HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0098.000 2002-2004
Harry Kim M?:',°f N~., Dixie Kaetsu
Mayrn' ~ Managng Director
• Peter T. Young
• _ • Deputy Managing Director
•i
COUNTY OF HAWAII
25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 • (808) 961-821 I • F'~ (808) 96 L-6553
KON A: 75-5906 Ruakini Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona, llawai'i 96~TAU-' ` - '
(808) 329-5226 • Fax (808) 326-5663
December 31, 2002
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Counci]
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members:
State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 02-007)
Request: Agricultural to Urban
Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-017)
Request: Agricultural (A-Sa) to Single Family Residential (RS-20)
Applicants: Walter and Susan ~Iton
7'ax Map Key: 7-5-O10:Portion of 52 and Portion of 65
Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-018)
Request: Agricultural (A-Sa) to Residential and Agricultural (RA-la)
Applicant: Daniel Decker
Tax Map Key: 8-2-003:031
State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 02-010)
Request: Agricultural to Urban
Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-020)
Request: A-Sa to RS-15
Applicant: Dennis Young
Tax Map Key: 7-3-10:29
Lritiator: County Council
Proposed Bill No. 265 Amending Chapter 25 (Zoning Code)
_of the Hawaii County Code Relating to Scenic Corridor Overlay District
As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County
Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the
above-referenced requests.
Si ere ,
1~
Harry Kirl'f ~ Comm. No.
Mayor File No.
Doaleoz ~ ~ ~ ~ Ref. To:
);nc]osures ~i S Ref. Date SAN 1 X03
ce: Planning Department
~tv M yy,
Harry Kim ; ~ '
Maynr .
~R'oi~MiMJ
County of Hawaii
PLANNING COMMISSION
101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043
'a 1 2~ (808)961-8288 • Fax (808)961-8742
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Chairman Arakaki and Members:
State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 02-010)
Request: Agricultural to Urban
Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-020)
Request: A-Sato RS-15
Applicant: Dennis Young
Tax Map Key: 7-3-010:029
The Planning Commission, after a duly held public hearing on December 6, 2002, voted to
recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bills to change the district classification
from Agricultural to Urban District and a Change of Zone by changing the district classification
from Agricultural (A-Sa) to Single Family Residential (RS-IS) for approximately 8.256 acres of
land. The property is located west (makai) of Mamalahoa Highway at the north end of Ahiahi
Street, and bordered by Kona Coastview Subdivision and Kona Palisades Subdivision, Kalaoa
4th, North Kona, Hawaii.
The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending
favorable consideration of the requests:
State Land Use Boundarv Amendment
The approval of the reclassification from the State Land Use Agricultural to the
Urban District will not be violative of Section 205-2, Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised
Statutes, nor will it be inconsistent with the Land Use Commission Rules, the County
General Plan and the Hawaii State Plan. According to the Land Use Commission Rules,
one of the standards for considering an area for urban reclassification states that "In
determining urban growth for the next ten years, or in amending the boundary, land
contiguous with existing urban areas shall be given more consideration than non-
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 2
contiguous land, and particularly when indicated for future urban use on state or county
general plans." The subject property does conform to this standard as it is situated
adjacent to existing Urban-designated lands. These lands include the adjacent Kona
Coastview Subdivision and the nearby Kona Palisades and Kona Highlands Subdivisions.
These subdivisions are well established as residential areas that have solidified this
section of North Kona as a residential community.
The reclassification action would conform to the following goals, objectives
and/or policies articulated in the Hawaii State Plan:
a. Greater opportunities for Hawaii's people to secure reasonably priced,
safe, sanitary, livable homes located in suitable environments that
satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires of families and
individuals.
b. The orderly development of residential areas sensitive to community
needs and other land uses.
c. Effectively accommodate the housing needs of Hawaii's people.
d. Increase homeownership and rental opportunities and choices in terms of
quality, location, cost, densities, style and size of housing.
e. Promote design and location of housing developments taking into account
the physical setting, accessibility to public facilities and services, and
other concerns of existing communities and surrounding areas.
The Urban District request would be consistent with the goals and polices of the
Housing Element of the Hawaii County General Plan by creating additional residential
housing opportunities for the residents of this island.
The Urban District request also conforms to the General Plan Land Use Pattern
Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map, which designates this area for Urban Expansion.
Urban Expansion Area allows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density,
industrial and/or open designations in areas where new settlements maybe desirable, but
where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined. This
request is to allow an urban development, a planned low-density residential subdivision.
Low Density Urban development is defined as Residential uses at a density of four units
per acre and certain neighborhood commercial uses are permitted within this designation.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 3
The LUPAG Map component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's
goals, policies, standards and courses of action. It is also a graphic depiction of the
physical relationship between the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the
basic urban and non-urban form for areas within the County. The area under
consideration is consistent with the urban form established for this section of the North
Kona District as depicted on [he LUPAG Map.
The Kona Regional Plan, adopted by the Planning Commission in 1984,
recommends the area for residential units at a density of four units per acre. The
applicant's proposal is a 6-lot single-family residential subdivision at a density of just
under 3 units per acre. It is adjacent to Kona Coastview Subdivision and Kona Palisades
Subdivision and inclose proximity to Kona Highlands Subdivision. The proposed
reclassification is for a similar Urban land use designation that these subdivisions
currently retain. Thus, the requested boundary amendment would be in the direction of
fulfilling the recommendation of the Kona Regional Plan to provide for low density
residential uses within this section of North Kona.
The property is situated within close proximity to the employment center of
Kailua-Kona. The subject reclassification is for land located just three miles from the
urban/retail/employment center ofKailua-Kona, and thereby conforms with the Land Use
Commission Rules which encourages urban developments in close proximity Co existing
developments and in close proximity to existing services and facilities.
The property is or will be provided with all utilities and services, which are
essential to accommodate urban development. The applicant proposes to construct a
6-lot subdivision, with lots no smaller than 15,000 square feet. Access to the project site
will be accommodated by existing Ahiahi Street. The Planning Director finds that traffic
to be generated by the proposed project can be accommodated by the existing roadway
infrastructure. The Department of Public Works did not contest these findings, but did
recommend that level of service at Ka`iminani Drive and Mamalahoa Highway
intersection be evaluated to determine whether it is operating at an acceptable level of
service. The incremental development of lands in this area places a cumulative burden
upon Ka`iminani Drive, the only mauka-makai traffic tributary within this portion of
Kalaoa. The County Council did adopt a resolution in 1997 to conduct a comprehensive
traffic plan for the Kalaoa area of North Kona that has yet to be completed.
The applicant has indicated that water to the project site will be provided via an
existing 8-inch waterline along Ka`iminani Drive. Wastewater generated by the proposed
use will be disposed off via wastewater treatment systems approved by the State
Department of Health.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 4
Police services are available from the County's Police Station at Kealakehe,
approximately five miles from the project site. Fire and emergency services are available
from the station at the intersection of Palani Road and the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway,
approximately four miles from the site. A volunteer fire station was recently established
at the makai end of Ka`iminani Drive in Kona Palisades Subdivision and the County is
contemplating aCounty-operated fire station along the makai side of the Mamalahoa
Highway just north of Ka`iminani Drive.
Electricity and telephone services are currently available to the project area.
The property has no severe geological or topographical problems which cannot be
properly rectified or which would render the land unusable. The U.S. Federal Emergency
Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designates the property as Zone
X, area outside of the 500-year flood plain. Any improvements to the property must
comply with Chapter 27 of the County Code relating to Flood Hazard Control. Thus, the
reclassification does meet with the standard which states that the lands included within
the urban district shall be those with satisfactory topography and drainage and
reasonably free from the danger of floods, tsunami and unstable soil conditions and other
adverse environmental effects."
The subject property is within the State Land Use Agricultural and County's
Agricultural-Sa zoned districts. While the project site is being utilized for the cultivation
of peppers and flowers on a limited scale, it has been some time since it has been utilized
for extensive and intensive agricultural purposes. The State of Hawaii's Agricultural
Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) Map does not classify the subject
property in any category. The Land Use Study Bureau's Overall Master Productivity
Rating for the soils in the area is "E" or Very Poor. The project site has been previously
graded and utilized for pasture and currently developed, to some extent, as homesites.
Much of the lands in the immediate vicinity of the project site are designated Urban and
maintain residentia] dwellings. Kona Coastview, Kona Highlands and Kona Palisades
Subdivisions are just some of the residential subdivisions within the immediate vicinity
of the project site.
Therefore, the reclassification of this 8.256-acre area from the Agricultural to the
Urban designation will not be detrimental to the reduction of this area from the
agricultural land inventory in the County of Hawaii. From a land use perspective, it is a
more feasible alternative to inf 11 urban development within this particular area of North
Kona. In doing so, it would tend to alleviate the conversion of more productive
agricultural lands in more appropriate locations within the North Kona area for Urban
Low Density type uses.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 5
Furthermore, an Urban classification would complement the existing and future
residential land use patterns of the surrounding properties in view of the adjacent Kona
Coastview and Kona Palisades Subdivisions and the nearby Kona Highland Subdivision.
Based on the above, the approval of the State Land Use Boundary Amendment to
the Urban District complements the State Land Use District Regulations and is supportive
of the State of Hawaii Plan.
Change of Zone
The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from an Agricultural (A-Sa) to a
Single Family Residential (RS-15) zone district for approximately 8.256 acres of land.
The applicant intends to subdivide the subject property into a total of 6 residential lots
maintaining lot sizes from a minimum of 15,000 square feet to approximately 1.5 acres.
In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable
goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only
through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions
can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the
General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and
decisions must be also considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the
County.
The proposed request from an Agricultural-5 acres (A-Sa) to a Single Family
Residential-15,000 square feet (RS-15) zoned district will conform to the following
goals, policies and standards of Land Use and Residential Elements of the General Plan.
LAND USE GENERAL
• Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in
keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County.
• Zone urban- and rural-types of uses in areas with ease of access to community
services and employment centers and with adequate public utilities and facilities.
• Allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected
needs of neighborhood, community, region and County.
• The County shall encourage the development and maintenance of communities
meeting the needs of its residents in balance with the physical and social
environment.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 6
• Zoning requests shall be reviewed with respect to General Plan designation,
district goals, regional plans, State Land Use District, compatibility with adjacent
zoned uses, availability of public services and utilities, access, and public need.
A favorable recommendation of this request will also conform to the following
goals and policies of the Single Family Residential Element of the General Plan:
• To maximize choices ofsingle-family residential lots and/or housing for residents
of the County.
• To ensure compatible uses within and adjacent to single-family residential zoned
areas.
• To provide single-family residential areas conveniently located to public and
private services, shopping, other community activities and convenient access to
employment centers.
• The County shall designate and allocate single-family residential zoned lands at
varying densities for future use in accordance with the needs of the communities
and the stated goals, policies and standards.
The request would also complement the following goals and policies of the
Housing Element by creating a mix of residential housing opportunities and maintaining
a housing supply that allows a variety of choice.
• Attain safe, sanitary, and livable housing for the residents of the County of
Hawai `i.
• Attain adiversity of socio-economic housing mix throughout the different parts of
the County.
• Maintain a housing supply that allows a variety of choice.
• Develop better places to live in Hawaii County by creating viable communities
with decent housing and suitable living environments for our people.
• Seek sufficient production of new affordable rental and fee-simple housing in the
County in a variety of sizes to satisfactorily accommodate the needs and desires
of families and individuals.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 7
• Ensure that housing is available to all persons regardless of age, sex, marital
status, ethnic background and income.
The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General
Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated
growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the physical
relationship among the various land uses. The requested zone change to a Single Family
Residential-15,000 square feet (RS-I S) zoned district conforms to the LUPAG Map,
which designates the project site and its immediately surrounding area for Urban
Expansion uses. The General Plan defines Urban Expansion as an azea which allows for
a mix of high density, medium density, and low density, and industrial and/or open
designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific
settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined. A favorable
recommendation of the request will allow for a single family residential development that
is consistent with uses permitted within areas designated as Urban Expansion. Therefore,
it is determined that the request is consistent with the Urban Expansion form depicted on
the LUPAG Map for this area of North Kona.
