Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-17 Leeward Exh B (AMEND SPP 07-000044) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 17, 2017 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of 1250 OCEANSIDE, LLC (FORMERLY 1250 OCEANSIDE PARTNERS) (AMEND SPP 07-000044) was called to order at 10:12 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Keith F. Unger presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Keith F. Unger, Nancy Carr Smith, Scott Church, Collin Kaholo, Perry Kealoha and Barbara Nobriga ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Sonny Shimaoka ALSO PRESENT: Malia Ho Hall (Counsel for the Commission), Michael Yee (Planning Director), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And two people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: 1250 OCEANSIDE, LLC (FORMERLY 1250 OCEANSIDE PARTNERS) (AMEND SPP 07-000044) Request to amend Special Permit No. 07-44, which allowed the conversion of an existing temporary golf shop to a temporary real estate sales center on approximately 10,000 square feet portion of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The applicant is requesting a one-year extension of time to comply with Condition No. 2 (convert existing golf shop to a temporary real estate sales center), removal of the 5-year time limit of Condition No. 3 (timing for use of temporary real estate office) and an increase in the square footage of the permit area from 10,000 square feet to 13,900 square feet. The property is located on Puōkūliʻu Ohau Place within the Club at Hʻa, Keʻekeʻe & Kanakau, South Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 8-1-004:085. UNGER: Item Number 2, Applicant 1250 Oceanside, LLC, formerly 1250 Oceanside Partners, amending Special Permit 07-000044: Request to amend Special Permit Number 07-44, which allowed the conversion of an existing temporary golf shop to a temporary real estate sales center on approximately 10,000 square feet portion of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The applicant is requesting a one-year extension of time to comply with Condition Number 2, convert existing golf shop to a temporary real estate sales office, removal of the five-year limit of Condition 3, timing for the use of the temporary real estate office, and an increase in the square footage of the permit area from 10,000 square feet to 13,900 square feet. The property is located on Pu‘u Ohau Place within the Club at Hōkūli‘a, Ke‘eke‘e and Kanakau, South Kona, Hawai‘i. TMK: 8-1-4: Parcel 85. Mr. Kay? KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Members of the Commission. So, as the Chair said, this is going to be an amendment of Special Permit 07-44. Applicant is 1250 Oceanside, LLC. The 1 EXHIBIT B subject parcel is located in the South Kona District of Hawai‘i Island, and is outlined here on the slide in black. The permit area, it’s a little difficult to see, but is outlined here in red. More specifically, the subject parcel is located in the Club at Hōkūli‘a. For reference, we’ve got Ali‘i Drive running generally north-south through the slide and access to the subject parcel is off of Pu‘u Ohau Place right at the head of the cul-de-sac. The applicant is requesting the following amendments to Special Permit 07-44, which allowed the conversion of an existing temporary golf pro shop to a temporary real estate sales center on approximately 10,000 square feet of land: They are requesting a one-year time extension to comply with Condition Number 2, conversion of the existing golf pro shop to a temporary real estate sales center; removal of the five-year time limit required under Condition 3, lifetime of the permit; and, an increase in square footage of the permit area from 10,000 square feet to 13,900 square feet. The reason for the requests are: Condition Number 2 of the existing Special Permit required that the applicant complete the conversion of the temporary golf pro shop to a temporary real estate sales center by September 21, 2008; the applicant was unable to meet this deadline due to lengthy litigation, reorganization and bankruptcy, which applicant emerged from in 2014. Condition Number 3 required termination of the temporary real estate sales center within five years from the date of the Final Plan approval based on applicant representations at the time that all lots would be sold within that five-year timeframe; based on the current market demand, the applicant anticipates lot sales will take place over the next 25 years; the applicant is requesting removal of the five-year permit lifespan and proposes that the temporary real estate sales center use be terminated upon the sale of the final lot in the development. The applicant is requesting a 3,900 square-foot increase in the permit area to accommodate aesthetic improvements to the project area. The zoning for the subject parcel and much of the surrounding area is Agricultural 1-acre. The State Land