Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-18 tkapoho PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 18, 2003 A regularly advertised hearing on the application KAPOHO PROPERTIES (REZ 728)was called to order at 11:03 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom Î Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii with First Vice-Chairperson Earl Fujikawa presiding. PRESENT:Earl FujikawaABSENT & EXCUSED:Fred Galdones William GrahamBill Thibadeau Florence Kubota Jeffrey McCall Aurelio Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Chris Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 13 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: KAPOHO PROPERTIES (REZ 728) Request to amend conditions B (deadline to secure Final Subdivision), C (intersection improvement requirements) and D (Access and roadway requirements) of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 97-65, which rezoned a 45.9-acre area from an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) to an Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) zoned district. The property is located along the north side State Highway 11, between Huina Road and South Road, and across from the Keaau Service Station, Olaa, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-7-17:3. FUJIKAWA:Application No. 5, that will be the Kapoho PropertiesÓ request to amend conditions B (deadline to secure Final Subdivision), C (intersection improvement requirements) and D (Access and roadway requirements) of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 97-65, which rezoned a 45.9-acre area from an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) to an Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) zoned district. Staff? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, to the presentation map, first of all the overall site or location map, the subject property is indicated with this blue dot. It is this green-shaded areas situated mauka of Highway 11. This, again, would be towards Keaau and this would be towards Mountain View direction. 1 The application that we previously heard is indicated in this red dot here, which is the Keaau Service Station rezoning and State Land Boundary Amendment. Huina Road is located in this general direction; and the South Road is located on the other opposite side, or Hilo side, or Keaau side of the subject property. The Applicant is requesting that certain conditions be amended. First of all, Condition B, which basically states that certain lots shall not have direct access frontage from the Highway 11. Since the configuration of these lots may change, the Applicant is requesting that those referenced lot numbers be deleted and just basically stating that no direct access will be provided along Highway 11. Also, as part of Condition B, the Applicant is requesting that Final Subdivision Approval be, the time to receive Final Subdivision Approval be extended for another five years from the date that the amendment is approved. Condition C, the Applicant is requesting that certain -. First of all, the proposed ordinance states that access shall be from South Road. South Road is a gravel road which has a right-of-way width of 20 feet. No access is allowed under the current ordinance from Huina Road. The Applicant, in both Conditions C and D, is requesting that they be allowed to use Huina Road as the access to the subdivision instead of the South Road roadway. And the basic reason for that is that improvements will be made at this intersection of Huina Road and Highway 11 by the State Department of Transportation. The Applicant is proposing these, that they be allowed to use Huina Road and, also, as part of the highway improvement that they would contribute their pro rata share for the improvement of a traffic signal at the Huina Road-Highway 11 intersection. And, basically, the pro rata share would be 50 percent if Keaau Service Station is also required to provide their fair share or pro rata share. We are supporting the ApplicantÓs request with certain modifications, as you will note in the proposed conditions that were presented to you by the staff or by the Planning Director. One of the conditions, and that is Condition C, basically talks about the construction or installation of the traffic signalization at the Huina Road-Highway 11 intersection, that the Applicant would construct or pay for its pro rata share - pro rata share, again, would be basically defined as 50 percent, up to 50 percent of the cost of the development of the signalization - and, also, to say that the Applicant has the option of working with surrounding property owners who intend to develop properties in that area to help with the cost for the development of that traffic signal. Condition D basically states that access would be allowed from Huina Road and that Huina Road would have to be constructed to County dedicable standards from the subdivision access point, wherever that is, to State Highway 11. In other words, if the access point for this subdivision would be in this general location, then the Applicant would be required to construct improvements to Huina Road up until the State Highway to dedicable standards meeting with the approval of Department of Public Works. 2 Basically, those are the conditions that were proposed for amendment. Are there any questions? FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners? None? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Norman, this question is a little bit out on left field maybe but itÓs part of your recommendation, right, so I thought itÓs probably the most appropriate time. With regard to the prior ordinance, the 1997 ordinance, and the fact that the conditions were not, you know, met on a timely manner and all, the staff re inability to comply is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen, and speaking of unfavorable economic conditions, and failure to -. Is this stuff that the Planning Department staff actually goes and investigates and says, yes, we are, you know, we agree, we can see that is in fact the case, or do you just sort of take the word of the Applicant as to why, in fact, he didnÓt comply with the prior conditions? HAYASHI:Well, generally, we do review the files as to the progress that the Applicant has made. In this particular case they have submitted a subdivision application, they had received tentative approval, they had -. And we do, yes, review the reasons why they say that they cannot meet those conditions. Obviously, we donÓt go in depth and check with the banks or, but these are the things that we look at as, in the review of the reasons for asking for the extension or amendment. GRAHAM:So this really does represent the conclusion of your research and feeling that this is the accurate reasons and that kind of stuff, and will always be so in such situations? HAYASHI:Well, whether thatÓs accurate or not we do, these are our reasons for recommending approval for the amendment to the conditions. GRAHAM:Okay. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Norman, what is the timeline that the Applicants is, are other than the five-year extension? How soon do they expect this project to go on or are you privy to that kind of information? Because if youÓre talking about five years, the traffic signalization could possibly go, be five years in the future. HAYASHI:We have not discussed that in detail with the ApplicantÓs representative. However, the reason why the Applicant is coming in now is that they know that the State will be doing the intersection improvement and they know that the State does not have the money to do the traffic signal. So what they want to do is have all of that done simultaneously with this highway intersection improvement by putting in the, I guess, the conduits, you know, at this time, so they donÓt have to break up the road again once the improvements are done. So they want to try and work with the contractor to make sure that those improvements are put in simultaneously. 