To further compliment the policies and standards of the Single Family Residential
Element of the General Plan, a condition of this favorable recommendation will require
the applicant to comply with the County's Affordable Housing Policy of the Hawaii
County Code. The applicant has agreed to restrict the construction of "ohana" or second
dwellings on each of the lots to be created. This restriction will be incorporated as a
condition of this favorable recommendation.
This change of zone request, if approved by the County Council, will allow for
the rezoning of the 8.256-acre project site to an RS-15 zoned district. An RS-15 zoning
could allow for the creation of approximately 23 parcels, exclusive of road rights-of--way.
The applicant is only proposing 6 lots. Once a zoning of RS-15 is established, the
applicant will be able to further subdivide the 8.256-acre project site into additional lots,
provided that the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes are complied with.
A condition of this approval will require that deed to lots created after the first
subdivision of 6 lots contain a covenant in which the existing and future landowners of
these lots acknowledge that there are no special or unusual circumstances existing on the
property which exist either to a degree which deprives the owner of substantial property
rights that would otherwise be available, or to a degree which obviously interferes with
the best use or manner of development of that property, and that therefore, these
landowners have no grounds to obtain a variance from the standards of the subdivision
code to permit further division of the lot by subdivision or condominium property regime.
This condition essentially means that the County is supporting this change of zone
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 8
request based on the understanding that the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision
Codes can be met by the proposed subdivision development.
The Keahole to Kailua Development Plan, adopted by the County Council by
Resolution on April 3, 1991, designates the area for Residential Expansion. The
requested change of zone would be consistent with expansion of wban and residential
uses suggested by the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan. Therefore, it is determined
that the request is consistent with other land use planning documents for this area of
North Kona.
On January 22, 1997, the Hawaii County Council adopted Resolution No. 20-97,
which supports the County's proposal to conduct a Comprehensive Traffic Plan for the
Kalaoa area of North Kona, within which the project site is located. The proposed plan
would include identifying the necessary infrastructural improvements for the area relating
to traffic, trafftc safety, water, fire protection, parks and civil defense.
Access to the project site will be accommodated by Ahiahi Street, which has a
pavement width of 20 feet within a 50-foot wide right-of--way. An access roadway will
be constructed as an extension of Ahiahi Street into the proposed subdivision to service
the proposed lots. While the applicant's intentions were to build this extension of Ahiahi
Street to private roadway standards, the Planning Director recommends that this
extension of Ahiahi Street be built to County-dedicabee standards and dedicated to the
County prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision.
This recommendation is being made for practical reasons. If the Ahiahi Street extension
were to be built to private roadway standards and maintained privately, the County could
not ensure that the Ahiahi Street extension could be retrofitted to comply with County-
dedicable standards by its private owner(s) in a timely fashion. A private roadway
extension could be conveyed to some unknown entity or to the individual lot owners
themselves, potentially complicating the County's ability to secure its dedication.
The Planning Director finds that traffic to be generated by the proposed project
should be accommodated by the existing roadway infrastructure. The Department of
Public Works did not contest this findings, but did recommend that the areas roadway
network bemaster-planned and provide roadway connections to adjoining lots. As
mentioned previously, the County Council did adopt a resolution in 1997 to conduct a
Comprehensive Traffic Plan for the Kalaoa area of North Kona which has yet to be
completed. In the absence of a completed traffic plan for the area, a condition will be
included to require the applicant to explore additional roadway connections between the
project site and adjoining parcels in consultation with the Department of Public Works.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chainnan
and Members of the County Council
Page 9
The Department of Water Supply has confirmed that water to the project site will
be provided via an existing 8-inch waterline along Ka`iminani Drive. A condition of this
favorable recommendation will ensure that sufficient water commitments are secured for
each of the 6 new lots within the proposed subdivision and that necessary water system
improvements are constructed to service these lots.
Wastewater generated by the proposed use will be disposed off via wastewater
treatment systems approved by the State Department of Health.
Police services are available from the County's Police Station at Kealakehe,
approximately five miles from the project site. Fire and emergency services aze available
from the station at the intersection of Palani Road and the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway,
approximately four miles from the site. A volunteer fire station was recently established
at the makai end of Ka`iminani Drive in Kona Palisades Subdivision and the County is
contemplating aCounty-operated fire station along the makai side of the Mamalahoa
Highway just north of Ka`iminani Drive.
Electricity and telephone services are can-ently available to the project area.
The Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) indicate that the area is located in Zone
"X," areas determined to be outside of the 500-year flood plain. There are no significant
drainage ways that adversely affects the project site. While there are no indications of
surface water flow on-site, the applicant will be required to abide by all applicable
County guidelines for run-off generated by the development. The Department of Public
Works has recommended that a drainage study be prepared, and the recommended
drainage system shall be constructed meeting with their approval.
The predominant soil within the project area is classified by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, as Kaimu (rKED) and Punaluu (rPYDj. The
project site is not classified as having any agricultural importance on the State
Department of Agriculture's Agricultura) Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii
(ALISH) Map and soils within the project site is classified as "E" (Very Poor) for
agricultural productivity by the Land Study Bureau. Therefore, the requested change of
zone will not have any significant adverse impact on the agricultural resources of the
County.
The project site was graded, improved with two single family dwellings. an
agricultural warehouse and is currently being cultivated with peppers and flowers for lei
making. Given the improved nature of the project site, the presence of endangered floral
and fauna species is unlikely. For these same reasons, the existence of significant
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 10
archaeological sites within the project site is also unlikely. An archaeological inventory
survey of the project site was prepared by Haun and Associates. The field work was
conducted on October 12, 2002. The survey determined that large portions of the project
site have been impacted by past ground altering disturbances. Nevertheless, the survey
did locate 14 azchaeological features consisting of 3 walls, 4 modified outcroppings, a
mound, and the southern wall of the Alanui Kauhini Government Road. The walls are
interpreted as historic livestock control features and the mound and modified rock
outcroppings represent agricultural features of the Kona Field System. All of these sites
are tentatively assessed as important solely for their information content and that no
further archaeological work or preservation is recommended.
While the applicant has proposed a 10-foot wide landscaping buffer along the
southern boundaries of all proposed lots that shaze a common boundary with the
adjoining Kona Palisades Subdivision, such a requirement is viewed as an
accommodation by the applicant for the residents of Kona Palisades Subdivision and not
essential to the Planning Director's support of this change of zone request. Standard yard
setbacks required by the Zoning Code will impose a minimum 10-foot wide structural
setback from this common boundary, which is identical to the 10-foot wide landscaping
buffer being proposed by the applicant. Therefore, a condition of approval regarding this
landscaping buffer is not recommended and the imposition of such a landscaping buffer
will be left to the sole discretion of the applicant.
Based on the above findings, this request to reclassify the subject property from
an Agricultural-5 acres (A-Sa) to a Single Family Residential-15,000 square feet (RS-IS)
zoned district would result in an appropriate land use pattern and further benefit the
general public.
For your favorable consideration, amendments to the State Land Use Boundaries
Map H-7 for the County of Hawaii and Section 25-8-3 (North Kona Zone Map) of the County
Zoning Code are transmitted. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the
draft bill.
Honorable James Y. Arakaki, Chairman
and Members of the County Council
Page 11
We are enclosing a copy of the staff background and transcript for your information.
~i~cerely, / / ~
Geraldine M. Giffin, Chairman
Planning Commission
Lyaung02pc
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Sidney M. Fuke
Mr. Dennis Young
Department of Public Works
Department of Water Supply
West Hawaii Office
Department of Land & Natural Resources
Brian Minaai, Director/DOT-Highways, Honolulu
State Department of Health
County Housing Agency
County Fire Department
BYoungDSLURBZdsa.doc-1 I /02/02
COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BACKGROUND REPORT
DENNIS YOUNG
STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 02-010)
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 02-020)
DENNIS YOUNG has submitted applications for a State Land Use Boundary
Amendment (SLU 02-010) from Agricultural to Urban District, and a Change of Zone
(REZ 02-020) by changing the district classification from Agricultural (A-Sa) to Single
Family Residential (RS-15) for approximately 8.256 acres of land. The property is located
west (makai) of Mamalahoa Highway at the north end of Ahiahi Street, and bordered by Kona
Coastview Subdivision and Kona Palisades Subdivision, Kalaoa 4"', North Kona, Hawaii,
TMK: 7-3-10: 29.
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Land Ownership: The applicant and Della de Rochemont are fee owners of the
subject property. Both have authorized the filing of these State Land Use Boundary
Amendment and Change of Zone applications.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2. Request: The applicant is requesting a State Land Use District Boundary Amendment
from an Agricultural to an Urban District and a Change of Zone from Agricultural
(A-Sa) to a Single Family Residential (RS-15) zoned district for approximately
8.256 acres of land.
3. Objectives: The applicant intends to subdivide the project site into 6 lots with lot
sizes ranging from a minimum of 15,000 square Feet to approximately 1.5 acres.
4. Proposed Improvements: All six (6) lots within the proposed lot subdivision will
gain access through an extension of Ahiahi Street to the adjoining Kona Palisades
Subdivision located to the south. The extension of Ahiahi Street will be privately
maintained with 16 feet of pavement and 2-foot wide shoulders within a 50-foot wide
right-of--way. If required to be dedicated by the County, the applicant will not object
provided that the cost of these roadways be credited to the applicant's fair share
assessment.
5. Other Project Details: The applicant states that deed covenants within each of the
6 proposed lots will prohibit the construction of Ohana dwellings. In addition, a
10-foot wide landscaping buffer will be established within all lots located along the
project site's southern boundary and the adjoining Kona Palisades Subdivision.
6. Project Timetable: The applicant intends to commence with the development of the
proposed subdivision immediately upon securing the proper governmental land use
approvals. The applicant hopes to have these proposed lots available on the market
sometime during 2003.
7. Supportive Information: (See Exhibit B -Applications for State Land Use
Boundary Amendment and County Rezoning dated October 2002)
STATE AND COUNTY PLANS
8. SLU: Agricultural by the State Land Use Commission.
9. GP Consistency: Economic and Land Use elements goals, policies and courses of
action.
10. GP LUPAG Map: Urban Expansion. This area allows for a mix of high density,
medium density, low density, industrial and/or open designations in areas where new
settlements maybe desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses
have not yet been determined.
11. Keahole to Kailua (KtoK) Development Plan: Residential Expansion. The K to K
Plan was adopted by the County Council by Resolution on April 3, 1991. The Plan
was adopted as a guide to be utilized in the development of infrastructure and land
uses in the region.
Upland Residential Zone:
Residential Expansion Areas (800 acres): The expansion areas in the upland zone
would accommodate an additional 3,000 to 5,000 housing units. The project site and
immediately surrounding area is identified as an existing residential area that is
included within the Residential Expansion Area.
12. Kona Regional Plan: The Kona Regional Plan, adopted by the Planning Commission
by Resolution in 1984, recommends the project area for residential uses at a density of
-2-
four (4) units per acre (RES-4). This recommended land use is consistent with a
current zoning designation of RS-10, a higher density than that being requested by the
applicant.
13. Kalaoa Comprehensive Traffic Study: On January 22, 1997, the Hawaii County
Council adopted Resolution No. 20-97, which supports the County's proposal to
conduct a Comprehensive Traffic Plan for the Kalaoa area of North Kona, within
which the project site is located. The proposed plan would include identifying the
necessary infrastmctural improvements for the area relating to traffic, traffic safety,
water, fire protection, parks and civil defense.
14. County Zoning: Agricultural-5 acres (A-Sa) by the County.
I5. SMA: The project site is not situated within the Special Management Area. It is
located approximately 3 miles from the nearest coastline.
16. Coastal Zone Management, HRS Chapter 205A: According to the applicant, the
proposed use will not negatively impact recreational resources, visual resources to or
from the shoreline, including access to and along the shoreline or coastal ecosystems.
DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREA
17. Subject Property: The project site is located at the northern end of Ahiahi Street,
which will provide access to Kona Palisades Subdivision located immediately to the
south of the project site. The project site is situated at an elevation between 1,400 and
1450 feet above mean sea level. There are presently two single family dwellings and a
warehouse situated within the project site. According to the applicant, the entire
property has been previously bulldozed and is currently planted with native flowering
plants for lei making as well as a small pepper farm.
18. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: Immediately adjacent to the north is Kona
Coastview Subdivision and immediately to the south is Kona Palisades Subdivision.
These subdivisions are situated within the State Land Use Urban District and are
primarily zoned Agricultural (A-Sa) by the County. However, these subdivisions are
essentially non-conforming residential sized lots ranging between 8,000 to 20,000
square feet. These subdivisions include mixed residential uses and vacant lands.
-3-
Several requests for State Land Use Boundary Amendments and Changes of Zone for
lands within the immediate vicinity of the project site have been recently approved or
are currently pending before the Planning Commission or the County Council. These
applications (refer to Exhibit A for locations) include:
a. TMK: 7-3-005: 97 -Applicant: Bart T. Cahoon Trust
Request: SLU: Agricultural to Urban REZ: A-Sato RS-15
Proposal: 15-lot subdivision
Status: Ordinances adopted by Council-Effective: August 28, 2002
b. TMK: 7-3-005: 095, por of 31 & 85 -Applicant: David S. DeLuz Enterprises
Request: SLU: Agricultural to Urban REZ: A-Sa & RS-l 0 to RS-20
Proposal: 35-lot subdivision
Status: Ordinances adopted by Council-Effective: May 10, 2002
a TMK: 7-3-005: Por of 32 & 33 -Applicant: David S. DeLuz, Sr. Enterprise
Request: SLU: Agricultural to Urban REZ: A-Sato CN-10
Proposal: Retail and neighborhood commercial center
Status: Ordinances adopted by Council-Effective: March 19, 2002
d. TMK: 7-3-005: 030 -Applicant: Ellen Garver
Request: SLU: Agricultural to Urban REZ: A-Sato RS-20
Proposal: 5-lot subdivision
Status: Ordinances adopted by Council-Effective: May 10, 2002
e. TMK: 7-3-005: 098 -Applicant: Kevin & Patricia Rinkenbach
Request: SLU: Agricultural to Urban REZ: A-Sato RS-15
Proposal: 16-lot subdivision
Status: Ordinances adopted by Council-Effective: May 17, 2000
£ TMK: 7-3-005: 089 -Applicant: Peter Dungate
Request: SLU: Agricultural to Urban REZ: A-Sato RS-20
Proposal: 12-lot subdivision
Status: Ordinances adopted by Council-Effective: August 12, 1999
g. TMK: 7-3-010: 037 - Applicant: Kona Scenic Land
Request: SLU: Agricultural to Urban REZ: A-Sato RS-10
Proposal: 34-lot subdivision
Status: Ordinances adopted by Council-Effective April 2, 1997
-4-
19. U.S.D.A. Soil Type: Soils within the project site are classified as rKED and rPYD.
rKED is Kaimu extremely stony peat, 6 to 20 percent slopes. The surface layer is very
dark brown extremely stony peat, about 3 inches thick. It is underlain by fragmental
Aa lava. This soil is neutral in reaction. Permeability is rapid, mnoff is slow and the
erosion hazard is slight. rPYD is Punaluu extremely rocky peat, 6 to 20 percent
slopes. In a representative profile, the surface layer is black peat about 4 inches thick.
It is underlain by pahoehoe lava bedrock. This soil is medium acid. The peat is
rapidly permeable. The pahoehoe lava is very slowly permeable, although water
moves rapidly through the cracks. Runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is slight.
20. Land Study Bureau Soil Rating: Soils within the project site are classified as "E" or
"Very Poor" for agricultural productivity.
21. Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) System: Soils
within the project site are not classified on the ALISH map.
22. FIRM: According to FIRM, the subject site is designated Zone "X", an area
determined to be outside of the 500-year flood plain.
23. Flora/Fauna Resources: As the project site has been previously bulldozed, improved
with two single family dwellings and agricultural buildings, the likelihood of any rare
or endangered flora or fauna is remote. According to the applicant, patches of koa
haole, lantana, Christmas berry and fountain grass occur throughout the project site in
addition to the flower plants and peppers being grown.
24. Archaeological Resources: An archaeological inventory survey of the project site
was prepared by Haun and Associates. The field work was conducted on October 12,
2002. The survey determined that large portions of the project site have been impacted
by past ground altering disturbances. Nevertheless, the survey did located 14
archaeological features consisting of 3 walls, 9 modified outcroppings, a mound, and
the southern wall of the Alanui Kauhini Government Road. The walls are interpreted
as historic livestock control features and the mound and modified rock outcroppings
represent agricultural features of the Kona Field System. All of these sites are
tentatively assessed as important solely for their information content and that no
-5-
further archaeological work or preservation is recommended.
25. Cultural or Native Gathering Rights: The applicant is not aware whether the project
site or surrounding area as been used in the recent past for gathering of plants by
native Hawaiians. The applicant does note that the project site was previously utilized
for cattle grazing for over .50 years and as a homesite for the past 20 years. The
applicant notes that should a legitimate claim for gathering by native Hawaiians be
made, the applicant will honor those claims and provide for the needed access.
26. Puhlic Access: According to the applicant, coastal public access is not an issue since
the project site is not situated adjacent and/or proximate to the shoreline.
PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES
27. Access: Ahiahi Street, aCounty-maintained roadway having a pavement width of
20 feet within a 50-foot wide right-of--way, provides access to the subject property
through the adjoining Kona Palisades Subdivision. The applicant proposes the
extension of Ahiahi Street by providing an extension of the 50-foot wide roadway, but
providing a 16-foot wide pavement that is consistent with private roadway standards
for a subdivision of 6 lots or less. When required by the Department of Public Works,
the applicant will dedicate this extension of Ahiahi Street.
28. Water: According to the applicant, water to support the proposed subdivision can be
made available from an existing 6-inch waterline along Ahiahi Street.
29. Wastewater: There is no municipal sewer system in the area. The applicant proposes
to dispose of sewage via wastewater treatment systems approved by the State
Department of Health. The applicant states that there are no potable drinking water
wells within 1,000 feet of the project site.
30. Other Essential Utilities and Services: Electrical and telephone services are or will
be made available to the site. The nearest police station is located at Kealakehe,
approximately five miles from the project site. There is a fire station at the
intersection of Palani Road and the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, approximately four
miles south of the project site. A volunteer fire station was recently established at the
bottom of Ka'iminani Street within Kona Palisades Subdivision. ACounty-supported
-6-
fire station is also being considered along the makai side of the Mamalahoa Highway
just north of its intersection with Ka'iminani Street, a little more than a mile east
(mauka) from the project site.
AGENCIES' COMMENTS
31. Land Use Commission: October 29, 2002 memorandum
"We acknowledge receipt of your memorandum dated October 25, 2002 regarding the
above subject application.
Given the location, scope, and nature of the proposed activity, the State Land Use
Commission defers to the judgment of the County of Hawaii Planning Commission in
this matter. We have no further comments to offer at this time."
32. Office of Housing and Community Development: October 29, 2002 memorandum
"Affordable housing conditions, pursuant to Chapter 11, Housing, of the Hawaii
County Code, are applicable to the request."
33. Department of Environmental Management: November 7, 2002 memorandum
"We have reviewed the subject application and have no comments to offer."
34. Real Property Tax Division: (October 30, 2002 memorandum)
"Property is receiving agricultural use value. Possible rollback taxes. Portion of
property in Ag. Use/subject to rollback and penalty from 1995.
Real property taxes are paid through December 31, 2002."
35. Police: (1ovember 7, 2002 memorandum)
"Staff has reviewed the above-referenced application and has no comments or
objections to offer at this time."
36. Department of Water Supply:
(See Exhibit C -November 22, 2002 memorandum)
37. Department of Public Works:
(See Exhibit D- November 26, 2002 memorandum)
38. Fire Department:
(See Exhibit E-November 4, 2002 memorandum)
-7-
AGENCIES - NO RESPONSE or COMMENTS
41. Department of Transportation, Department of Health, Department of Land & Natural
Resources -Land Division & Historic Preservation Division.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
42. No comments regarding the subject applications were received by the Planning
Department.
-8-
2
L
_ ,5 __-r- _
. P~ t„~~.~I~I~~ I L~ vry~ I
C ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ii(~
S
~ n O' ~
y
Y~ / C
[ C _
(~(7 CC
..._o.~ ~ ~ 1'f~ i ~ ~ U
t ~
rte, ~ ( ~ ~s£E
. ~ _ t ~ n ~ a
-l~. ;a. ~ I
3 ~ _ ~ t~. ~ H
~Y_ ~ _ ~ _ _
. I pk ~ d k i
"q j
C~ '~y. -~-i ~ F" ~-E k
_ ~
~ 1 ~ ~ `z R ti i
9-~~_~~ - j,S_~~ ! _.ai r z _
I-~I FFd~ t I ' _
w #
y
-~I ~ '~.~l~i.! L ~ E' ~ ~ i ~ ik ~
i
APPLICATIONS FOR
STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
(Agricultural to Urban)
and
COUNTY REZONING
(A-5a to RS-15)
~ DENNIS YOUNG
KALAOA 4tb NORTH KONA, HAWAII
TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-3-10: 029
I
Prepared For:
Dennis Young
I
Prepared By:
Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant
October 2002
EXHIBIT
STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION
(IS ACRES OR LESS)
COUNTY OF HAWAII
PLANI~IING DEPARTMLP~' ~i r; 11 P ~1 3 2 5
(Type or legibly print the requested information) ~ i'~ENT
PETITIONER: ~ e ~ "t ~s I" o ~ ~t 9 ,
PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE: ~ ~ DATE: Oct. 10, 2002
ADDRESS: 73- ~ZC~ q ,~acu.Lta-/c S'¢
r
PETITIONER'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER:
TELEPHONE:(Bus.) 325-7841 (Res.)_ (Fax)_ 325-7841
LANDOWNER(S): ~~K~~s t ouvt I~e~~~ e(e ~oe~ewtovrF
LANDOWNER SIGNATURE( ~ ~k~ ea ATE: Oct. 10, 2002
(d ay by tettee)
ADDRESS: 73' yz L 9 v~~/a~.I,~a./~ S~{ .
KG-//~iA • 7C6K~ /a~LJ4c~ g(v7 ~o
TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-3-10: 29
STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Ahiahi Street
ZONING: A-5a SIZE OF PROPERTY: 8.256 acres
CURRENT STATE LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION• Agriculture
REQUESTED STATE LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION: Urban
AGENT: 'Sidney Fake
ADDRESS: 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212
Hilo, HI 96720
TELEPHONE:(Bus.) 969-1522 (Res.)_ 961-6909 (Fax) 969-7996
Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent.
ORIGINAL: Sidney Fuke COPIES: Dennis Young
° (See Instructions on Reverse Side)
CI3ANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
rr
(Type or legibly print the requested informat~' )C 11 f'~ 3 25
I '^!r~Il;
+~EiVT
°PLIC.-ANT: ` ~-~ni_s ~oun~ C,~'J? ~ r'~ i ''.II
_?'PLICANT'S SIGNATURE: G ' DATE: Oct. 10, 2002
_=.DDRESS: 7~ - ~~G 9 ~~aa-~a, ~ ~5~.
_I.ST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER:
PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS:
LH05E:(BusJ 325-7841 (Res.)_ (Fax)_ 325-7841
~~\-DOWNER(S): ~c~h~s ~ D/~t/h ~c.(Ic~ el c. ~6c~G>vnoH"F'
is\-DOWNER SIGNATURE( ~ ~ I sl~~~,,.,1~...~- DATE: Oct. 10, 2002
~~\~OWNER(S) ADDRESS: 7.3• `/e2G 9 ,~4~~b„~clen~~
h~
~QL-FST: A-Sa TO RS-15
(Fasting zoning) 7-3-I0: ?,9 (Proposed Zoning)
--1X ~L-YP KEY:
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Ahiahi Street
OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: 8.256 acres
JE\-r: Sidney F1ike
_=~7DRE5S: 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212
Hilo,- HI 96720
`~.EPHONE:(Bus.) 969-1522 (ReS,)_ 961-6909 (Fax)_ 969-7996
?=~s~ indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent.