Use Designation for the area is Agricultural as indicated in green, with some Conservation indicated in blue makai of the subject parcel. Our General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designates much of the subject parcel, including the permit area, as Resort with the surrounding area being designated as Orchard and some Extensive Agriculture and Open makai of the subject parcel. The subject parcel is located in the Kona CDP planning area. It’s here filled in in red. As you notice, it’s outside of the Kona CDP, pardon me, the Kona Urban Area, and outside of the Rural TOD here to the east, and it is also not located within any concurrency zone. Here is an aerial photograph of the really the planning area, I didn’t get the whole subject parcel in, but as you can see, again, kind of running east-west here is Pu‘u Ohau Place that ends in a cul-de-sac. The permit area is located here in dashed yellow. As you can see, there is an existing pavilion here, parking areas, which you don’t see in this because this is an old aerial photograph. There is an existing administration building located roughly here. The temporary real estate sales center will be located roughly in this area. Here is the applicant’s submitted site plan. We’ve got, again, the head of Pu‘u Ohau Road, or Place, here at the head of the cul-de-sac. The structure will be located generally in the center of the permit area. The reason they are asking to expand the size of the permit area so they can have some, some additional esthetics and improvements, accent paving, a walkway and the like in the planning area. 2 EXHIBIT B Here’s a couple of photos of the project site. In 2017 the applicant received a final Plan Approval to move the existing golf pro shop to its current area. When they were granted the Special Permit originally in 2007 it was supposed to be converted in place where it was located before, but it has since been moved. So, this was the existing golf pro shop. They have done some construction based on the permission that they received under the Plan Approval. So, this is just showing what that is now. These were taken last week Wednesday. Here you’ll see a view of the permit area from the – oh, pardon me – the end of Pu‘u Ohau Place on the left-hand side and a closer view of the proposed temporary real estate sales center. And here is just a picture of Pu‘u Ohau Place looking mauka toward the highway. The Planning Director is recommending approval of the request, with conditions. Before I complete my presentation, there was one additional piece of correspondence that was handed out this morning; there was an email from Jason Knable at Carlsmith Ball just talking about some clarification of information on the preservation site, the burial site that is located adjacent to the permit area. And in the background and recommendation report it was noted as “Preservation Site S-15”; in fact, it should be “Preservation Site S-31.” This is in Page 5 of the background, Page 7 of the recommendation. With your permission, we’ll just make those changes to the record and to the reports before we send out an action letter. UNGER: That’s fine. KAY: Okay. And the one of their piece of information that I wanted to bring up is, if you take a look at Condition Number 2, this is a condition for timing of the conversion, the second para, pardon me, the second sentence currently reads, “Prior to construction, the applicant, successors or assigns shall secure Final Plan Approval,” etc.; because there is some construction activity that’s already taken place, we’d like to change that to “Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy” and so on. So, if that’s okay with the Commission, we would make those changes as well. UNGER: Okay. KAY: All right. With that, that completes my presentation. I’m happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. CHURCH: Uh — NOBRIGA: I have a question. CHURCH: I do, too, but — NOBRIGA: Oh, you go. CHURCH: — would you, go ahead, if you like. NOBRIGA: No, age before beauty. 3 EXHIBIT B CHURCH: Keeping the permit alive until the sale of the last lot seems an interesting end to it, because these kind of things, not thinking anything devious but having spent some time in real estate development, real estate sales and brokerage, you can step these things out forever, and there is, you could just leave the one lot available, you could be conducting sales activities and any number of other related products. And so, I would, I don’t think it’s too much trouble to come back and ask for renewal of a Special Permit after a certain period of time. That’s just my own feeling. So, I was interested in why you decided that the sale of the last lot was something, which was a little more, was certain enough. KAY: So, the idea is to avoid the applicant from having to come back every five, ten years to re-app that condition and ask for additional five years, additional five years. Again, when