2014-09-18 Leeward Exh A (SMA 14-057)

Home

photos. This again is the beginning of the lateral as it moves closer to the subject property. This is the subject property and the landscaping improvements that have been done, as well as the drainage improvements. There are some drainage ways, as well as some elevation changes. You can see the drainage way here that has been put in. This is looking towards the east, towards the boat ramp; you can see the lateral shoreline access that’s been put in place from previous public access plans that were required. And again, as it moves to the west, these are the irrigation lines that we were speaking about previously that the applicant is recommending, requesting that they remain permanently. And again, looking towards the east from the far west side of the property. These are photos on Puakō Beach Drive. This is looking east towards the entrance of the boat ramp; one of the entrances to the lots is just to the left. And this is looking to the west, with the subject property on the right. These are some of the entrance and the rock walls that have been built. And this is the third entrance over here. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the request for the seven-lot subdivision, with the related improvements, as well as to deny the request to allow the irrigation lines to remain permanently. There has been some case law that has popped up that discourages manipulation of the vegetation line along the shoreline, and so we are trying to prevent that from occurring; it can manipulate where the location of the certified shoreline can be identified at. There are a few matters that I need to attend to. We’ve been working with the applicant to try to resolve some of the language to several conditions. There has been two correspondence that has been passed out to the Commissioners: One is, at the top of the correspondence it says “Proposed Revisions to SMA 14-000057,” and begins with Condition No. 4, but the second correspondence will replace this Condition 4 as we’ve continued to work on fine-tuning this condition. It also works with Condition 6, as well as – I believe this is Condition 7, 7 right? Seventeen? Okay. So if we can take a quick look at those conditions. Condition 4, basically we would replace Condition 4. The staff and Planning Director have reviewed these conditions and find them acceptable. Condition 4, what their proposed language does is basically continue to keep all vertical structures out of the minimum requested setback, shoreline setback of 60 feet; there has been a current certified shoreline survey that was certified by the State, dated August 1, 2014, which was just over a month ago, and so the applicant has agreed to hold back any vertical structures, such as, the main one is the residential structures. There have been house pads already built in place so those pretty much are located towards the back of the property. The concern was is that between the 60 and 40 feet, they would like to have the ability to have non-vertical structures, such as a pool or any type of landscaping activities that would occur in that. But the applicant goes on further and states, “This restriction shall not apply to non-vertical structures such as a swimming pool, provided that in no event shall any of those type of improvements, including irrigated landscaping, occur within 40 feet of the certified shoreline.” So it makes it clear that there will be no improvements within the 40-foot shoreline setback, that any improvements there would require review of the Planning Department and possibly a shoreline setback variance from the Planning Commission. Looking at Condition 6, the applicant is requesting, in the previous SMA permit that was granted, there was a concern about having timeshare units – let’s see here, do you have a minute? (Secretary’s note: Mr. Darrow spoke to the applicant’s representative.) Sorry, I had to get clarification. So by the bracketed area that is removing the rental units from this restrictive covenant, it will allow practices of vacation rentals within the single-family dwelling, which is considered a permitted use at this time within the Residential zoning. The Resort zoning would 3 EXHIBIT A