3 As far as the timeline, as you will note that the subdivision application that was granted tentative approval shows that access is still off of South Road with no direct access off Huina Road. So if these proposed conditions are adopted by the County Council, by the Planning Commission and subsequently adopted by the County Council, then the Applicant would, again, have to redesign their subdivision layout, so that may take some time. So I would think that this is the reason theyÓre asking for a five-year extension to that particular Condition B. KUBOTA:May I continue? I guess my question was prompted by the fact that it seems that it is needed, it seems that the previous applicant is ready to go. It sounded to me that they were ready to go. I didnÓt foresee a five-year time span as a possibility, the outside limits being five years. And, yet, it says on this one it says that they will be responsible for construction, letÓs see, it says somewhere, with the DP, I forgot where I saw it, but Department of Public Works for Final Subdivision Approval, and then thatÓs when theyÓre obligated to have the signalization there. HAYASHI:Well, I think the, I guess the timing of the signal would be -. KUBOTA:Could be before? It could be a -? HAYASHI:Hopefully, it will before because they would be, well, trying to coordinate with the contractor, or the State hires, to put in the conduits and all that ahead of time. So the traffic signal could be made available prior to granting of Final Subdivision Approval. KUBOTA:Well, we are talking about five years as a possibility? HAYASHI:Well, that would be an outside in which they need to com that particular condition. FUJIKAWA:Sure. Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? If not, could we have the representative or the Applicant, please step forward? Can you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? MOORE:I do. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Please state your name and your address? MOORE:Yes, my name is William Moore, Bill Moore. My address is 159 Halai Street, H-a-l-a-i, Hilo, Hawaii. FUJIKAWA:You may proceed. 4 MOORE:Thank you very much. IÓd like to address a couple of questions. Just for the record, IÓd like to point out that IÓm representing this project. IÓm also one of the part owners of the property. The Managing Partner is Vern Yamanaka, whoÓs here today. So IÓm here in both capacity as part of this but also the representative, just to make it clear for the record. We have reviewed the conditions. Couple of concerns that we have about the existing language, one of which a suggested amendment. And I apologize, touch base on this, is that, clearly, we understand that the signals are needed now. The previous condition had a five-year time limit on development. I think theyÓre intending to move quicker. Their project can absolutely move quicker than the subdivision process can with the construction plans. And as part of some suggested or proposed amendments, IÓd like to offer one which would allow us some flexibility in that and, again, if acceptable. But IÓd like to go through some other conditions if I can first. Again, in general, we really appreciate the staff and then the coordination that has been going on this in moving this through. And we thought it was important that we be on the agenda as the prior action so that the two projects are talking to each other in coordinating on this. We understand the importance of this. The first condition, Condition B, I found out today that there is an existing driveway taking access from the property; and if we have a no-access limitation completely, then that driveway may be restricted. Norman is pointing to that location. So we would like to include an exception for that driveway access. That serves the existing parcel and not the property, so it serves the adjacent house. So itÓs just making sure that weÓre not hurting somebody else as an adjacent property. YUEN:Is that part of your rezoning, though? MOORE:No, it is not part of the rezoning. I mean, itÓs part of our rezoned area that theyÓre getting access over; and, again, we have no objections to that. But under the current conditions, they could not use that portion of the property. YUEN:I donÓt understand because if itÓs not part of this rezoning, then the condition doesnÓt affect it. MOORE:No, their access is over a part of this property, the driveway access. YUEN:Oh, I see. MOORE:So theyÓre actually, theyÓre accessing their driveway through this property. So we would like to add an exception for that driveway access to the no-access planting screen along Hawaii Belt Road frontage, except for that existing driveway access. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Just an add-on? 5 MOORE:Yes. The second revision that IÓd like to offer is in the next sentence. We have to submit our plans within one year. Right now, we have to secure Final Subdivision within five. What we would like is to add language which allows us to accelerate this process, is that ÐFinal Subdivision Approval or completion of the traffic signal improvements shall be secured within five years.Ñ And that allows us to aggressively go after the signal improvements and put those in first, even before we subdivide. But once we put those in, then we are sure that we can subdivide, weÓre not at risk on our zoning in the future after weÓve expended funds. So itÓs either reach Final Subdivision or we put in the signals. KUBOTA:Where are you, please? MOORE:IÓm sorry, this is the second sentence of Condition B. It ÐFinal Subdivision Approval shall be secured within five years from the effective date of the ordinance. KUBOTA:Okay. IÓm there now. Go back to what you were -. MOORE:Yes. Okay. What weÓd like to offer is an amendment that say that ÐFinal Subdivision Approval or completion of the traffic signal improvements shall be secured within five years.Ñ That allows us to move independently on the traffic signal to put those in ahead of time and then, again, be assured that we donÓt, our rezoning is not at risk, so it doesnÓt -. You know, once weÓve expended significant funds then our zoning is secured. But, again, what this means, and weÓre willing to do it, is to work with the previous developer on their signal, the timing of the signal, and accelerate that, and do it now. If we do that, again, we donÓt want to be at risk in five years when we come in for subdivision, if we havenÓt met the time condition, to lose our zoning after weÓve expended funds. So this just gives us that flexibility of putting the signals in; and based on that, then, weÓve secured our zoning, weÓve complied with our performance conditions. And this is new so I apologize. We just thought, in response to some of the concerns about timing, so weÓre just talking about this. And, again, the subdivision process, we have go through tentative, we have construction plans. Under the best of circumstances, thatÓs a couple of years process, normally. This way we can move aggressively on the signalization separate from the subdivision, which is the intent. I think, as Norman characterized it, that is the intent. If I may continue, or if there are any questions on that? FUJIKAWA:Any questions on this, Commissioners? Go ahead, Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:You said this way we can move aggressively on the, I mean without this change, you can certainly move aggressively anyway. Right? 6 MOORE:ThatÓs true, but weÓre also at risk. If we do put the signals in and we donÓt get Final Subdivision in five years, itÓs possible that our zoning could be taken away with expended resources and wonÓt have the rights to develop under the zoning. So thatÓs the security that we would like in order to accelerate the traffic signal. GRAHAM:I guess itÓs, in regard to that second part of the zoning, it makes it feel like much more of a land speculation project if youÓre not even planning to have your subdivision done within five years. MOORE:Well, weÓre planning to it, yeah. GRAHAM:YouÓre not committing to it, letÓs say. MOORE:WeÓre planning to it, or weÓre hoping. I mean, we still have the condition we need to provide our subdivision plans within one year. ItÓs just that if we do end up expending significant amount of funds that we have performed and, then we can move through the subdivision on track with the market conditions and just being responsive to the market at that point. GRAHAM:In other words, you can move through the subdivision at any point in the future. Once youÓve started, secured, youÓve kind of gotten rid of all time constraints by doing the traffic signal. MOORE:By performing the traffic, that would be what the condition would allow, yes. GRAHAM:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:But, Mr. Moore, youÓre suggesting that that final sentence read Ðeither or,Ñ is that correct? MOORE:Yes, the ÐFinal Subdivision or completion.Ñ ÒCause, clearly, to get Final Subdivision now, we have to have the signal improvements in. We canÓt get Final Subdivision without the signal improvements. But under this way, we can put the signals in and have performed, and then our subdivision process can move separate from the traffic signal. Otherwise, there isnÓt a lot of incentive for us to do the traffic signals in advance Òcause, again, it is money out-of-pocket without any income coming back in. So it just helps provide some security to advance some resources. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other question, Commissioners? You may pr Mr. Moore. 7 MOORE:On Condition D, weÓre suggesting that the second sentence deleted, ÐAccess shall not be permitted directly onto the Hawaii Road.Ñ The second sentence of Condition B covers Hawaii Belt Road in terms of the access restrictions, the no-access planting easement. And the second to the last sentence or third to the last sentence of Condition D covers Huina Road. If you look at the bottom of the page, none of the proposed lots shall have direct access from Huina Road. So we believe this second sentence is redundant. And if we donÓt delete it, then we need to revise the Hawaii Belt Road section to bring it in conformance with the other one where we talked about that except access. But for that, I wouldnÓt bother with it. But we have to make changes two places, or else we need to delete this. FUJIKAWA:Director? YUEN:Could you say again Òcause I didnÓt catch that. MOORE:The second, in Condition B, weÓre required to provide no-planting access easements on Hawaii Belt Road. That, effectively, is a no-access restriction. The bottom of Condition D, the last partial line on page 3, provides that we cannot access off Huina Road. And, so, the two different sections cover this and we feel that this is redundant. Again, redundancy is okay except if we donÓt delete this, then we need to amend this sentence to include the inception for the driveway ac Road. So I think it just makes it more complex to keep it. YUEN:So you want the condition only to be in D? MOORE:No, the Hawaii Belt Road condition would be in B and the Huina Road would be in D. KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman? IÓm getting the BÓs and the DÓs mixed up. IÓm hearing, my hearing isnÓt as acute as it used to be before. So, Mr. Moore, if you can tell me B as in Boy, D as in Dog -. MOORE:Absolutely, I apologize. KUBOTA:I will be able to follow you better. MOORE:Yes. KUBOTA:Thank you. MOORE:Okay. So Condition B as in Boy, the second sentence provi that ÐPlans shall indicate a no-planting access screen easement along Hawaii Belt Road 8 frontage,Ñ and weÓve added in, hopefully, Ðexcept for the existing driveway access.Ñ And that restricts us from getting access to the Hawaii Belt Road. That condition in B as in Boy will restrict the project from taking access. When we go to Condition D as in Dog, the second sentence also restricts us from getting access from the Hawaii Belt Road and Huina Road. But weÓve alre access from Hawaii Belt Road in the prior condition. And later in the condition in D, the bottom of page 3, it reads that ÐNone of the proposed lotsÑ itÓs underlined, Ðshall have direct access from Huina Road.Ñ So, in that, weÓve taken care of the access from Huina. And, so, the suggestion is we delete the sentence in D as in Dog, or we need to amend it to provide for the access, no-access, directly from Hawaii Belt Road except for -. So I felt the exception is more difficult than the deletion. But, either way, we just need to make sure that things are not inconsistent here. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners or the Planning Director have any questions? YUEN:I understand what heÓs trying to do and that sounds fine to me. HAYASHI:Mr. Director, I think the better alternative would be just to delete the second sentence in the Condition B regarding ÐThe plans shall indicate a no-planting accessÑ and then just keep the wording in Condition D which stat be permitted directly onto the Hawaii Belt Road with the excepti existing driveway.Ñ That way weÓll have all of the restrictions of no-access in this particular Condition D. MOORE:ThatÓs fine. YUEN:Either way works. ThatÓs D as in Dog. I would suggest som a little more specific though, just so weÓre absolutely clear that itÓd say that Ðexcept for the existing driveway access serving -,Ñ and then we put the TMK presently served only. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions from the Commissioners? Go ahead, Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Bill, could you indicate where this other parcel is that that driveway access serves? MOORE:ItÓs immediately to the Hilo side of that little finger coming down. GRAHAM:ItÓs right adjacent to the highway there? MOORE:Yes. GRAHAM:Thank you. 9 FUJIKAWA:Commissioner, understand that? GRAHAM:Yes. FUJIKAWA:Okay, you may proceed. MOORE:Okay. The last concern I have about the language is the improvements, the County dedicable standards fronting the road. We wanted to be clear that fronting the road relates to the side of the property that the project is on, and not both sides of property as we come up. The second is that we have a concern about bringing the improvements up from Hawaii Belt Road. That would require improving properties that we do not own. If weÓre bringing it to dedicable standards, we need to bring that up to the edge of the right-of- way. There are two driveways coming down and it would require, the improvements that the County would require would require us to go into those properties. And we donÓt have the power of condemnation or the like so it would be -. FUJIKAWA:You donÓt own those properties? MOORE:We donÓt own those properties. So we donÓt have any probl improving the portion of the properties fronting our lands, thatÓs the lands that are involved in the zoning. But it is difficult to do the improvements Òcause, again, they will require at least some driveway or grading into the adjacent properties. So we would suggest language that would just restrict the improvements or limit the improvements to those portions fronting the property. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Limit -. MOORE:For the record, Huina was recently repaved. So it is, again, it is, the pavement itself has been done and I have some pictures of it, yeah. It has been recently repaved and, again, the shoulders are not standard. And, so, we understand what the improvements are that we are looking. We still need to, engineer that and look at the costs; but, again, weÓre willing to do it. The portions that we own weÓre willing to do improvements within -. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Planning Director, you have a question? YUEN:Yeah, I have a question. Do you know exactly what improvem these mean? And we have Kelly Gomes from DPW in case we donÓt. MOORE:Yeah, IÓve talked to Kelly. ThereÓs a standard detail in terms of the grading or the pavement. It is swales that go from right-of-way edge, so from the center line to the right-of-way edge. So we would have to improve fully to the right-of- way edge under these standard details. 10 YUEN:How far is that from the current edge of pavement? MOORE:I donÓt know. I did not take specific measurements. My belief in just looking up there is at the pavement section, the half, so itÓs a 25-foot section. The pavement I believe is 10 feet, itÓs 10 or 11 feet, and about, approximately a four-foot shoulder. So 14 to 15 feet of that 25-foot half section in front of us has been paved. So thereÓs another 10 feet, 9 to 10 feet, depending on the improvements required. YUEN:So weÓre looking at the paved shoulder and swale of another 10 feet -? MOORE:ThatÓs right. ThatÓs my understanding. YUEN:On one side? MOORE:Yes, thatÓs my understanding of what the requirements are. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other question from the Commissioners? MOORE:Again, these suggested language in D as in Dog would be the one, two, three, four, fifth line down from D, beginning in ÐThat portion,Ñ and it would be ÐThat portion of Huina Road fronting the property shall be improved to County dedicable standards,Ñ delete Ðfrom the Belt Highway to the subdivision entrance road.Ñ FUJIKAWA:Okay. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I can wait until BillÓs finished. Are you still working on this stuff? MOORE:Yes, thatÓs all of the suggested changes or proposed changes that we have. FUJIKAWA:Staff, you have it recorded? MOORE:Well, I think itÓs more, where you guys go. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:No, I was just, I noticed in your letter to Chris Yuen, dated June 1st, and youÓre speaking of the succession of the events and an extension was or a th request was granted April 14, IÓm on the bottom of page No. 2. And it said you Ðworked diligently to secure financing, etc. with an agreement with Hawaii Community Development Corporation but the self-help housing project was not pursued because of community opposition.