the permit was originally granted in 2007, the five years was based on representation from the applicant at the time; I suspect that if at the time the applicants represented a longer time period, we may have granted a longer time period. So, that’s the reason why really, I mean, if you have a suggestion on a time period that is not open-ended — CHURCH: I don’t want to suggest a change right now, but I would have thought that you could have said, hey, ten lots are left or some, I think there are 150 lots or something down there. And I’m not, five years, I agree with all that. I’m not trying to change something. I’m suggesting that the sale of the last lot is a highly uncertain time frame. KAY: Okay. UNGER: I thought about that also, because what I thought about basically a developer could just retain the last lot, not for sale. And so, essentially we did approve an open-ended permit. So, I mean, I would, and I thought about it, and the developer represented that they could sell these lots over 25 years, and I’m saying on or before 25 years or the sale of the last lot would be some language I would recommend, if we get there. KAY: Okay. UNGER: So, and we can, we can I guess work on that on a motion, if we get there. KAY: And certainly we can have the applicant or representative address that as well. UNGER: Yeah, right. Commissioner Nobriga, did you have a question? NOBRIGA: Yeah. This obviously is a real estate sales office that’s not open to the public. I’ve never heard of a real estate office that said “no walk-in trade.” And there are very off the beaten paths, so you’re always there catering to a very elitist group, if your sales are to invited guest only. It’s just, it’s strange to me that you have a real estate office that would operate under those restrictions. And, you know, that’s their call, but it’s just curious to me as to why they don’t open to the public, if you want to move your property. UNGER: Okay, and that’s something we can, the applicants will be up next, and we can certainly ask them. Any other questions of staff at this time? Thank you. 4 EXHIBIT B KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. UNGER: Applicant, would you like to come forward at this point? GARSON: Good morning, Chair Unger and Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Katherine Garson. I’m from Carlsmith Ball representing the applicant. To my right is Michael Vitousek. He is the manager of cultural resources. On the far right is Jason Knable. He is a paralegal in our office, but he also acts as a planner, too, so, he is a paralegal from Carlsmith Ball. UNGER: Great, thank you. Can you all please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? REPRESENTATIVES: I do. UNGER: Thank you. GARSON: So, wonderful presentation by Christian. We didn’t have anything additional to add. I guess, to respond to the question, the, about the, about the real estate sales office, it’s not, it’s not a general real estate sales office; it’s only meant for, to sell the properties in the development, so there’s no other properties that will be sold out of that office, just for the development. UNGER: Thank you. Commissioner Carr Smith, do you have a question? CARR SMITH: I do. I was wondering, so, the golf shop has already moved. GARSON: Pursuant to the Final Plan Approval in March, I believe, of 2017, correct. CARR SMITH: Okay. And then the temporary real estate office will take occupancy there in that building — GARSON: Take the, of that, in that building, correct. CARR SMITH: And then a new real estate office will be built on that permit area — GARSON: No. CARR SMITH: No? GARSON: No, it’s going to be contained in that building. We were asking for, it’ll be in this building, which is the, relocating — CARR SMITH: It’ll stay in the, in the old golf building — GARSON: — stay in the building, correct. 5 EXHIBIT B CARR SMITH: Then I was confused about the presentation from the Department then about that outlined area that you said this is where it will be built? KAY: So, this is the permit area, the site plan that was submitted to us. Where this structure here is the structure here. So, this was the old golf pro shop that was moved from its previous site between ththth the 17, 18 and 19 \[sic\] holes on the golf course to the current location. So, they just moved an existing structure to this place. CARR SMITH: Okay, it’s not the golf shop that is right there near the pavilion or has been in the years past. I haven’t been there for a couple of years. VITOUSEK: No, this is the one that was across the parking lot for a little while, when you go in and the pro shop was on the south side of the parking lot. That got moved in 2017 just recently, and so that’s why it didn’t show up on his aerial photo. CARR SMITH: Oh, okay, yeah, it wasn’t on the aerial, that’s what I was confused about. VITOUSEK: Yeah, exactly. CARR SMITH: Okay, all right, thank you. CHURCH: How many lots are unsold