: Okay, thank you. KAHOLO: In favor of, and Condition V unfavorable because of the request of fair share. So we are voting on two. JACKSON: May I ask a question, Chair? Was Commissioner Church’s motion just for the rezone, so it just addressed the rezone, to send a favorable recommendation for Conditions B and J and an unfavorable for Condition V? SHIMAOKA: Yeah. JACKSON: Thank you. CHURCH: A separate motion, okay, got it. KAHOLO: Yes, this motion is for Condition 4 and 6 \[sic\] in favor of the Planning Director’s recommendation? JACKSON: Okay, with that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Church? CHURCH: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Nobriga? 8 EXHIBIT B NOBRIGA: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: Aye. JACKSON: And Chair Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries, five-zero. KAHOLO: Okay. At this time I’d like to move on to Condition V \[sic\]. Is there any more discussion — SHIMAOKA: Yeah, this is to amend SMA 441. And so I move, I move that the application to amend Special Management Area Use Permit SMA 441, be approved based on the Planning Director’s recommendation, findings and proposed conditions, which shall be adopted. CHURCH: Second. KAHOLO: Any discussions? None? Staff? JACKSON: Okay, with that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Church? CHURCH: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. JACKSON: And, I’m sorry, Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. JACKSON: And Chair Kaholo? 9 EXHIBIT B KAHOLO: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion carries, five-zero. The discussion ended at 10:26 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 10 EXHIBIT B