Ñ I wonder if youÓd just explain more about what the community feeling is and what the nature of the opposition has been? 11 MOORE:I think the community opposition was, I think, both a sense of the, this is a low-income housing project, less than 80 percent media concerns about how this type of project would change this community. So there was a concern about density and about character both, in terms of bringing it into this area. So there were concerns raised and it required an action either a Change of Zone or an action by the County Council to allow, Òcause these would have been 10,000-square foot lots in this area. So it wouldnÓt have been down to one-acre lots, it would have been an increase in density there. So it was on both levels, the increase in density and just the change in character of that community. GRAHAM:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other question from the Commission? Planning Director? None? YUEN:None. TORIGOE:Let me clarify something. FUJIKAWA:Okay, Corp. Counsel Torigoe. Go ahead. TORIGOE:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to clarify before we leave Huina Road, Mr. Moore, youÓre suggesting that fronting the property sentence, the fifth sentence down on Condition D for Dog, youÓre saying it would read, ÐThat portion of Huina Road fronting the property shall be improved to County dedicable standards.Ñ Is that all that youÓre saying? MOORE:Well, I was suggesting to leave Ðto the subdivision entrance road,Ñ if thatÓs acceptable. TORIGOE:It still doesnÓt say, though -. Basically, when youÓre talking about ÐImproving it to County dedicable standards,Ñ itÓs really from or toward the Belt Highway from the subdivision entrance road? Is that what youÓre saying? MOORE:ThatÓs right. ThatÓs accurate. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, may I make one comment to that? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. HAYASHI:I just wanted to explain that, again, this is the inters Highway 11. These two lots do not belong to the Applicant. So, technically, the frontage of the property on Huina Road starts from here and ends at this location here. So, if the Applicant decides to put a road there, access to Huina Road right at this location here, 12 then there wonÓt, itÓs my understanding, as suggested by Mr. Moore, that no improvements will be made to Huina Road to dedicable standards, if thatÓs where the location of the driveway, I mean, the access to the subdivision would be. MOORE:And I can assure you thatÓs not what is being proposed, wi proposed or was proposed in the initial development. So, but I would not argue with that. ThatÓs a possibility. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions, Commissioners? If not, we have two people signed up to testify from the public. You may come forward, Charlie and Cheryl. Charles, youÓve been sworn in. And, Cheryl, how do you pronounc AHEONG:Aheong. FUJIKAWA:Aheong. Okay. You want to raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth on this matter before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? AHEONG:Yes. FUJIKAWA:State your name and your address, please? AHEONG:Cheryl Aheong, 17-318 Volcano Road, Kurtistown. FUJIKAWA:Okay. You may proceed. AHEONG:I believe the property that Mr. Moore was talking about that accesses the highway is mine. We purchased an older home -. FUJIKAWA:Please speak into the mike, please? AHEIONG:We purchased an older home there, a 60-year old home tha accesses the Old Plantation Road as a driveway. So when they, w property, thatÓs how we get in and out of our property. There is no access to the highway directly from my lot. There is no permanent easement there. So I was told by them there would be no access by us to use that driveway because there would be a residential lot put in the place. But what IÓm requesting is that, you know, being that the change, they did request that you allow the access of our house, that a legal easement be put in place. FUJIKAWA:Director, you have a comment on this testifier? YUEN:I think what, putting together what Bill Moore said a little while ago and what you just said is that your driveway is actually not on your property, itÓs on their property. AHEONG:Yeah, our garage has a short driveway that accesses that gets onto the highway from there. 13 YUEN:Yes, and then you donÓt have an actual easement. You infor use it over the years. AHEONG:Yeah, because there was a road before. When the man buil home, that was a road to the plantation, yeah, back there, the sugar cane. YUEN:Yes. My comment on this would be that the Applicant has ma request that would allow that use to continue. But itÓs between you and them as to whether they give you an, whether they actually give you a formal easement, we should not interfere. The Planning Commission should not put that in as a condition that they give somebody an easement that they donÓt have. If theyÓre willing to do that, thatÓs all well and good and nice; and the condition of zone would permit that driveway to remain. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Moore, you may step forward. MOORE:Just for the record, talking with the -. FUJIKAWA:Use the mike. MOORE:And, again, I appreciate, Chris, that it not be a conditio approval. I agree with you that itÓs not appropriate. At the same time, weÓre more than willing to work out the, a permanent easement. The one thing that we cannot guarantee is the access. They need to make sure that they coordinate with State Highways, that there is an existing driveway there. We canÓt guarantee that. But to give the access over the property to theirs, absolutely no objections to that, and thatÓs part of the reason that we ask for that exception. So we can work with you separately on t FUJIKAWA:So, Cheryl, you understand that? AHEONG:Yeah. FUJIKAWA:Okay. You have any other comments, statement? AHEONG:No, other than that, no. FUJIKAWA:Chris, you have any -? YUEN:I just have a question. ThereÓs a row of houses that all have driveways? AHIONG:Most of the houses have driveways right on to the highway. YUEN:Right on to the highway, yeah. And do you know, Bill, do y know if this is an approved access point for the property in question? 14 MOORE:You know, I donÓt know. What I do know is that the access, that the legal access restrictions on the Belt Highway I think stop lower, so itÓs more by policy that, I donÓt think they have the actual bubbles where they have bought the access rights. At the same time, DOT like, you know, canÓt landlock so believe that she would have a right and that needs to get worked out. But I donÓt believe that they have legal access restrictions on this. I believe it is by policy. But I have not checked the actual DOT rights-of-way in this section of the highway. YUEN:Okay. I think then we can leave it as described and then this testifier needs to work on securing a driveway permit if there is not one from the Department of Transportation. Just as a matter of commenting on the big picture, the driveways onto the Volcano Highway are going to be a long-term problem. TheyÓre part of the bottleneck in, that exists in South Kona, the Mamalahoa Highway especially because you just have driveways coming out of the highway every which way. Had this been the one driveway, you know, long stretch of the highway, I might have tried to work toward a condition where they would get an easement and go to the subdivision road eventually rather than come off onto the highway. But there being a row of houses that are there that all have driveways, there is very little point in trying to accomplish, they would not really accomplish anything. I just want to mention this as something as a long-term issue that you ought to keep, that we keep in the back of our minds when we look at rezonings and that the Commission ought to, that when we look at rezonings now, we are trying to have access restrictions to the major highways so that you donÓt have subdivisions that have multiple driveways coming into the major roads, and rather they would come off onto a feeder road like Huina Road in this situation rather than directly to a highway. FUJIKAWA: Is there any other question from the Commissioners of the DirectorÓs -. Go ahead, Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Yeah, before going into the formal move, I would like to and revisit Condition D as in Dog, that portion that relates to the deletion of improvements to County dedicable standards from, and the suggestion by Mr. Moore that we delete the phrase Ðfrom the Belt Highway.Ñ IÓm not too sure that I want to delete that. If the intent of the subdivider is not to put the access on Huin to Highway 11, then having that phrase there ought not to create too much of a hardship. Or what is your intent, what is your motive in moving that out, that phrase out, Bill, Ðfrom the Belt Highway to the subdivision entrance road?