right now? VITOUSEK: I think there’s about 77 in Phase One and then there are remaining 100 and something in Phase Two, and then again another 100 or so in Phase Three. CHURCH: Okay, Phase Two and Phase Three have not been approved yet? VITOUSEK: Phase Two has been subdivided but the infrastructure is not in place yet. CHURCH: Okay. Question I have is, it’s taken a long time to get where it is right now, and I know it’s still a troubled project in the real estate market. But what’s wrong with ten years or 15? I mean 25 years is a, is a long time. What’s wrong, why didn’t you make application for a shorter period of time? GARSON: To avoid having to go through this, no, sorry, I don’t mean to be lay. But basically, so, for in April, I believe, of 2017, final, the subdivision was actually registered with the DCCA again and the federals, pursuant to federal guidelines. So, right now they have, they have the ability to sell 100 and – was it 59? – 159 lots in both Phase One and Phase Two. And so, we are really looking, we are ready to market those, and so it was really about the timeframe for selling those that were ready to sell now. You know, market, as the original permit had asked for five, you know, you really don’t know how long it’s going to take, and in our application we anticipated 25, 25 years for that process. UNGER: Any other questions? Thank you. You may be seated. Yeah, one more, one more question. Have you read the recommendation from the Planning Department, complete with the conditions, and do you agree with the conditions? 6 EXHIBIT B GARSON: Yes, and yes. UNGER: Thank you. Are there any members of the public here to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none, I need a motion to close public hearing. NOBRIGA: I so move. KAHOLO: Second. UNGER: Motion by Commissioner Nobriga, second by Commissioner Kaholo. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. UNGER: Oppose? \[None.\] Motion carries. Public hearing testimony is closed. I would ask for a motion. CARR SMITH: Chair Unger, I’d like to make a motion to approve, the application to amend Special Permit 07-44 be approved based on the Planning Director’s findings, recommendation and proposed amended conditions, which includes the two items that the Department had discussed in their presentation, and which shall be adopted. KEALOHA: Second. UNGER: We have a motion by Commissioner Carr Smith, second by Commissioner Kealoha. The floor is open for discussion. Christian, can you, since the motion is part of your changes that you made, can you please review those for us so we can add them officially to the motion? KAY: Sure. The changes, the first change to be made is just a change in the background and recommendation report where it reads “SIHP 21837,” pardon me, where it reads “Preservation Site S-15” should actually read “S-31,” and that’s just a matter of changing the record for clarity. And then in terms of the actual condition itself, there is a change to Condition Number 2, second sentence; that should read, “Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant, successors or assigns shall,” etc. UNGER: Great. Would you like to rephrase your motion? CARR SMITH: Sure. Tell me exactly where the — KAY: Sure, the changes for the, the archaeological site are on Page 5 in the background and Page 7 in the recommendation. Page 7 in the recommendation right above number, pardon me, about five lines down, six lines down. CARR SMITH: And that’s changed from 21837 to? KAY: Pardon me, it should read instead of “S-15,” it should read “S-31.” 7 EXHIBIT B CARR SMITH: All right. So, I would amend the motion to read I move that the application to amend Special Permit 07-44 be approved based on the Planning Director’s findings, recommendation and proposed conditions, including the change of the Preservation Site from “S-15” to “S-31” and a change in Condition 2 to read, “Prior to construction,” it’s “Prior to issuance of occupancy, the applicant … shall secure Final Plan Approval …. KAY: Pardon me, it should be “issuance of certificate of occupancy.” CARR SMITH: Okay. KAY: Yeah. UNGER: Do I have a second? NOBRIGA: Second. UNGER: Open for discussion. CHURCH: Yeah, hate to sound a little bit negative, but I still think that 25 years is too long. I mean even ten years or so, having gone through the process myself, if there are not really major issues, then the cost to make application for extension and the time required, it’s not gigantic. If there are issues, then it would be useful to come before the Commission again and have those issues addressed. So, I just, my personal opinion is 25 years is a long time for a Special Permit to be issued for such a use. UNGER: To clarify, there is no 25-year time limit right now; there is no time limit. So, part of the motion, if that’s — CHURCH: I’m sorry, to wait till the last lot is sold — UNGER: Okay. CHURCH: — is to me too indefinite. UNGER: Since you are, since this is your point, why don’t you amend the motion to put a timeframe out there? And that way we can discuss it, then — CHURCH: Well, I would recommend ten years. UNGER: Okay. So, let’s open for discussion. I mean it is kind of moot to a certain extent. I agree, though, I mean, essentially we would be approving an open-ended use permit, so I definitely agree on the timeframe. I was throwing out 25 years. We have ten years here. Any other, I would like to put a time limit on it, though. 