~RIGL~:~I.: Sidney Fuke COPIES: Dennis Young
- (See Instructions on Reverse Side)
ATTACHMENT
Residential Rezoning
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF HAWAII
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE
1. If your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide
the subject land in accordance with the approved change
of zone? Yes
If yes, please answer the rest of question 1 and then to
question 3.
a. How many acres of the requested area do you intend to
subdivide? All
15 000 + to 1 acre
b. Into what lot sizes?
c. If your request is approved, approximately how long
after the date of approval do you expect to submit
your subdivision plans to the Planning Department
for preliminary approval? Immediately
d. Do you intend to build houses on the newly created
No
lots?
If yes, please answer the Following questions:
On how many of those lots?
At what approximate price range? House
Lots
Total
Approximately how long, after approval of
the subdivision, would the first house be
available for occupancy?
r° If you intend to subdivide, please submit a
preliminary schematic subdivision plan together
with your change of zone application form.
2. If you have no firm plans of subdividing the subject area,
do you intend to:
a. Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm
plans?
b. Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative
plans?
c. Sell or lease the land to someone who has no plans?
d. Keep it?
e. Other (please state)
f. If you intend to do either a, b, or c, please elaborate
on the kind of plans the other party has. Please, also,
include in your answer approximately how soon after
approval of your rezoning do you expect to transfer the
subject land to another party.
k
3. Do you think that your request and your further plans
for the land will alleviate the local housing situation? Yes
How?
By providing additional lots on the market, the supply should
help minimize or retard an accelerated price for lots and in turn
homes.
4. Are there any buildings on the subject area? Yes
If so, what kind? 2single-family dwellings and a warehouse
What do you intend to do wifh those buildng§ if-your
request is approved?
Keep the structures
I!^,
-2-
5. Is the subject land currently being used for any
agricultural activitity? Yes
If so, please list the kinds of products grown and on
how many square feet or acres of land per product.
Approximately 1/2 acre is now being used to cultivate a pepper
and flower lei farm.
6. To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or
drainage problem on the subject area? No
If so, please describe the problem.
7. Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area
needs improvement? No
If so, what kind? It should be noted, however, that
the applicant intends to provide the right-of-way and
some measure of improvement to allow a connection between
Ahiahi Street and Kauhale Street.
Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume
or load? Yes
g. What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements
do you feel will be needed in the subject area when
developed?
Yes No
a. Schools %
b. Roads %
c. Sewer x
d. Drainage R
e. Police Protection R
- -3-
E~9i1h!'2Ei~i2 0?: 46 13F~Es-9E9-7a5E o. FLIKE, PLANI~IIha~a FACE 54
Yas No
f. Fire Protection X
g. Recreational Facilities x
h. Public Utilities R
i. Other
i
Far those checked "yes,' please elaborate what type or kinds of
improvements and/or assistance are needed.
Please refer to the planning/environmental report for-+a
description of the existing and proposed infrastructure.
Signature~~ ~ ~.~>srfl.,,x,;.
Address: 73-4269 Kauha S reet Kailua
Telephone: 325-7841
Date: October 10~ 2002
e
i
i
I
CQUNTY EI~,VHtONMENTAL REPf]?RT
STATE` LAND US,E $CIL~'~TI,'lA~'Y A1V.~N1?MENT
(A:gx~i~uyt~ral~io i)r`~ari)
,
OOUl~`~'
ri
(.A-5a,taI~S~~,a~
KALAOA 4t6 NORTH KONA, HAWAII
TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-3-10:'029
I
Prepared For:
i Dennis Young
Prepared By:
Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant
October 2002
COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
STATE LAND USE and COUNTY REZONING REQUESTS
DENNIS YOUNG
TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-3-10: 29
KALAOA 4th, NORTH KONA, HAWAII
I. INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Dennis Young, is requesting the reclassification of an 8.256-acre
pazcel into the Urban District and its subsequent rezoning from Agriculture (A-Sa) to
Single-Family Residential (RS-15) in Kalaoa 4th, North Kona, Hawaii. (See Figure
1) The property is located at the north end of Ahiahi Street, north of its intersection
with Ka'iminani Drive.
If approved, the applicant intends to subdivide the 8.256-acre azea into six (6) single-
family residential lots ranging in size from 15,000 to 1.5 acres.
II. PROJECT LOCATION
The project azea is located at the north end of Ahiahi Street, adjacent to the Kona
t Palisades Subdivision It extends from Ahiahi Street to the adjoining Kona
Coastview Subdivision. It is located immediately makai of the Keahole Heights
Subdivision, a project that was recently rezoned into the RS-10 district. Phase I has
akeady been developed, while Phase II is still going through the subdivision process.
(See Figure 2).
The subject site begins approximately 150 feet north of the intersection of
Ka iminani Drive at the end of Ahiahi Street. Ahiahi Street is the fourth cross-street
intersection along Ka' imanani Drive, approximately one-third of the way down from
the Mamalahoa (Hawaii Belt) Highway.
IIL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Proiect Concept and Comaonents
There aze presently two (2) single-family dwellings on the subject property.
The applicant lives in one of them, and upon completion of some interior
renovation, the applicant's parents will live in the other unit. The applicant
also a warehouse and a small pepper farm on a portion of the subject site.
As the site is too large for his use, the applicant is seeking to subdivide the
property while still retaining his explored different land use schemes of this
site. These included a more intensive twenty-eight (28) lot, 10,000 square
1
A PAGE 43 13 KALA A C Y See Page 7~ D E
c
_
31 mm
` 1 MILE '
~v Maka(ei Hawaii
Country Club
G~
°
QR
' ro
2 Puahala Puuka/a z
xaamna
xautd
® 72-1099
'W ~r 32mm
a „(orvst
W ~
Uaiv xrx t^ •o ~ ~ •c
all dU w
Wrrr m r°p C ~
KALAOA ~c' ~ 4~°"o b ro b ula Rd 1 Jn, yawed °r"k
g °~Hoopaz ~o c m a dolma 7
R
shale p~°' ~ ~ Kaale ~ _ _
Sub'ect Site Hamanamana o? ^
Oluolu ° ~ St ~°a~ m M V W a' °w p~~aole Rd -
J Mahilan~ O ~ ~ o ~ 'd ~ 'O ~ Donahue Rd _ _ _ _ - - - -t
~ b~ ~ Ali ~ x Pl 4 gl X arrRhb dr P,
z ~ ~ °a e Loloa a 'G Dr pjj0~
Ahulani St xaaa •~1O"~'
m co oau ~ J
a d
Ahikawa ~ ~ St r
~ ]3mm
9 5• ~ xeahale B a -q
N 9~. 9P > . xh n 73-0265 ~
~ '~.a ~F m w fit. Nawahie ° aalaw a. rarraees ° o~
u ~ o. y cem ed Mauna Ziom 'v~
P. o y b b v ~ .C C w O~ o n a' iL ~ Farm w.
~ ~ ? .i i r,~ ~ p 0. y a u !L ~ y ~ ~ ~ • pOld Xalaoa Sd y
c c Awakes to ' x'" a 'a ~ 'x ~C Kamalca Ln
Hi'olani lhumoe St 1{aimininani
_ Dr x ~
Z St ~ O s
5 Ilan o .v • , ~ ~ g
w
xona m e .a
Acee r/r ~ C
N 0. xona xdLr ~ a' KI310 LL /In, ed
_ ~ a' xona
-~7p~O~IDa Ooma
Kukuna ~ ~ Xamo ,~uG o - Pl xn I m' ~'d -
xohawaihi ¢ p ld Hmsid Rd
xm<rdj ~ Churcy of ~ ~ xona 9
r ~ I _ + . - i dwd_ (ied Rd I,j]lall Ponoi _ OId Mauna I{,Ja
~ ~ I J In, paved h-- Gov'[ Rd ~D
5 ~ v o I If~I..AILLA-I~O~A 6
~ p xaloko
~ Sb„ Koloko y 'l0 xWi'a ~
° Ba 'er Xalaka 11 °
Copyright 1999, Odyssey Publishing LLC silkonOotr 1 to poved a
A See Page 46 B I C b' See Page 47 D I E
FIGURE 1
~ ~ g
~
> x
o e
A` _ S~~'"
z
x
SLrB.IECT
SITE
T
~xq
p
e
OLONOLO STREET .
r
- FIGiJRE 2
foot lot subdivision that would be consistent with some of the recent rezoning
in this azea, as well as lots within the adjoining Kona Palisades Subdivision.
However, after taking into consideration the applicant's existing farm,
mazket, infrastructure, and community factors, the applicant has elected to
proceed with only a 6-lot subdivision, with lots averaging l+ acre in size.
The RS-15 zoning is needed, as one of the lots would be less than 20,000
squaze feet. (See Figure 3) The gross average density of this project would
thus be more than 1 acre. This project would thus be considerably less dense
than the prevailing RS-10 density in this azea.
It should be noted that in the event the property was fully developed
according to its requested zoning (i.e., RS-15), the maximum number of lots
would be no more than 121ots. The configuration of the existing and
proposed pazcels, combined with the proposed right-of--way (i.e., Ahiahi
Street Extension) to the Kona Coastview Subdivision would constrain a more
intensive development of this site.
A 50-footright-of--way to allow for a possible connection between the Kona
Palisades Subdivision via Ahiahi Street to Kauhale Street within the Kona
' Coastview Subdivision would be provided. It should be noted that there is an
existing unimproved, 20-foot wide homestead road (Alanui-Kauhini) between
the subject site and Kauhale Street. The proposed extension would thus have
to bisect this Road.
It should be emphasized that the applicant intends to initially develop a
private road using the 6-lot road standazd within this proposed 50-foot wide
connector road. This standard would consist of a 16-foot wide pavement with
2-foot shoulders within the 50-foot wide right-of--way. In the event the
property were more intensively developed, additional road improvements
would be provided consistent with the Subdivision Code. Nonetheless, the
applicant is willing to convey this portion to the County upon request by the
County, with the understanding that the land and improvements thereon
would be credited against the applicant's fair share requirement.
Until dedicated to the County, the proposed road would be kept private and
maintained by the respective lot owners. It is understood that the subdivision
~ plan submitted herein may change prior to receipt of final subdivision
approval to accommodate County subdivision requirements, appropriate
conditions of approval, and marketing demands.
Finally, the applicant intends to have covenants incorporated into the deeds of
the respective lots to prohibit the construction of an "ohana" dwelling. There
2
r i.
1.. _ ~;.ft b i
vi = i
H a 3 ~ ~ j
:3( S ~ ~ o c y ~ N' l 3~
33 yg O G N 4
v
e` a
c
a
c
c
0
y
~ i if ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ r 1
~ ; t 7
~
1+o f I Le ! i t~ i ~ ~
f ' t J E ` ' I
y ~ ~
1
E ' `
)Il ~ < ~ U ~
. ^g~ ar
`fie' 1`P _ +1 1
1-y o 3m~ C, y~ ; i
3 ` ! ~ ~ s i
S a ~ ~
r
4 ~ ~ ~
t ~
1 L13N:s iTfowti - - ~ !4i .>p~ E ~ ~
i
Jay ' ' I ~ < Ca
I ~ ~ i 5~ r
{ I ~
< ~ j
i i
~ .
y
f_~~
t~ t ~µM rW
,r
Cf
i~ 1
C t`
- i i . ~ j
~ y_1
~ FIGURE 3
~
i a
3~~~ ~.n ~
i
_1
- ~'1
1; ~i
1 y ~
~
_ 7
i ~
1 , , -
I - ~ ~ ~ ,i ~
~ ~ ~
i ~ ~ ~ ~~I
i ~
~ ~ ~
_ > _
,au~, qua S~`- ~ tl~ K.~~~ A«.
i
~bKl ~ 4~~R a~ ~ ~ Ci - o ~ 4
a~ ~ i<<,
i;
s, _ i i
t
I i
.v. ~ ~
itf'i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2
tifi•
R
a
¢ n
e. P=2 ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ m
p, {
I( ~~i'~ ~i t o v o ^O ~ O
w a ' lt3 f YY1 ° a o o a~ z ,
a s[' o a ' ~
~~~tip 2 ~ I Ei~
a~ ~ ji ~zk ~
} o
e r~ o ~
3 'tx y R
a t -
will also be a 10-foot wide landscaped buffer extending the entire length of
the southern property line adjoining the Kona Palisades Subdivision.