Ñ I mean, what was your intent in deleting that so that you would not have to bring it up to County dedicable standards on those two properties that are on the corner of your subdivision or -? MOORE:Yes, that is the intent. IÓm happy to address this. I may want to continue with the public testimony and then come back to -. KUBOTA:Oh, okay. 15 MOORE:Yeah, so IÓll be happy to address that question. KUBOTA:Well, do we have more public testimony? MOORE:Yes. KUBOTA:Oh, IÓm sorry, IÓm sorry. I thought we were done. CRITTENDEN:I just had a few questions. FUJIKAWA:I guess we have another testifier. Charlie, go ahead? CRITTENDEN:Yeah, I just want to ask a few questions. IÓm directly across the street from the subdivision and itÓs actually, itÓs about 10- to 12-foot like cliff there. Is that still going to be there or you guys going downgrade that to building the subdivision? ÒCause we have a lot of water flow coming already; and if we cut into that mountain itÓs going to create a flow going right straight through my property. MOORE:The intent is to, not to take down those cliffs. And whatever we do we need to do a full-on, as part of the grading, we need to do a drainage study. We have to show that weÓre not going to, prove to the County that weÓre not changing the drainage-ways and impacting adjacent properties. But the intent is to not take down those bluffs. CRITTENDEN:Okay, so they pretty much stay. And theyÓre building then? MOORE:Yeah. CRITTENDEN:Okay. And then, who would be responsible for these last two lots on the corner? ÒCause theyÓre going to do from their property line all the way back. So these first two lots right there in the front, one of my neighbors over here owns that lot on the corner and the lot right behind them. Is that going to just stay undeveloped, or are they going to have to pay for that, or when do they do the road improvements, are they going to, the Department of Transportation will take care of those two lots in the front there? MOORE:I canÓt speak to what the County or the State has done. I do have pictures of this intersection, if I can pass them around. What theyÓll show is the Huina Road intersection with the Hawaii Belt Road, and youÓll be able to see the homes and driveways on the right side. It also shows you the level of pavement already there. FUJIKAWA:I guess in answering your question, Charlie, Planning Director Chris Yuen on his testifying right now, question, can you answer that? Who handles the two lots there? 16 YUEN:Well, my question would be, how much is there between the existing edge of pavement and the end of the CountyÓs right-of-way in those two corner lots? MOORE:I would guess, again, just based on the right-of-way width and the like, we havenÓt done a survey, but if youÓll see in the picture youÓll see an electric pole, and generally those are in the right-of-way. So everything, definitely everything towards the road from that right-of-way or from the lines would be part of the County right-of- way there. I do know that the improvements, whatever improvements are required for the turning lanes will be paid for by the State DOT, so thereÓs no cost to the landowners. The road was recently repaved. Again, that was in the right-of-way, that was done at the, using property taxes. So, generally, any improvements were not the responsibility of any individual lot owner. Again, weÓre different because weÓre comi so, we would have certain responsibilities. But that has been the general practice and process. And, again, you know, generally, the individuals are not required to pay for improvements in front of their houses. CRITTENDEN:And you said instead of 10,000 square feet, youÓre go one-acre zoning? MOORE:Well, the 10,000 square feet was a specific proposal for a self-help housing project and that was, that did not proceed -. CRITTENDEN:And thatÓs the low-income housing? MOORE:That was the low-income housing -. CRITTENDEN:So now youÓre not doing it at all? MOORE:No, weÓre not doing that. CRITTENDEN:Okay. That was a big concern of mine. And, then, as far as your, if you get approval with the contingency upon the traffic light, how soon would you be able to fund for the traffic light and when do you visualize that traffic light going in if they gave Alonzo his approval and they approve yours? How soon do you think that would happen? MOORE:You know, I donÓt want to make any guarantees. Our intent is to try and work with the, as Mr. Hayashi indicated, to work with the DOT to put in at least the conduits as part of the construction improvements. WeÓd have to tear up the road soon thereafter. The costs themselves will depend on what happens with Mr. Alonzo. If he gets the approvals from DOT and wants to accelerate, weÓre willing to work on his schedule. 17 CRITTENDEN:Okay. MOORE:On our schedule, weÓll be slower, I can guarantee that. But we are willing to work on Mr. AlonzoÓs schedule in terms of paying for those improvements, again, provided that he gets the required easements from the State. So, again, thatÓs really why we wanted to separate the two tracts, so we can move ahead and be secure that if we do put out the expenditures that, you know, we have some rights vested. CRITTENDEN:Okay. Do you know if thereÓs any, in the plan, is there also going to be a crosswalk there as well Òcause weÓre going to have 40 new lots up there with 40 new houses. The post office is across the street, the grocery store, the gas station. I see a lot of elderly people trying to cross the highway and people just speed up, they donÓt even slow down or anything, and they have to wait there for a long time. And if theyÓre putting in a traffic light, it makes a lot of sense that they also put in a crosswalk for, considering the people are elderly there. MOORE:You know, the design of that will be between the State and the County. We will have no say over -. CRITTEDEN:DOT, yeah. ThatÓs kind -. MOORE:Where there is a crosswalk or not, we have no say in that. ItÓs their property and they will say either yes or no. CRITTENDEN:Okay. MOORE:So I canÓt answer that. IÓm sorry. CRITTENDEN:Okay. All right. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Are you done? CRITTENDEN:Yes, sir. Appreciate your time. FUJIKAWA:Okay. You understand whatÓs going on? CRITTENDEN:Absolutely. Very happy with the answers. Yes, sir. FUJIKAWA:All right. Mr. Moore, you have any -? CRITTENDEN:And IÓm for approving both of them as well. I just had these concerns. Thank you for your time. FUJIKAWA:Very good. YouÓre welcome. Mr. Moore, you have any other -? 18 MOORE:Just in response to Ms. KubotaÓs question. The intent is absolutely not to bring in a driveway or road access right above that top property. It doesnÓt make sense from a land development standpoint. It really makes sense to bring it, at worse, the middle between that lot and the top of the property and, so, you have lots coming off both sides of the road. So, itÓs the only thing that really makes sense from a development standpoint, so, no. You know, yes, we can; but, no, thatÓs absolutely not the intent. It doesnÓt make sense; and itÓs just not part of what weÓre thinking about. KUBOTA:What about the hardship point that I pointed out? What would be your reason for wanting that phrase deleted from the condition? Because, to me, if we say from the Belt Highway to the subdivision entrance road, it gives a semblance of direction. MOORE:I think the concern, one, is cost. Again, itÓs whatÓs normal, whatÓs standard in terms of requiring off-site improvements in these kinds of situations. And, you know, we want to be treated the same as other people; and generally there is not this kind of offsite. The second is that the dedicable standard requirements that are being imposed require us to take it out to the right-of-way edge. If you look at the pictures, youÓll see that the road comes here and then the land comes up. WeÓre going to take it o drainage swale we have to do, is going to require us to drop that. And in order to, for the driveways to work. So what you end up is a situation here existing, and weÓre going to come down; and the driveway then needs to come down probably an added three or four feet, and thereÓs no way to make that work without going into somebody elseÓs property. And if they say no, we donÓt have a project. And, so, all of a sudden an individual has a veto over our project, thatÓs the concern that we have in terms of -. You know, we donÓt have the condemnation rights so there is a practical concern. ThereÓs a cost concern, weÓre, you know, thatÓs, we can look at that and work it out. But if an individual can say no to the project because they donÓt want their driveway realigned, then we would have no choice but to, we couldnÓt move ahead under those conditions. FUJIKAWA:Okay, is there any other question? Go ahead. KUBOTA:Thank you, Mr. Moore. I cannot accept that. Would the County agree to that deletion? Would that be part of your recommendation that we do accept the deletion of that phrase Ðfrom the Belt Highway?