8 EXHIBIT B CARR SMITH: I’m a real estate broker. I understand how these things drag on. Based on absorption rate I’m sure you must have done some sort of calculations. To me it makes complete sense to make it until the last lot is sold. UNGER: Okay. I will propose a 15-year, I will propose language for discussion, and it would, if you look at Condition 3, it would read, “Use of the temporary structure as a real estate \[sales\] center shall terminate after all lots within the development are sold, or after 15 years from the effective date of this permit, whichever occurs first.” So, I’m just throwing that time out. It’s a — CHURCH: I would support that. I’m a real estate broker, too, and a developer. I think 15 years is fine. KEALOHA: Yeah, also uncomfortable with the indefinite nature as well, and 15 years sounds reasonable to revisit. UNGER: Commissioner Carr Smith, I hate to load this on your plate again, but we need another motion, with the, with the last condition to include this, if you could remake your motion with that last condition. CARR SMITH: Malia, is that right? I mean, because — HALL: If you don’t agree with it, you don’t have to amend your motion — CARR SMITH: Right, that’s what I thought. HALL: Somebody else can make a motion, yeah. UNGER: Okay, and if you don’t want, so, if you are, so, we would — CARR SMITH: That can be somebody else’s motion. UNGER: Okay. So, we do have a motion on the, actually, we have a motion on the table. It’s been seconded, so we do need to vote on that first. And so, if it passes, then it is as stated, and if it doesn’t, then we can re-motion. So, roll call? KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Church? CHURCH: Nay. 9 EXHIBIT B KAY: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Nay. KAY: And Commissioner Kealoha? KEALOHA: Nay. KAY: And Chair Unger? UNGER: Nay. KAY: Okay, motion fails, four to two. UNGER: Do we have another motion? CHURCH: I don’t have the original motion in front of me, but the original motion would be to amend Condition Number, my motion would be to amend Condition Number 2, is that what it is? KAY: Condition Number 3. UNGER: Condition Number 3. CHURCH: Okay, so, my motion would be to amend Condition Number 3 to stipulate that, to specify that there be a 15-year time limit. UNGER: Let me go ahead and — CHURCH: Restate it? UNGER: Yeah, let me try this. Why don’t we, can we go ahead and verbatim the first motion? And then all I would like to do is add and also subject to, “Use of the temporary structure as a real estate center shall terminate after all lots within the development are sold or after 15 years from the effective date of the permit, whichever shall occur first.” CHURCH: Good. KAY: So, is that your clarification on Mr. Church’s, Commissioner Church’s — UNGER: Yes. KAY: Okay. Oh, do you like — CARR SMITH: Can that be repeated, please? 10 EXHIBIT B UNGER: The condition, too? KAY: Sure. It was Condition Number 3. The language will now read, “Use of the temporary structure as a real estate sales center shall terminate after all lots within the development are sold or after 15 years from the effective date of the permit, whichever shall occur first.” UNGER: Correct. CARR SMITH: Okay. UNGER: I need a second. CHURCH: Second. UNGER: We have a motion by myself and second by Commissioner Church. Roll call? KAY: Okay, one moment, please, Mr. Chair. Okay, Chair Unger? UNGER: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Church? CHURCH: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Kealoha? KEALOHA: Aye. KAY: And Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. KAY: Okay, thank you, motion carries, pardon me, six-nothing. UNGER: Great. Thank you. Applicants, you’ll be notified in writing by the Planning Commission. Thank you. The discussion ended at 10:42 a.m. 11 EXHIBIT B \[The Commission proceeded to the next agenda item; however, at 10:44 a.m. the following clarification was made at the request of the applicant’s representatives.\] KAY: I don’t know if this is appropriate right now, since we’ve already voted on it, but the applicant’s representative just wanted to clarify, “15 years from the amended permit.” I don’t think that language was in there. UNGER: Yes, it was. KAY: Oh, it was, okay. UNGER: I believe it was, but we’ll make — KAY: But, okay, we can add that. UNGER: Yeah, it is from the amended permit. The discussion ended at 10:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 12 EXHIBIT B