B. Project Timetable and Cost
The applicant hopes to secure the necessazy State Land Use and County
rezoning approvals as soon as possible and begin the subdivision and
development process immediately thereafter. Tentatively, plans call for
having the lots on the market sometime in 2003.
The estimated cost of the improvements is estimated at $250,000.
IV. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. State Land Use
The subject azea is designated Agriculture. To effectuate this project, the
entire site is being requested to be reclassified into the Urban district.
Based on the size of the requested azea, no State Land Use Commission
action is required. The County of Hawaii can process both the boundary
reclassification and zoning requests.
B. County General Plan
The County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map
designates the site Extensive Agriculture with the Urban Expansion overlay.
The Extensive Agriculture designation refers to pasturage and range lands.
This site also has the Urban Expansion overlay. This overlay allows for a
mix of high density, medium, and low density uses.
It should also be noted that the Planning Director's proposed revision to the
General Plan LUPAG map suggests that this azea be designated Low Density
Urban.
Based on the requested Single Family Residential (RS-15) zoning, the project
would be consistent with the current and proposed General Plan and no
~ amendments would be required.
C. Draft Kona Re¢ional Plan
This plan attempts to further define the General Plan and serves as a guide for
decision-makers. It was adopted by the Planning Commission in 1984. It has
3
not, however, been adopted by the County Council.
The Land Use Concept map of this plan identifies ages-4 designation for this
area. This designation suggests residential uses, up to four (4) units per acre.
The requested RS-15 zoning would be consistent with this designation.
D. Keahole to Kailua (K to Kl Develoament Plan
The K to K Plan was adopted by the County council by resolution on Apri13,
1991. This Plan is intended to serve as a guide to help with the planning and
implementation of infrastructural and land use activities.
The designation of this area is Residential Expansion. Accordingly, the
requested RS-15 zoning would be consistent with this Plan.
r
E. Countv Zoning
The County zoning of the subject azea was Cnplanned, which allowed for a
minimum of 5-acre lots. With the adoption of the new Zoning Code and the
subsequent elimination of the Unplanned category, the site de facto, became
zoned Agriculture (A-Sa).
If approved, the site would be subdivided in a manner meeting with both the
Zoning and Subdivision Codes. Further, all uses and standazds consistent
with the requested RS-15 zone would be adhered to.
F. Council I Resolution No. 20 97
The County Council, on January 22, 1997, adopted the subject resolution.
This resolution called for the County Administration to "initiate a
comprehensive plan to interlink and enhance the community of Kalaoa
through publicly and privately funded improvements, and establish an
advisory committee of representatives from the various neighbors to guide
and assist in planning..." matters such as pazk/community center, roadway,
and water infrastructural improvements.
The subject property is part of this planning azea.
G. Special Management Area
The site is not located within the County Special Management Area (SMA).
As such, no SMA Use Permit would be required. However, as the entire
4
island falls within the State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Area, some
discussion of the request's relationship to the CZM Program follows.
The site is not adjacent to the ocean. It is more than three (3) miles from the
shoreline. As such, the proposed action should not have any adverse impacts
on the azea's coastal recreational and marine resources nor have any
impacts on beach protection.
The likelihood of this improvement having any impacts to the area's historic
resources is remote. As the site was previously cleazed, it would not appeaz
that there aze any azchaeological features within the area of the proposed
improvements. Should there be any inadvertent finds during construction of
the project, work will stop until cleazances are received from the appropriate
County and State agencies.
l
' The proposed action will involve the constmction of improvements in a non-
urban setting. Accordingly, there is a potential visual impact to the area's
scenic and open space resources. However, the project would involve the
eventual construction of asingle-family dwelling on each of the respective
lots. Given the slope of this site, the views of the coastline from the
Mamalahoa Highway should not be impeded.
Relative to the Coastal Ecosystems, impacts should be negligible, if at all, as
~ the site is located well over three (3) miles from the ocean. Notwithstanding
the distance, the nature of the project -residential -and the construction of
only six (6) private wastewater systems aze such that potential coastal
ecosystem impacts would usually not be found.
The proposed action will result in creating more residential lots in this area.
E~ This should thus provide short-term construction jobs. In the long run, by
aiding the housing situation, the project could help provide the needed
support for the expansion of the azea's economy. In so doing, the project
could aid the area and island's economy and the overall economic use of this
site and the azea in general.
Because of its distance from the shoreline, the site should not be subject to
coastal hazards.
Relative to the managing development objective, this function is more
applicable to the "authority" or approving agencies. However, it is noted that
the request would operate and be constructed within the scope of the Zoning
Code. The subject site would be zoned RS-15, and the requested use and
5
design/parameters (parking, height, setback, etc.) would be consistent with
said zoning. In that regazd, the project would be consistent with this policy.
Finally, in terms of the public participation objective, this is generally a
public agency function. This is achieved through the Marine and Coastal
Zone Management Advisory Group (MACZMAG) and the public hearing
process required pursuant to the Planning Commission's Rules and County
Council's meetings on this application. Notices of this application will be
sent by the applicant to surrounding property owners of the submittal of the
application, and again, prior to the public hearing.
Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the requested improvements
would be consistent with the objectives, policies and guidelines of the Coastal
Zone Management Policies, as outlined in Chapter 205-A-23, HRS and
Planning Commission Rule No. 9 relating to Special Management Area.
~'~t
H. Other Permittin¢ Considerations
Should these applications be approved, other permits would still be required.
These would be of the "ministerial" variety, such as Subdivision Approval,
Underground Injection Contro] ([JIC) permit, and the like.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. General Description
The elevation of the site ranges approximately between one thousand four
hundred (1,400) to one thousand four hundred fifty (1,450) feet above mean
E~ sea level.
® The mean annual rainfall in this area ranges between 50 and 75 inches. The
wetter months tend to occur between October through April. The mean
annual temperature is about seventy five (75) degrees Fahrenheit, with the
warmer months during the summer. Because the site is situated on the
leeward side of the island, winds tend to be light and variable. Slight easterly
winds occur during the day, while westerly or mountain winds are prevalent
during the evenings.
The parcel is somewhat odd shaped. At the mauka end, the property is
relatively straight, running 650 feet in a north/south direction. It then runs
straight in a mauka/makai direction for about 450+ feet, and then tapers off in
a north to south direction.
6
According to the applicant, the entire property has been bulldozed and cleared
in the past. There aze two (2) single-family dwellings and a native flowering
plants for leis such as the 'ilima and puukeni kepi adjacent to the dwellings.
The applicant also has a small pepper farm, consisting of less than 1 acre,
adjacent to a wazehouse. The balance of the site is undeveloped.
B. 50119 $IId TODOEraDI1V
The topography of the site slopes slightly (10 to 12 percent) in a mauka (east)
to makai (west) direction.
The US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soil Survev
Resort classifies the soil to be of the Kaimu (rKED) and Punalu'u Series.
The Kaimu series is characterized by well-drained, think organic soils over
~1 Aa lava. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and the erosion hazazd slight.
Generally, this type of soil is not suitable for cultivation.
The Punalu'u Series consists ofwell-drained thin organic soils over pahoehoe
lava bedrock. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard
slight. This type of soil was typically used for cattle grazing.
The Land Studv Bureau Overall Master Productivit~ating_ for the subject
area is Class "E" (E301) or poor. This designation suggests that the site does
not have a very high potential for agricultural productivity. The Bureau notes
that this soil series (Pahoehoe with Moaula) has frequent outcrops of
pahoehoe and is poorly suited for machine tillability. The soil texture is
moderately fine, the color is dark brown; and the pazent material is volcanic
ash and pahoehoe. It is moderately 'drained, and because it is rocky with
frequent outcrops of pahoehoe, it is not suited for machine tillability.
The State of Hawaii's Aericultural Lands Of Importance to the State of
Hawaii (ALISH) maps does not classify this site as being either "prime,
unique, or other" agricultural land.
C. Natural Hazards
1. Drainase
h
The US Corps of Engineers' Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
designates the project site to be located in Zone X, azeas outside the
500-year flood plain.
7
2. Tsunami Hazard
As the site is located over three (3) miles from the ocean and neaz the
1,400-foot elevation, it is located outside of the Civil Defense's
Tsunami Evacuation Zone.
3. Volcanic and Earthquake Hazards
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) classifies the area as
Lava Flow Hazad Zone 4, on a scale of ascending risk 9 to 1. The
populated azea of Kailua-Kona also fall in this category, while the
City of Hilo is classified Zone 3. There is very little that can be done
to mitigate this situation and reflects an ongoing threat to all residents
and businesses in these azeas.
The entire island of Hawaii falls within Earthquake Zone 4, according
to the County Building Code. As such, certain structural requirements
will be needed and taken during the building permit process to address
this seismic hazard.
D. Flora/Fauna
Although there were no professional surveys conducted of the floral or faunal
resources of the site, the applicant does not believe that raze or endangered
floral or faunal resources aze likely to be found within the subject site.
The applicant noted that the site has been fully bulldozed and cleared in the
past. In addition to the flowering plants and the pepper plants, there are
patches of koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala), Lantana (Lantana Camara)
and Christmas Berry (Schinus terebinthifolius). Also observed for lowland
grass, such as the fountain grass.
None of these aze listed on the endangered or eligible for consideration on the
endangered plant list. Thus, floral impacts should be minimal.
The site is not known or registered as a habitat for raze or endangered animal
life. Given its elevation, however, it would be possible to find the Hawaiian
M~ Hawk or Hawaiian Owl flying in the general azea.
E. Historic/Archaeoloeical Resources
As the site was formerly cleazed/bulldozed and periodically utilized for cattle
grazing in the past, no commissioned archaeological survey of the site was
8
made. Further, the site is also used as a residence and portions of it have
been cultivated into a pepper farm. As such, given the past disturbances and
current uses, it is less likely that one would find any archaeological features
on the site.
Nonetheless, during the course of developing the subdivision, should any
unanticipated archaeological features or sites be discovered, work will
immediately cease and the applicant will notify the Planning I)epaztment.
Upon receipt of clearances, work will resume.
F. Valued Cultural Resources
In view of the recent Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka
Pa~akai O Ka Aina decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering
~ij and fishing rights must be addressed. Specifically, there must be a discussion
of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and associated tradition and
customary practices of this site.
In this situation, the subject site is not adjacent and/or proximate to the
shoreline. As such, gathering of marine life and coastal access is not an issue.
It is not known whether the subject or immediate surrounding area was used
~ in the recent past for the gathering of plants by native Hawaiians. However,
as the site has been used periodically for cattle grazing for over 50 years and
as a residence for over 20 years, it would appeaz unlikely that the site would
serve such purpose today.
In the unlikely event that legitimate gathering claims aze made by native
Hawaiians, the applicant intends to respect and honor such claims and
provide the needed access within the site.
® Based on the above, it does not appeaz that the project would have any
potential adverse impact relative to the cultural and historical resources of the
area.
G. Water and Coastal Resources
R.,- The subject site is located well over three (3) miles from the coastline. As
such, coastal impacts resulting from dischazge of wastewater systems from
the site should not be significant. Further, being anon-coastal property, no
coastal access will be affected.
_ As the wastewater from the project will be serviced by sewer system meeting
9
with the approval of the Department of Health, septic tank or related system
meeting with the approval of said agency would be done by the respective
property owners at the time of issuance of a building permit for the proposed
lots.
