2003-10-02 TSOTO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Considering the intent of the Planning Commission Rules on shoreline impact, it would seem to us that itÓs illogical to allow a 3-1/2 story building within 20 feet of the shoreline when you wouldnÓt make that same allowance for a single-family h Now the variance of the shoreline setback is just one alternative that could be considered in order to increase buildable area for Mr. Soto. And Rule 8 states that Ðother alternatives should be considered,Ñ and that includes besides reducing shoreline setback. The question is, ÐAre there other alternatives that could be considered to increase buildable area for Mr. Soto?Ñ The answer is, ÐYes, there are.Ñ As I said to you earlier, the unusual land-lock configuration of the property actually runs itself to a much better setback variance on the mauka side and would still create at least a 25-foot buffer from the Sun Terra building on Alii Drive. Also, some minor variances for side-yard setbacks would give Mr. 50 percent buildable area. One of the letters that you have is from Mr. Haney, he used the Muncy Plot Program which he got on the internet. He went back and redid all the other original calculations that the Planning Commission has to see. Whether or not he thought this program could be used, he came up with all this, basically the same calculations that the Planning Commission had in the first case. His letter says that with the 10-foot side-yards rather than 14-foot, Mr. SotoÓs buildable area is greater than 50 percent. So there are plenty of alternatives for variances of setbacks; and it would seem like the worst one in this case is a shoreline variance. Rule 8 also states that we should seek alternatives best, the alternative which best preserves shoreline open space and reduces tsunami flood risk. Well, part of the reason that the Applicant is having a problem with the buildable area is that the shoreline has eroded significantly since the last time the certified shoreline survey was done. The original SMA application showed a 40-foot setback. Mr. Soto is now asking for a 20- foot setback in part because the new certified shoreline has eroded so much that itÓs basically right up against the property. We would like to ask you if it is logical to grant a waiver of the normal 40-foot setback at the shoreline in a location where the shoreline is already known to be eroding rapidly. Finally, on the flooding issue, Mr. SotoÓs property is lower lying than surrounding properties and neighbors in the area know that it has had historic flooding problems. During Hurricane Iniki, the storm surge reached half-way up the property to Alii Drive. Mr. SotoÓs property, heÓs planning on having underground parking. Well, I would ask you what happens the next time we have a storm surge like that? ThereÓs going to be all kinds of automobile fluids swept out to sea, hopefully no automobiles themselves. Rule 8 states clearly that erosion and flooding problems must be considered when reducing the shoreline setback. Finally, in regards to the shoreline setback, I spoke with Dr. Paul Rosendahl yesterday. HeÓs an architect. He and Dr. Rechtman, who is Mr. SotoÓs architect, interviewed Ms. Nagai last weekend at her home on Alii Drive. I spoke with Mr. Rosendahl yesterday, and he said that Ms. Nagai related to the two architects, Mr. Soto and himself, 21