2021-06-21 Orlin Reinbold Testimony

Home

(10 M1 public welfare nor cause substantial,adverse impact to the community's character, to surrounding properties." Clearly, a five-story box-like structure negatively impacts the"community's character" in particular impacting the surrounding properties which are modest one and two-story properties in the same zone. Special attention should be paid to design which puts windows in the new structure looking down into neighboring properties, thus interfering with privacy and creating glare off windows and unwanted light during nighttime hours which would impact negatively the present dark sky conditions in and around this area of Alii Drive. Given that Alakala is a public beach, we are not aware of any public beach on the Kona coast that would have such an imposing 5 story structure looking down at the public. The commission also needs to consider the daylight plane impact of a 5 story structure on neighboring properties. The"minimum" setback might be appropriate in some RM 1.5 zones, however, where it is close to a public beach and neighboring modest 1 and 2 story structures the commission must require greater setbacks and orientation of windows away from neighboring properties. 4.) Section 25-5-37 requires the applicant to dedicate a minimum of 20%of the lot surface area to landscaping. The present plan does not have sufficient detail to show that it meets this requirement and therefore should be rejected. The plan proposes to convert over 80%of the lot to impervious surfaces, this violates good building and land use practices as it creates run off into storm drains or the ocean of contaminants and prevents natural percolation of rainwater. This is especially harmful in the coastal zone where it would be prudent to require more than the minimum lot area to be landscaped for ecological reasons. The swimming pool at the rear and surrounding paved areas(not shown on the plan) are not"landscaping" within the letter or spirit of the zoning code. 5.) The proposed improvement fails to provide parking for persons with disabilities and therefore fails to meet the requirements of Section 25-4-55 of the zoning ordinance. As shown the van accessible space does not meet the standard. It is not permitted to have car/van doors open into a wall. The space fails to provide for the minimum width required by the code. 6.) Enclosed parking spaces such as the ones shown surrounded by three walls underneath the building require a minimum width of 10 feet. The space at the rear would require the driver to back over 25 feet in a straight line in order to begin a three point turn to exit. This makes the parking spaces functionally unusable. Parking as shown by the front wall is way to crowded making use of these spaces functionally impossible as occupant would not be able to exit their cars after parking. The standard space is against a wall, and then is adjacent to small compact spaces. One compact space passenger would have to exit into a planter. Drivers and passengers would not be able to exit their vehicles with three cars parked there. Y `wi