H. Noise, Air Quality, and Dust
Ahiahi Street will serve as the County access to the proposed lots. This street
intersects with Ka'iminazri Drive, which in turn connects to the Mamalahoa
Highway, less than 2,000 feet to the east.
As the site and the surrounding lots are proximate to Ka'iminani Drivrv and
the Mamalahoa Highway, the ambient noise level relative to traffic is a little
higher. Nonetheless, the azea is still residential in chazacter. The addition of
vehicular movements generated by six (6) more lots should not generate an
appreciably higher level of noise.
There will, however, be short-term noise impacts associated with the
construction of the infrastructure for the proposed subdivision. Contractors
will be required to comply with appropriate noise and related mitigation
measures of the State Department of Health.
_ The proposed development should not generate any direct air uali unpacts.
The only discernible air quality impact could be associated with the vehicular
traffic to and from the site. While there will be an impact to the ambient air
quality, the impact should not be significant. With higher EPA standards for
automobile air emissions, the air quality impact should thus hopefully not be
significant.
As such, with the exception of construction dust in the beginning, long term
dust generated by the project should be minimal. Construction dust,
however, like construction noise will have to comply with the State
Deparhnent of Health's regulations.
I. Scenic and Visual Considerations
In the Natural Beauty element of the General Plan, there aze sites or areas
listed as being a scenic resource. The subject site is not listed as a scenic site.
However, there were a few examples cited in the Kona area. The most
notable is the backdrop of the Hualalai Mountain.
The proposed development would not have any visual impacts on this
mountain and other listed scenic resources in the azea. The site is located
10
more on the lower slope of Hualalai Mountain, and the normal residential
height should not detract from the mountain.
Furthermore, the site is not readily visible from the Mamalahoa Highway. As
such, visual coastal impacts should be negligible, if at all.
VI. SOCIAL AND RELATED CONSIDERATIONS
A. Surroundine Land Uses
The predominant land use in this area is single-family residential. The Kona
Palisades Subdivision, consisting of 10,000 square foot lots, is located
immediately to the site's south, while the Kona Coastview Subdivision with
its average 10,000+ squaze foot lots is located to its north. There are RS-10
I, subdivision/zonings located mauka of the site on Oneone Street.
" i There were also at least five (5) properties that were rezoned into the RS-10
or RS-15 district in this area over the past five (5) yeazs. The site is thus
bounded by residential uses and/or zoning.
B. Economic Impacts
The requested zoning would have some measure of economic impact, as it
would make fee simple lots available to individuals wishing to live in this
part of Kona. In turn, it would minimize the pressure to utilize more
important agricultural properties along the Coffee Belt, and thereby impacting
an important industry.
Further, there will be some short-term construction activity. And this, could
help with the area's economy.
C. AgriculturalImnacts
Although there is the applicant's pepper farm on the site, the majority of the
site has not been used for intensive agricultural activity. The farm use is
intended to continue, as well as the small (less than 10,000 square feet) area
of flowering plants that is used for lei-making.
K~
From an agricultural resource perspective, the land has not been classified as
being important from an agricultural resource perspective under the various
soil classification systems. It is classified as "E" or very poor by the Land
Study Bureau and not even classified under the ALISH system.
11
Because of the site's location (North Kona) and elevation (1,400 feet), it
represents a fairly attractive azea for residential projects. As such, it could
reduce pressures for the development or non-agricultural use of the better
agricultural lands in and azound Holualoa and the rest of the Coffee Belt. In
so doing, it would indirectly be helping or furthering the agricultural
objectives of the County.
VII. INFRASTRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Road
Access to the project would be via Ahiahi Street. This County road has a
right-of--way of fifty (50) feet with a pavement width of twenty (20) feet. The
applicant intends to extend this right-of--way to the adjoining Alahui-Kauhini
Homestead Road and eventually to Kauhale Street within the Kona
Coastview Subdivision. However, the roadway would be initially developed
using the allowable private-road, 6-lot standards. It would be improved if
further development is envisioned, requiring a wider road. The right-of--way
and any improvements would also be conveyed to the County, upon its
request.
B. Water
There is a 6-inch County water line fronting Ahiahi Street. This line will be
extended to service the proposed lots. According to discussions with the
Department of Water Supply, water can be made available for up to seven (7)
of the proposed six (6) lot subdivision. This would be subject to the
applicant's payment of the water commitment fee.
C. Wastewater
There is no County wastewater system in this area. As such, a septic tank
system meeting with the approval of the Department of Health will be
allowed. The respective lot owners will do this at the time of actual
construction of the residences.
There are no potable wells makai of the subject property and/or within 1,000
r~, feet of the subject site.
D. Solid Waste
Solid waste will be handled through commercial haulers or the individual
homeowners into authorized landfill sites or transfer stations. With the
12
requested RS-15 zoning, the potential for uses with toxic or related chemical
waste would be minimal, if at all.
E. Other Government Services
As this area is already part of the North Kona, urban azea, it is already being
serviced. No extension of government services would be required. The Fire
Station is located in Kailua, approximately five (5) miles away. The Police
Station is located at Kealakehe, approximately four (4) miles from the subject
site.
It should also be noted that there are plans for a new fire station near the
Mamalahoa Highway and 'Ili'Ili Street. This site would be less than 1,000
feet from the subject site.
Elementary schools aze available at Holualoa, Kealakehe, or Kahakai.
Intermediate and High Schools would be available at Kealakehe,
approximately three (3) miles away. County parks aze avai]able in Kailua,
Keauhou, and Kealakehe.
As such, the project should not result in the extension of any government
services. Further, the required public facilities aze located reasonably
I proximate to the subject site.
F. Other Utilities
All other utilities such as telephone, cable, and electrical services, aze
available to the site.
VIII. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS
A. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Environment and
Maintenance and Enhancement of Lon¢-Term Productivity
If the request were denied, the short-term use of the site would probably
continue as a residence with limited agricultural activities. The balance
would probably remain in its current undeveloped state.
IM,
Given the residential nature of this area, the retention of the Agriculture (A-
Sa) zoning may not result in the best development of the site. We would fmd
a predominantly lazge residential lot, which -because of its resource
characteristics -may not be capable of supporting intensive agricultural
activities. At the same time, pressures could occur on the conversion of lands
13
currently being used for more intensive agricultural activities in the mauka
Holualoa azea.
Given those conditions -coupled with the surrounding residential uses, it
may be more prudent from a land use perspective to more effectively utilize
the project site to satisfy a residential lot demand than to subdivide them into
lazge lots. The projected use could indirectly help retazd the pressures for the
unnecessary conversion of the better agricultural lands for residential
activities.
B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
The subject site is already disturbed. As such, the project should not result in
an irreversible commitment of natural or archaeological resources.
C. MifiQative Measures
The applicant intends to provide the required on-site infrastructure in
conjunction with the subdivision process. At the same time, any drainage
issue will be mitigated, as plans meeting with the requirements of the County
~ would have to be implemented in conjunction with the subdivision approval
process.
Should unanticipated archaeological fords be discovered during the
construction of the project, work will stop (as is required by the State and
County) and clearance secured before work will resume.
To minimize impacts to the existing residential homes, the private road is
planned through the spine of the property. Further, a 10-foot wide landscaped
buffer would also be required along the site's southern boundary to mitigate
traffic noise.
As the site the dwellings on the structure are occupied by the applicant and
family members and would be retained, no person or businesses would be
dislocated.
D. Alternatives to the Proaosed Proiect
1. No Proiect
Under this status quo alternative, the site will either remain in its
present condition,
14
The site, however, would not be utilized to its fullest potential, given
the predominant residential land uses in this area.
2. Alternative Residential Density
Under this alternative, the applicant could seek an RS-10 zoning.
This would be consistent with the land use goals of the Draft Kona
Regional Plan and the K-K Plan, as well as the surrounding zonings
and uses in the azea. It would also not require a General Plan
amendment.
However, such an approach would not create a mixture of density and
lot sizes that could make a community more attractive. Further, it
could add a little more traffic to Ahiahi Street and Ka'iminani Drive
l,: ~ than what some residents may perceive as being acceptable until other
improvements aze made.
A larger lot subdivision (such as one to three acres) may not make the
development financially feasible. Further, the price of the lot would
also be influenced by the lot size, making the area less available for a
' broader segment of the community.
3. Evaluation of Alternatives
The project's impacts to the azea's social and physical infrastructure
would not appeaz to be pronounced. Certain mitigative measures will
be taken to address any possible impacts associated by the
development of this project. Further, the project would be consistent
with the land use objectives sought to be accomplished by the County
General Plan LUPAG map and all other related planning documents
affecting the subject site.
In view of the aforementioned, it would appeaz that none of the
alternatives would be more prudent and beneficial than the requested
RS-15 alternative.
IX. REGULATORY ANALYSIS
A. General Plan LUPAG Map
The General Plan provides for the long-range comprehensive development of
the island of Hawaii. It provides direction for balanced growth in the County.
15
The LUPAG map designates the site Extensive Agriculture, with an Urban
Expansion overlay. These designations allow the requested RS-15 zoning.
It should be noted that a density of 4 units per acre (or RS-10) could have
been considered. As such, the project would be significantly less than what
could be allowed and is thus consistent or supportive of the LUPAG map.
B. General Plan Polices
The requested zoning would be consistent with the goals, policies, and
standazds of the General Plan document.
For one, it would provide short-term economic opportunities lazgely through
the construction of the subdivision. Some limited longer-term opportunities
could be created, lazgely in the azea of maintenance of the private roads and
landscaping. The project should also add revenues to the County and State
' coffers.
The project intends to be energy conscious through the use and/or
encouragement of solaz energy and design features to take advantage of wind
patterns.
Maintaining and improving the quality of the environment is important to
the success of this project. The General Plan identifies five (5) azeas of
environmental concerns -air pollution, water quality, soil pollution, solid
waste disposal, and noise pollution. As proposed, the project would not be
violative of any of those objectives.
Aside from vehicular transmission, air pollution associated with the project
should be negligible. Cesspools would not be used, and instead a septic
system or other alternative individual wastewater system meeting with the
State Department of Health will be used to address potential groundwater and
coastal water concerns. If required, a solid waste management plan could be
prepared and implemented. The project will also not be a noisy one, as
residents would come to this azea to enjoy its tranquillity. Any noise-
generating facility - such as air conditioners -would be cazefully placed to
minimize their noise impacts.
The site is designated Zone X, areas of minimal hazard. Nonetheless, in
in conjunction with the subdivision review process, a drainage system will be
developed and implemented to address these concerns. This system will be
designed in a manner to protect the property as well as to minimize the
volume of surface runoff generated by this development.
16
The site does not appeaz to have historic sites, as it has been cleared in the
past and used a residence and some limited agricultural activities.
Nonetheless, work will cease if unanticipated archaeological remains aze
discovered during the construction of the project; and work will resume only
after proper cleazances from the State and/or County has been received.
Being previously intensively used, the prospects of the site serving as a
habitat for raze or endangered plant or animal life appeaz remote.
The project will create additional houselots. It should help to diversity the
type of houselots in the region, while reducing pressures for the premature
conversion of the area's better agricultural lands. In so doing, it would
implement the housing element of the General Plan.
The Plan also emphasizes that developments be mindful of an aeea's natural
beauty. In this situation, the project will be designed in a manner so as to
have it blend as much as possible with the existing terrain.
As the project site is more than three (3) miles from the ocean, the usual
coastal resources concern is not pronounced. There will be no interference
with shoreline access. Then, too, through the use of septic system, impacts to
the coastal water will be minimized.
There will be little impact to public facilities. The wastewater system will be
private. The water system will be developed in a manner meeting with the
requirements of the Department of Water Supply. Vehiculaz access to the site
is already fully improved. Schools and other public facilities aze also located
® proximate to the site, most of them being four (4) to five (5) miles away.
f+' Finally, in terms of Land Use, the project would be consistent with the
LUPAG map. It would also be generally comnaflble with the sun•oundin¢
azea. RS-10 zoning and/or lots essentially bound the site. This lot represents
an "in-filling" of the RS-10 pattern between the Kona Coastview and Kona
Palisades Subdivisions.