Ñ YUEN:I have a suggested change in the language. It would say that ÐA portion of Huina Road, along the property frontage, shall be improved to County dedicable standards up to the subdivision entrance road and along the private parcels between Hawaii Belt Highway. The subdivision entrance road shall be improved up to the edge of the County right-of-way, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works.Ñ 19 FUJIKAWA:Mr. Moore? MOORE:Can I get that language, again, please? YUEN:Okay. ÐA portion of Huina Road, along the propertyÓs frontage, shall be improved to County dedicable standards up to the subdivision entrance road and along the private parcels between the Belt Highway, and the subject property shall be improved up to the edge of the County right-of-way, meeting with the approval of Department of Public Works.Ñ FUJIKAWA:Is it accepted, Mr. Moore? MOORE:You know, I still, if the -. We may need Kelly on this one Òcause the County standards require us to improve up to the right-of-way edge, so thatÓs the requirement now. The trouble with that, in order to match driveways and, like we would have to extend, to make those standards work, we would have to extend those improvements into the adjacent driveway. So we would not be doing road improvements in the adjacent driveway. But in order to make the driveways match and the like, weÓd have to construct in there. So I still have concerns about that driveway. As soon as weÓre talking dedicable standards, and there are 36 standards, then weÓre, to the property, the right-of-way edge and, then thereÓs a matching of existing improvements that has to get worked out. YUEN:Why donÓt we have Kelly -. Kelly, can you come up and see you can help us with this. But I had taken out the County dedicable standards for the private property, the two private parcels so that there would be some flexibility in how DPW would approach that. MOORE:IÓm still, IÓm having trouble, can you read the language a want to just make sure I have it real clearly. YUEN:Well, since I didnÓt write it down, so IÓm not going to say it the same way three times in a row. MOORE:Okay, I was trying to keep up with you. YUEN:Kelly, what improvements would the County want to see on th private, on these two corner parcels between their property and the Huina Road- Mamalahoa Highway, I mean, the Huina Road-Belt Road intersection KELLY:We generally wouldnÓt require any improvements on those properties. But just for your information, the State DOT plans have that improvement area and they are going to provide new driveways up to the County right-of-way for those two properties already. MOORE:Okay. 20 KELLY:ItÓs in the plans. Their plans call for from Belt Highway approximately 200 feet from Belt Highway, up towards this subject subdivision, so about 30 feet from their subdivision. TheyÓre already going to improve up to this area right here. It would be improved up to the County right-of-way, and theyÓll provide new driveway accesses for these two lots. ThatÓs the plan that they have. And the last information we have is it was out to bid, which means theyÓre going to get a contractor, and March 7, 2002. But I guess, I donÓt know if thatÓs still valid or that has slipped, timeframe. MOORE:Just for the record, they have selected a contractor and have given a notice to proceed. ThatÓs the information -. KELLY:Yeah. So their construction plan shows improvements within the County right-of-way, two drywells and two driveways. Our standard recommendation would be to improve the frontage of Huina Road on their properties. So standard recommendation would be to improve Huina Road along this frontage. So you could just take out on D -. Shall be improved to dedicable standards, that portion of Huina Road fronting the subject property shall be improved to County dedicable standards, that would be our standard recommendation and that would just improve the frontage of their property along Huina Road. YUEN:WhatÓs our justification for making them improve it past the entrance to their subdivision? KELLY:Well, itÓs a standard recommendation that Public Works wou recommend to the Planning Department for the privilege of changing the zone, and it would be based on the density. If this were RS-10 density, then weÓd ask for curb, gutter, sidewalk. But this is a proposed Ag-1 so weÓd ask for just 20-foot pavement with paved shoulders and swales. YUEN:Okay. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Mr. Moore, any questions? MOORE:No, no. No questions. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Perhaps while the representative from Public Works is a podium, IÓd inquire, how can citizens such as the testifiers make their concerns regarding the crosswalk improvements as part of the intersection installation be known? KELLY:I would contact the Department of Transportation. 21 SPRINGER:Okay, thank you. ItÓs a part of our record but for your benefit. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Is there any other question from the Commission? Mr. Moore? Testifier? If not, do I hear a motion? GRAHAM:I donÓt feel quite up to making a motion on a complex iss this. However, I am still concerned about the timing issues. It seems like this would be Condition B that originally subdivision approval was to be secured within two years, and weÓre moving it back to five years. And I know the Applicant is requesting that there be an ÐorÑ condition so that, within the five years, either the subdivision approval is secured or the traffic signal is completed. And, to me, it feels like itÓs just pushing that envelope too much. Maybe if the Commission was inclined to go along with the traffic signal alternative, then I feel like at least the traffic signal alternative should be held to the two- year timeframe. So that, you know, if we wanted to do that, or IÓm not sure itÓs appropriate. But that on that ÐorÑ it should be the traffic signal would be taken care of within two years or the final subdivision within five, just to expedite the traffic signal issue. I just feel like itÓs pushing the issue too much the way itÓs being proposed by the Applicant. FUJIKAWA:Who made the change? Was it Mr. Moore or the staff on particular -? GRAHAM:That was Mr. MooreÓs suggestion. MOORE:That was my suggestion. FUJIKAWA:Would you like to go ahead and -? MOORE:You know, just for the record, again, what weÓre looking at is to be treated the same, similar to other projects. The standard language now on time conditions, again, similar to the previous development, is five years to complete it. It takes awhile to get through everything. The traffic signal, I mean, weÓre happy to not separate it out. It just makes it, I think, easier for us. Again, if weÓre going to spend money on the traffic signal and if can do that right away, our intent is to work with the Keaau Service Station project. We believe that theyÓre going to be moving ahead of us; and so weÓll be putting out resources before subdivision, and you donÓt get any resources in until you have final subdivision. So thatÓs why, again, weÓre looking for that assurance. If you donÓt do it in there, we need to assess the risk of accelerating the traffic signals. We donÓt cause any impacts on that intersection until we subdivide, so thatÓs the equity situation. WeÓre taking care of a problem in advance of our impact by putting the signals in first, and thatÓs the situation that weÓre looking at. The timing, to me, is, you know, I prefer not to have it on different timeframes. It makes it more complex. If we didnÓt do the timeframe in two years, are we in violation of that portion of it; and I think it gets pretty complex in terms of enforcement. 22 Again, I think it just, it helps us put out the resources in advance of our impacts is why weÓre offering that language up there. It just makes it an easier decision to go and do it. YUEN:My suggestion would be that the, IÓm not comfortable with having no timeframe for Final Subdivision Approval. My suggestion would be that we say that ÐThe signal shall be installed within three years and Final Subdivision Approval secured within 10 years.Ñ The 10 years also, you also have the possibility of an administrative time extension for 10 years, which gives you 20 years. And we s change in our wording in the -. What happens if you do not meet your conditions? YouÓre still zoned, except for the last sentence in L, ÐShould any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Director,Ñ it the currently says, Ðshall initiate rezoning,Ñ weÓve been trying to put in Ðmay initiate rezoning to another designation.