C. Kona Plans
~r The draft Kona Regional Plan and the K to K Plan both suggest a Res 4 (4
units/acre) density. The requested RS-15 zoning, although less than the
maximum desired, still would be consistent with those designations. The
request would be fulfilling the land use concept and objectives of those
documents.
17
D. Zonine and Subdivision
The designated zoning of the site is "Unplanned." However, as the recently
adopted Zoning Code eliminated that designation, the de facto zoning of the
site has been determined to be Agriculture (A-Sa). This would suggest one
unit for every five acres of land.
The requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes would be complied,
including use and related development standards.
D. State Land Use Urban Standards
As the requested azea covers less than fifteen (15) acres, the County can
process the request. Pursuant to the Planning Commission Rule No. 13, the
y~, request must meet certain standards. These standards and their justification
~'i follow:
1. Conformity to the General Plan
The project's relationship and conformity are demonstrated in sections
IX A and B above.
2. Relationship to State Land Use Urban District Standards
The State Land Use Commission's Rules provide the standards for
determining the Urban district boundaries (Section 15-15-18). Their
relationship to this request are noted as follows:
a. "City-Like" Characteristics
A concentration of people, structures, streets, and urban level
of services characterize this azea. There are many residential
homes in this area; a neighborhood commercial center is
located less than a mile from the site. Although the adjoining
Kona Palisades and Kona Coastview Subdivisions are zoned
A-Sa by the County, the lots aze residential in size (10,000
square feet).
b. Factors of Urban Characteristics
The site is proximate to centers of trading and
employment. It is less than four miles from major sources of
18
employment -these being the Kaloko Industrial Pazk, Airport,
and Kailua Village.
All of the related urban amenities and services such as
school, pazks, and protective services are also located less than
five (5) miles from the site. As such, basic governmental and
utility services aze readily available to this azea.
This reclassification will not necessarily result in providing a
sufficient urban reserve area for growth, as the applicant
intends to develop the property immediately. Further, the site
represents more of an "in-filling" and as such, would not really
be suitable for a growth reserve area. Nonetheless, its
approval and development could make fringe properties more
suitable for reserves.
c. Natural Hazards
Topographically, the site is suitable for development. It does
not have slopes in excess of 30 degree. The site has no known
unstable soil condition or floodways that traverse it.
It is outside of the tsunami zone and is not located within the
high volcanic hazazd azea. Although within Zone 4 of the
earthquake hazazds, this is a category that applies islandwide.
d. Contieuous to Urban Areas
As noted earlier, the site is contiguous to urban areas.
Although the Kona Palisades and Kona Coastview
Subdivisions are zoned A-Sa, their lot sizes (10,000 square
feet) and uses are urban in nature. There aze fiu-ther other
properties that are zoned RS-10 and RS-20 in the azea, one of
which is located immediately mauka of the subject site.
e. Relationship to County Growth Plans
way This site does not represent the creation of a new urban
concentration, as the surrounding area is already an urban like
environment. As such, this standard is not really applicable.
However, it is noted that the site and surrounding areas are
designated for expansion and growth on the appropriate county
plans and documents.
19
f. "Scatterization" Imuact
As the site does conform to the standards described earlier,
standard 6 does not apply.
Standard 7 relates to the potential creation of a "spot" zoning
and thereby increasing the need to extend public services at
considerable taxpayers' expense. In this situation, the area is
already developed and the subject site represents an "in-
filling." Its development should thus not result in the
expansion or extension of government services.
g. Slone of Prouerty
The slope of the site is less than twenty (20) percent. As such,
development of this site would not be violative of this
principle.
r
20
WAIF/
4{` fO'•<
O ~i
I? DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY • COUNTY OF HAWAII
~ i~ 345 KEKUANAOA STREET, SUITE 20 • HILO, HAWAII 96720
yf`W~xpwp{{ TELEPHONE (808) 961-8050 • FAx (608) 961-8657
November 22, 2002
'(}Z' ~I~U ~J~ F'Pi~:'~'~,
TO: Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director p(q~~N9F3gjC
Planning Department '
FROM: Milton D. Pavao, Manager
SUBJECT: STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 02-010)
REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 02-020)
REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL (A-SA) TO SINGLE FAMILY (RS-15)
APPLICANT - DENNIS YOUNG
TAX MAP KEY 7-3-010:029
We have reviewed the subject State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone applications and have
the following comments.
Water can be made available From an existing 8-inch waterline in Kaiminani Drive, which is approximately 200
feet from the subject parcel. The subject parcel currently has an account, No. 933-7] 805, with the Department;
but this should be for one dwelling only. As a part of these two applications, the Department will require the
second existing dwelling to get its own, separate, water service. Current water availability conditions, which are
subject to change, for this area of the North Kona water system are such that one unit of water is available for
each of the five additional lots and the existing second dwelling.
Pursuant to the Department's "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy," a copy of which is being forwarded to the
applicant, a water commitment may be issued. Based on the five additional lots that are requested in the
proposed change of zone application and the one additional unit for the existing second dwelling, the required
water commitment deposit is $900.00.
Remittance of $900.00 from the applicant is requested, as soon as possible, so that a water commitment may be
formally issued. The commitment will be in writing with specific conditions and effective dates stated. Please
keep in mind that this letter shall not be construed as a water commitment. In other words, unless a water
commitment is officially effected, water availability is subject to change depending on the water situation.
Upon the issuance of a formal water commitment, we shall submit our comments and requirements for tentative
subdivision approval.
For the applicant's information, should the subject change of zone be approved and a subdivision application
executed, final approval will be subject to the following requirements:
1. Construct necessary improvements, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. off-site improvements of approximately 200-feet of 6-inch pipe in Ahiahi Street to get to the
subject parcel from the existing 8-inch pipe line in Kaiminani Drive;
~~uter 6N~~~~ rro~~e~~... EXHIBIT
t~~
Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Page 2
November 22, 2002
b. water mains capable of delivering water at adequate pressure and volume under peak-hour flow
and fire-flow conditions (minimum diameter of mains shall be 6 inches);
e. service laterals that will accommodate a 5/8-inch meter to each lot (please note that this will
require the relocation of the existing water service to the subject parcel); and
d. fire hydrants spaced not more the 600 feet apart.
Submit construction plans prepared by a professional engineer, registered in the State of Hawaii.
2. Remit the prevailing facilities charge balance and capital assessment fee, which are subject to change,
of $29,100.00. The determination of this amount is shown below. This is due and payable upon
completion of the construction of the water system improvements and prior to final subdivision
approval being granted.
Facilities Charge
One 1" service, previously paid $ 0.00
5 additional services at $4,350.00 each for the proposed five additional lots 21,750.00
1 additional service at $4,350.00 for the existing second dwelling on proposed lot 5 +4,350.00
Subtotal $26,100.00
Capital Assessment Fee
6 additional services in North Kona at $500.00 each + 3,000.00
Total (Subject to Change) $29,100.00
3. Submit the appropriate documents, properly prepared and executed, to convey the water system
improvements and necessary easements to the Water Board of the County of Hawaii. A registered land
surveyor shall stamp and certify the metes and bounds description within the conveyance documents.
Conveyance of the improvements and easements are required prior to water services being granted.
4. Comply with all other applicable policies and requirements of the Department's Rules and Regulations.
Noncompliance may be cause for voiding this water commitment, at which time availability will be
subject to change in accordance with prevailing water system conditions, policies, and Rules and
Regulations.
Should there be any questions, please call our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 1.
Sincerely yours,
Milt D Pavao, P.E.
M ager
BCMaco
copy - (w/enc.) Mr. Dennis Young i
(w/o encJ Mr. Sidney Fuke
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HILO, HAWAII
DATE:November 26, 2002
Memorandum
TO Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director
Planning Department 'U2 NOt127 rM9:53
FROM Galen M. Kuba, Division Chief rp~ry~~~
WA~~
Engineering Division
SUBJECT Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-020)
State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application
Applicant: Dennis Young .
Location: Kalaoa, N. Kona, HI
TMK: 3 / 7-3-010:029
We reviewed the subject application and our comments are as follows:
DRAINAGE
1. All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site and shall not be
directed toward any adjacent properties.
2. The applicant shall be informed that if they include drywells in the subject
development, an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit may be required from
the Department of Health, State of Hawaii.
3. A drainage study shall be prepared, and the recommended drainage system shall
be constructed meeting with the approval of DPW.
EARTHWORK
1. All earthwork and grading shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sediment
Control, of the Hawaii County Code.
2. The applicant should consult with the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
formerly known as, Soil Conservation Service).
3. The applicant shall comply with chapter 11-55, Water Pollution Control, Hawaii
Administrative Rules, Department of Health, which requires an NPDES permit for
certain construction activity. E X H ~ B 1 T
~ ~'~'~~'~s~R^~-
t i
Dennis Young REZ 02-020
TMK: 7-3-010:029
November 26, 2002
p.2of2
ROAD WA YS
1. Driveways shall conform to County standards details R-37 and R-38. All sight
distances shall meet the requirements of the Hawaii Statewide Uniform Design
Manual and the AASHTO Standards.
2. Ahi Ahi Street, the County street serving the subject property, has an approximate
20-ft. wide pavement (in fair to good condition), grass shoulders, and partly paved
swales, all within an approximate 50-ft. right-of-way. The applicant should extend
Ahi Ahi Street through the subject parcel, stubbing out to Lot 47-B-1 with full
dedicable improvements, meeting with the approval of DPW. The extension of
AhiAhi Street should be dedicated the County when construction is completed and
has met the approval of DPW.
Install street lights, signs and markings meeting with the approval of DPW, Traffic
Division.
TRAFFIC
The proposed development incrementally increases traffic on Kaimnani Drive, the only
collector road serving a large tributary area. Kaiminani Drive is signalized at Queen
Kaahumanu Highway and stop controlled at Mamalahoa Highway. An acceptable level
of service on Kaiminani Drive at Mamalahoa Highway should be verified.
Should there be any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Kiran
Emler of our Kona Engineering Division office at 327-3530.
KE
copy: TRF
ENG-RICO
PLNG-KONA
O,~f V O! yq~
u; ~L ,
- ' Darryl 1. Oliveira
Harry Kim ~ F;.e chief
Mayor
~;;~F.l,~p~,` Desmond K. Wery
DePON Fire Chief
"r'9 ;~:i~U 6 ?i 1 1 35
QCouutp of ~aivat t
FIRE DEPARTMENT PL,'`~i~~i^!I~~Jt; fi_I',~h~i~i;Cl~.IT
25 Aupuai Street • Suite t03 • Ailo, Hawaii 96720 L~i ~J~ ~ i f ~ ..~~;II
(808) 961-8297 • Fax (808) 961-8296 '
November 4, 2002
TO CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM DARRYL OLIVEIRA, FIRE CHIEF
SUBJECT: STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 02-010)
REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 02-020)
REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL (A-5a) TO RESIDENTIAL (RS-15)
APPLICANT: DENNIS YOUNG
TAX MAP KEY: 7-3-010:029
Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.207:
"Fire Apparatus Access Roads
"Sec. 10.207. (a) General. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and
maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section.
"(b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every
building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story is
located more than 150 feet from fire department vehicle access as measured by an
unobstructed route around the exterior of the building.
"EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with an approved
automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified.
"2. When access roadways cannot be installed due to topography, waterways,
nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief may require
additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.301 (b).
~p\I CpG -
2
i i ~
EXHIBIT `~REO~
Christopher J. Yuen
Page 2
November 4, 2002
"3. When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M
Occupancies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided, in
the opinion of the chief, fire-fighting or rescue operations would not be
impaired.
"More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is determined by the chief
that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of
terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access.
"For high-piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109.
"(c) Width. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall meet the
requirements of the appropriate county jurisdiction.
"(d) Vertical Clearance. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed
vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches.
"EXCEPTION: Upon approval vertical clearance may be reduced, provided
such reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs
are installed and maintained indicating the established vertical clearance.