Ñ And thatÓs my suggested wording on this. MOORE:Just to be clear, that was, Ðthe traffic signals shall be done in three years and,Ñ or is that Ðor 10 years?Ñ So is it a mandate that we need to do it in three years under your suggested language? YUEN:Yes. Yours was mandated in five, right, no? MOORE:No, it was mandated as tied to the subdivision so, Òcause we have to have subdivision in five years. So our traffic signals, if we advance it, thatÓs our choice. If we donÓt, then we have to do it as part of subdivision improvements. So we donÓt have to, again, what weÓre suggesting is we did not have to do the signals independent of subdivision. We can choose to do that; because o choose not, we do not move ahead then thereÓs no impact from this project. If we choose to do it, thatÓs our risk; and weÓre willing to take that risk. YUEN:Give me a couple of minutes to think about how to do this. FUJIKAWA:In the meantime, is there any other question? Commissioners? KUBOTA:While theyÓre thinking about it, that was my original concern, that they have five years. So if they choose not to do anything about the traffic signaling, then they would just have 50 percent of the money from the other applicant and not enough to complete it. So my question was, do they have the five-year time span? And Mr. Moore came up with this idea of accelerating it because it is a necessity and itÓs for their benefit as well. And I donÓt know where the lack of time limitation not being there for the subdivision creates a hardship on anybody. Because it s to come up with the final plan for the subdivision already in here. So what is the confusion? I think weÓre getting the better deal by having them accelerate the traffic signals, installation of it; and I think itÓs a good suggestion, personally. I may be missing something totally, but tell me if I am. GRAHAM:My sense wasnÓt that they were accelerating the traffic signals, but he was proposing to decelerate the subdivision that they, you know, the traffic signal part 23 of that five years would be intact but the Final Subdivision would float off to the indefinite future or could per our ordinance. KUBOTA:No. Well, see, according to the ordinance as I read it, ÐFinal Subdivision Approval shall be secured within five years of the effective date of this ordinance.Ñ So it specifies that they have five years. GRAHAM:I think IÓm okay with that but Bill had a change he wanted to make with that. So IÓm not addressing whatÓs here on our paper. IÓm that he wanted to make. KUBOTA:Well, the change that he wanted to make was to add in Ðor completion of traffic signal improvement.Ñ That was the addition that he wanted to add to that condition. GRAHAM:Right. But itÓs a Ðor,Ñ not an Ðand.Ñ KUBOTA:Yeah, but, see, okay, it reads -. As I understood it, Bill, correct me if IÓm wrong. Your correction was, your amendment was, ÐFinal Subdivision Approval,Ñ no, wait now, wait now, wait now, wait, where am I? Okay, ÐFinal Subdivision Approval or completion of traffic signal improvement shall be secured within five years from the effective day of this ordinance.Ñ Oh, so that leaves out the Final -. I see what youÓre saying, okay, okay. IÓm sorry, I missed that one. YUEN:And I know this is not the intent; but as a technical matter, it also suggests that Final Subdivision Approval can be granted without the signal. When he says that Final Subdivision Approval or signalization shall be done in five years, it suggests that; and thatÓs what IÓm working on. KUBOTA:Right, right, I see that, yes. MOORE:I think if you look at, if I can, Condition C corrects that where it says that Ðthe Applicant shall be responsible for construction or paying for the traffic signal.Ñ And, again, the way this is worded, and this is our suggested language, is that we will be responsible for the construction. If Keaau Service Station doesnÓt move ahead and weÓre the only ones out there, we are 100 percent responsible for the construction of that signal; and we need to do it prior to Final Subdivision Approval. So there is security in this. Whereas, is, itÓs in our interest then to accelerate if Keaau Service Station is moving ahead, then our commitment is one-half of that. But if they do not move ahead and, again, I specifically offered this language, ÐThe Applicant shall be responsible for construction and/or paying.Ñ So if we have to construct it, weÓre going to pay 100 percent. If weÓre paying for it, then itÓll be a pro rata, be 50 percent, weÓll work with the other person. So weÓre at risk for 100 percent of the traffic signal which we have to have in place prior to Final Subdivision Approval. So, you know, thatÓs the security that is in there already. 24 YUEN:With that, weÓve been pointing out C. I think it would be just say that Ðconstruction of the traffic signal shall be completed within five years.Ñ And then he doesnÓt want any timeframe for Final Subdivision Approval after that, I think thatÓs okay. And itÓs clear that Final Subdivision Approval from C, that Final Subdivision Approval, the signal has to be there first, so -. I think we should say that, also, though, that if -. I was thinking of the possibility that the State, no, if a signal were put in without the participation of the Applicant, that there should be some timeframe. But I think we will be informing the State of the conditions and hope that they remember this if they ever do a signal project in the next few years. So I think thatÓll be fine. Just to take out ÐFinal Subdivision ApprovalÑ and say Ðsignal shall be installed within five years,Ñ and put that in C rather than in B. Yes, go ahead. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Right now, youÓre talking about the stop light on the State Highway. The State Highway get the, they gotta put Òem in, right, not the County? The County gets no jurisdiction over State stuff, heh? YUEN:Well, we sometimes will put in a condition that makes you improve the State highway and itÓs up to the State Highways to enforce that, they actually do that. WeÓre operating under the verbal understanding that State Highways does want a signal there. MINA:Okay, but what IÓm saying -. YUEN:We have that understanding from State Highways that they do want -. MINA:If the understanding is itÓs the State HighwaysÓ responsibility, then all theyÓre doing is funding the State to put in the signal light, right? ItÓs not their responsibility to put the signalization in the -? YUEN:Well, they may do, you may do the job. MOORE:Yes, yes. YUEN:Right. MOORE:Yeah, weÓre willing. Again, weÓve been in contact with the State. When we heard about the improvements, we actually approached the that the signals were not part of their proposed improvements. And, you know, again, it made sense for us to participate so weÓre volunteering this condition, that we participate in the improvements. MINA:Yeah, I know, Òcause the same thing like Alonzo, I mean, trying to do the same thing. 25 MOORE:But it is, normally, it would be a State responsibility, I do agree with you on that; but weÓre willing to work with them. YUEN:So thereÓs a couple of things here. First, we had to make the State wanted a signal there, okay, and they just couldnÓt pay for it; and weÓve been told that thatÓs true. And then the second, we put these conditions in and then somebody on, the County knows that we have this condition but we do send it to State Highways so that just in case they -. And, unfortunately, it has happened that government jobs have been done that were paid for 100 percent by the government where there were conditions that the, zoning conditions that the adjoining landowners were supposed to have done them. I mean, it happens. So all we can do is let the powers that be, like the people in the State Highways Department, know that if this ordinance goes through that this is a requirement and they shouldnÓt CIP money to do the signal themselves. These, or if theyÓre ready to do the project that they can tap onto these private parties to pay for it, yeah. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, I just want to go on record that I have no problem. As long as these guys are willing to, you know, put up the money for a traffic signal, that, to me, is proof of their commitment to this project; and I donÓt see that we need to put a timeline on the Subdivision Approval. I think that, you know, they will see their own, after they put their dollars down, theyÓll see their own reason to go forward with it, so -. FUJIKAWA:Any questions or comments from the Commissioners? MOORE:If I can suggest then, Chris, with that condition being moved to C, is there any reason to have Condition B in there at all? WeÓve moved out the access issues. See, only thing left is that we have to submit preliminary plans within a year. YUEN:Only the first sentence would be left in B. MOORE:Okay, so you still want that retained? YUEN:Right. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Satisfied, all the Commissioners? Okay. But if not, if thereÓs any, no other question or comments, do I hear a motion? a motion on Change of Zone, and the amendment to Conditions B, C MCCALL:I just want to, IÓm not clear as to what weÓre asking the developer here to do as far as the roadway improvements on Huina Road. It may not be clear, itÓs not clear to me as to what weÓre asking them to do. As far as I be taking care of the segments, or most, three-quarters of the segments in front of the two, from the Belt Highway up Huina Road in front of the two other private places. 26 What are they asking after that? Public Works would like to see the entire section in front of this subdivision improved. IÓm not clear as to what weÓre asking at this point. Does anybody know? FUJIKAWA:Who wants to get involved in this? Bill? MOORE:Well, you know, IÓm clear what we requested. IÓm clear wh Public Works requested; and theyÓre different. And I think thatÓs the choice and, again, if, you know, it just depends which way the Commission wants to go at this point. FUJIKAWA:Well, this is the way the Public Works requested of the Applicant. Which way do you folks want to go? Do you want to hear the Publ KUBOTA:I know what the Public Works requested. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Okay. And you heard of what the Applicant wants. Go a Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Perhaps staff could read Condition D as theyÓre presently recommending it to us. FUJIKAWA:Staff? Staff, would you like to read what Commissioner Springer is requesting? SPRINGER:Condition D in its present form? YUEN:Okay. Can you give me two minutes so I can actually, so I write it down? SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead? SPRINGER:Perhaps while the Director is doing that, may we take a brief recess? A five-minute recess? FUJIKAWA:Yeah, while the Director is doing the change of what he want to do, go ahead and take a five-minute recess. RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 12:22 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 12:32 p.m. FUJIKAWA:Okay. LetÓs continue on the hearing. Norman? Chris? 27 YUEN:I have the DepartmentÓs proposed revision of D, and this will -. WeÓll start by incorporating a couple of the prior amendments discussed. D would say, ÐInterior subdivision access road shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works.Ñ Now, the next sentence would say, ÐAccess shall not be permitted directly onto the Hawaii Belt Road except for the existing drive TMK -, blank, cause I donÓt know the TMK, only.Ñ Okay. Then the next sentence is, ÐAccess to the proposed subdivision shall be from Huina Road. That portion of Huina Road on the property frontage shall be improved to County dedicable standards.Ñ I am supporting the position of the Department of Public Works but this only covers the property frontage and not the area from the, along the other private lots from the intersection of the Volcano Highway to the ApplicantÓs property. That would be covered by a new sentence that says, ÐApplicant shall also make any necessary shoulder improvements to Huina Road between their property line and the Huina Road-Volcano Highway intersection within the County right-of-way, if required by the Department of Public Works and to the extent not covered by current State improvements.Ñ FUJIKAWA:Mr. Moore? YUEN:Then the next sentence would remain the same, ÐNone of the proposed lots shall have direct access from Huina Road.Ñ Then a slight change to the next sentence, and this is in response to a technical comment from the Department of Public Works, ÐA five-foot future road widening setback shall be dedicated to the County along the Huina Road frontage within a reasonable time after Final Subdivision Approval.Ñ And then the last sentence remains the same. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Moore, you have any comments? MOORE:Just before I come into the comments, I am hopefully assum that the, are you going to come to Conditions B and C, or shall we just do with Condition D? Just confirming the other conditions as well? YUEN:No, I was just working on D as in Dog. B as in Boy, we wer ending everything after the first sentence. MOORE:Okay. YUEN:And then C, we were saying that ÐConstruction of the signal shall be completed within five years.Ñ MOORE:Okay. I have one clarification and then a comment. With respect to the future road widening setback to be dedicated to the County, is that the intent of the language that that be improved as part of the condition, prior Condition D, or that we just give an additional five feet to the -. I just want to make it c line that thereÓs not confusion as to what our requirements are. YUEN:Can we get a response from Kelly Gomes on that? 28 GOMES:Yes. When we reviewed the construction plans, weÓd require it be built to that future five-foot, future road widening. MOORE:Then, again, with respect to the conditions, you know, the position of the Applicant is that we want to be treated fairly, we want to be treated like other applicants in this matter, not be different. The standard condition apparently is that we need to improve the frontage; weÓve been required to do some things off-site as well in addition to our standard condition. To improve the right-of-way, less objections to do an additional five feet over a fairly lengthy time, is of concern. If thatÓs the standard condition, you know, thatÓs a standard condition. What I would like to do is that, at this time, I understand the Planning DirectorÓs position. We donÓt know the cost implications of this. And, so, IÓd just like to reserve the ability to, if there are concerns that we figure out, while we get it up to Council is that, weÓre going to raise those at Council. And I just donÓt want to give the impression that weÓve agreed to them and now weÓre going back on our word. So with that caveat, you know, again, IÓd prefer to do that, that be done in a standard fashion. I understand the concerns here but, you know, we would, do want to reserve the right to address this and then figure out whatÓs fair, and what the costs are and make sure that weÓre not being treated differently than other developers in similar situations. I think thatÓs real important to us. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Any comments, questions from the Commissioners? Everyone understands? Mr. McCall, you understand? Okay. Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Before I make the motion, I would like to say to Mr. Moor fully understand your right to argue before the County Council. ItÓs your privilege to do so. And I agree with you, you ought to be treated as fairly as any other applicant ought to be and I hope weÓre not overburdening you and treating you any differently, because we are following the mandate or the recommendation that comes from the Planning Department. And that is our usual procedure, unless we have personal differences. And in this case, I acquiesce to the recommendation. And having said that, I would like to move that we send a favorable recommendation to amend Conditions B, C and D on the Change of Zone Ordinance No. 728), along with the Findings and Recommendations and the many c ordinance, conditioned -. LetÓs see, IÓm not going to go through each of them but I will highlight B, that we have one sentence left, Subdivision Plans, thatÓs the first sentence and everything following that has been deleted; the reference to the installation of traffic signals shall be included in Condition C; and the Condition D, as read by the Planning Director. FUJIKAWA:Do I hear a second? MINA:Second. 29 YUEN:IÓm sorry, I missed one thing that I had mentioned and that was to the last sentence of L where it says, ÐThe Director shall initiate rezoning,Ñ ÐThe Director may initiate rezoning.Ñ KUBOTA:Yes. FUJIKAWA:May, okay. Correction made. It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by Commissioner Mina that the changes be made in the amendments, Conditions B, C and D, and also Change of Zone O (REZ 728). Any questions? If not, staff? HAYASHI:Okay, IÓll take the roll call vote. Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Yes. Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI;Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:And Chair Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Motion carries. MOORE:Thank you. This was a fairly complex discussion and I rea appreciate the interest and the caring; and weÓll try to make it work. 30 The discussion ended at 12:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 31