"(e) Permissible Modifications. Vertical clearances or widths required by this
section may be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or
widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access.
"(f) Surtace. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to
support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as
to provide all-weather driving capabilities." (20 tons)
"(g) Turning Radius. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be as
approved by the chief." (45 feet)
"(h) Turnarounds. All dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in
length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire
apparatus.
"(i) Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as access under this section, it
shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections of the
Building Code and using designed live loading sufficient to carry the imposed loads of
fire apparatus.
Christopher J. Yuen
Page 3
November 4, 2002
"(j) Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed the
maximum approved by the chief." (15%)
"(k) Obstruction. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not be
obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and
clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all times.
"(I) Signs. When required by the fire chief, approved signs or other approved notices
shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such
roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both."
Water supply shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.301:
"(c) Water Supply. An approved water supply capable of supplying required fire flow
for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings or portions of
buildings are hereafter constructed, in accordance with the respective county water
requirements. There shall be provided, when required by the chief, on-site fire
hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow.
"Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains
or other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow.
"The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable
of delivering the required fire flow shall be protected as set forth by the respective
county water requirements. All hydrants shall be accessible to the fire department
apparatus by roadways meeting the requirements of Section 10.207."
ARR OLIVEIRA
Fire Chief
RK:Ik
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
December 6, 2002 -
A regularly advertised public hearing on the application of DENNIS YOUNG -
(SLU 02-010/REZ 02-020) was called to order at 10:31 a.m. in the Ohana Keauhou
Beach Resort, Kahalu'u Ballroom, 78-6740 Ali'i Drive, North Kona, Hawaii, with
Chairperson Geraldine Giffin presiding.
PRESENT: Geraldine M. Giffin ABSENT & EXCUSED: Hannah Springer
Earl Fujikawa
Fred Galdones
Florence Kubota
Jeff McCall
Aurelio Mina, Jr.
Francis Smith
Grant Togashi
Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel
Chris Yuen, Planning Director
Alice Kawaha, Staff Planner
Esther hnamura, Staff Planner
Susan Gagorik, Staff Planner
Bruce McClure representing Department of Water Supply
Kiran Einler representing Department of Public Works
And approximately 25 people from the public in attendance.
APPLICANT: DENNIS YOUNG (SLU 02-010/REZ 02-020) -Applications for a State
Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban District and a Change of
Zone by changing the district classification from Agricultural (A-Sa) to Single Family
Residential (RS-15) for approximately 8.256 acres of land. The property is located west
(makai) of Mamalahoa Highway at the north end of Ahiahi Street, and bordered by Kona
Coastview Subdivision and Kona Palisades Subdivision, Kalaoa 4th, North Kona,
Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-10:29.
GIFFfN: We are on Agenda Item No. 9. The Applicant is Dennis Young.
The application number is SLU 02-010/REZ 02-020. These are applications for a State
Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban District and a Change of
Zone by changing the district classification from Agricultural (A-Sa) to Single Family
Residential (RS-15) for approximately 8.256 acres of land. Daryn?
1 _
ARAL Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Directing your attention to the
location map, this black line here running left to right is the Mamalahoa Highway.
Queen Kaahumanu Highway is located at the bottom of the map, off of the map itself.
These black lines going in a mauka-makai direction is Kaiminani Drive, which provides
access through Kona Palisades Subdivision; and just to the north is Ahikawa Street,
which is the mauka-makai access that provides access through Kona Coastview
Subdivision. The project site is located in this area indicated by this red dot between
Kona Coastview Subdivision to the north and Kona Palisades Subdivision to the south.
Directing your attention to the site plan, the project site, consisting of about 8-1/4 acres in
size, is outlined here in green. Again, to the right is Kona Palisades Subdivision, to the
left, Kona Coastview Subdivision.
The Applicant's request is for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from, I'm sorry,
State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to Urban District and a
Change of Zone from an Agricultural five-acre to an RS-15 zoned district to support the
subdivision or the potential subdivision of this project site into six lots, at least that is the
Applicant's current proposal. I should note for the Commission's information that, with
the zoning of RS-15, it could result in a subdivision of this 8-1/4 acre project site into
approximately 23 lots. But, again I emphasize, the Applicant's proposal at this time is for
a six-lot subdivision.
Access to this project site will be provided by Ahiahi Street, which currently exists within
Kona Palisades. The Applicant's proposal is to build or provide a 50-foot right-of--way
through the project site as well as providing a private road of approximately 16 feet in
width.
The Applicant does have water commitments to service the six proposed lots.
The Planning Director has reviewed this request, finds it is consistent with the General
Plan as well as the Community Development Plans for this particular area of North Kona.
Therefore, he is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable consideration of
this request to the County Council; and that recommendation is based on conditions of
approval which we have previously distributed to you.
If I may direct your attention to the Planning Director's Recommendation Report and the
conditions of approval that are attached to it.
GIFFIN: For the Change of Zone.
ARAL Yes, I'm sorry, Change of Zone.
I would like to first make a few, highlight a few of the conditions that are being proposed.
One is the Condition E as in Edward, and we are recommending the extension As you
may recall, the Applicant did propose a private road standard which is 16 feet wide. We
are recommending that the Applicant extend Ahiahi Street to the north, to the northern
2
boundary, meeting County dedicable standards, which is a 20-foot wide pavement. As
you may notice by the alignment, eventually the extension of Ahiahi Street will hook up
to Kauhale Street in Kona Coastview, providing lateral through access, basically,
connecting the two subdivisions. So that is our intent. That's one particular condition.
The other is Condition G which contains or provides for a restrictive covenant prohibiting
a second single-family dwelling on each of the proposed lots. In this particulaz condition,
we would like to make one amendment. And that amendment, on the second line of that
condition after the word "property," which is the first word in the second line, include the
statement, "less than 30,000 square feet in size."
MCCALL: Could you repeat that?
ARAI: On the first page of the conditions of approval, Condition G, on the
second line of that particular condition, after the word, "property" of the Change of Zone
ordinance, let me just read the first two lines. Just so, maybe, it says, it reads,
"Restrictive covenants in the deeds of all the proposed lots within the subject property,"
and right after the word "property," include this phrase, "less than 30,000 square feet in
size And then the rest of that sentence will conclude with "shall give notice that the
terms of the zoning ordinance prohibit the construction of a second dwelling unit and
condominium property regimes on each lot."
The reason for this amendment is that each of the six lots being proposed by the
Applicant is larger than the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. The way the Zoning
Code is structured is that for single-family dwellings, each dwelling unit maybe
constructed for every 15,000 square feet of land area within a buildable site. So you
don't have to subdivide into 15,000-square foot lots. You can pretty much put one home
for each i 5,000 square feet of land area. So we just wanted to make thaC distinction that
if a lot is 15,000 square feet in size, then that condition will basically say no second
dwelling, no ohana. But if it's larger, then you can build to the required permitted
density allowed by the Code. So that's the distinction that the amendment achieves.
Now, going on to the next page, page number 2 of the conditions, we would also like to
include a new Condition H, as in Harry. And we would like to include this new condition
that reads, "All proposed single-family dwellings within the proposed subdivision shall
be provided with separate water service from the Department of Water Supply," with the
remaining conditions of approval to be re-alphabetized accordingly.
Now, if I can quickly explain why we're including this condition. As you recall, I
mentioned that you don't have to subdivide into 15,000 square foot lots, you can put
multiple homes on each lot. That condition will make sure that each house has its own
separate water meter and that they do not tie multiple homes into one meter, which is
something that's frowned upon by the Department of Water Supply.
GIFFIN: Daryn, could you please re-read the wording for the new H?
3
ARAI: Oh, sure. "All proposed single-family dwellings within the
proposed subdivision shall be provided with separate water service from the Department
of Water Supply."
GIFFIN: Thank you.
ARAI: 1 have nothing further to add.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Daryn?
Mrs. Kubota?
KUBOTA: Daryn, going back to Condition E, the extension of Ahiahi that you
referred to, it's already here. You were just pointing them out for us or were you making
some adaptations to this?
ARAL No, I apologize. I was just trying to emphasize some of the
important conditions; and while emphasizing these conditions, I made adjustments or
amendments to them as we were going along. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
KUBOTA: Okay.
ARAI: Condition E is already there. It already accommodates what we
want, no changes.
KUBOTA: No changes. Thank you.
GIFFIN: Any other questions of Daryn, Commissioners'?
TOGASHI: Madam Chairman?
GIFFIN: Mr. Togashi?
TOGASHI: Yeah, I did have one question. Can you explain Condition J? This
is a new one I haven't seen before.
GIFFIN: The new Condition J?
TOGASHI: Oh, I'm sorry, the, as stated Condition J.
YUEN: [can explain that. I think it's not necessary because of the Water
Supply condition that wejust hooked up, we just put in, which is a little bit simpler and
more direct. Let me explain. The original subdivision plan here came in with these lots
that were going to be much larger than the minimum lot size that could accommodate six
or seven homes; and their representation was that these would not be, that they couldn't
re-subdivide because of lack of water. What we find is that, say somebody buys this lot
and say it's zoned for six or seven lots but there's only availability of one water meter to
4
it. We over, you will find then the buyer asking for a variance from the requirement of
Water Supply to build houses on catchment and saying, "Well, gee, I have the zoning to
build the houses but there's no water so can I get a variance? This language is, basically
follows the language of what a variance, what you need to get a variance and states that
you don't need one. It basically says not to expect one. In other words, to get a variance
you have to say that there are special and unusual circumstances existing on your
property that keeps you from fully utilizing it. And we don't want to rezone the property
and create a situation where somebody is later going to, say, ten yeazs down the road, if
there's still no water availability, will then try to get a variance and build houses on
catchment. We aze supporting a rezoning that lead to the availability of County water in
the area.
GIFFIN: I understand that. But why didn't you just say no variance maybe
applied for? I mean
TOGASHI: [had the same feeling. Because we had a similar application
yesterday and there was a condition for no water variance, but this came in and
YUEN: Yes, that would be a simpler way to do it. But I think with the
other, the new condition that we put in, we can just delete this Condition J.
GIFFIN: Oh, okay.
ARAI: Maybe the Director can correct me. But the reason why it's
structured this way, even though we're taking it out, is, my understanding is that you
cannot do something that, like prohibit someone from applying, right?
GIFFIN: Even though they're going to be denied?
YUEN: It is something like that. But I think we, this is a little too
complicated and that the, we can take this out; and we'll deal with it in a simpler way
next time.
GIFFIN: So, then, Daryn, the old K remains, right?
ARAI: That is, the existing K will remain simply because the elimination
of one and inclusion of another.
GIFFIN: Yeah. All right. Commissioners, any other questions of Daryn?
Hearing none, will the Applicant, and the Applicant's representative, please come
forward? Will you please raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS: [ do.
GIFFIN: Starting with you, Sidney, your name and residence address?
5
FUKE: Sure. Good morning.
GIFFIN: Good morning.
FUKE: My name is Sidney Fuke, I'm a planning consultant. I'm here
assisting the Applicant, Dennis Young. My residence address is 1358-C Mele Manu
Street in Hilo.
GIFFIN: Thank you. You, sir?
YOUNG: My name is Dennis Young, and my address is Kauhale Street in
Kailua-Kona.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Mr. Fuke?
FUKE: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Have you all heard of
Young Electrical? Probably not. How about this Chili By Max or this pepper sauce,
what you call, Poele By Max. You probably haven't heard about Young Electrical and,
hopefully, you'll hear more about this product. But, you know, because Dennis is like a
very small-time electrician and, so, this kind of relates to this proposed subdivision map
over there. So the reason why he had structured a plan as that, such as that, he has a
pepper farm where he raises and produces all of these things which he operates, operated
for the last ten years. And his farm is basically situated, yeah, where Denuis is pointing
out. So he wishes to retain that area, continue on. But like any individual, struggling
individual, he wanted to sell off the makai portion of the property and use these proceeds
to, thereby, make all of the necessary infrastructure improvements. So the thought was to
come in, initially, with asix-lot subdivision so that he can initially put in like a 16-foot
wide roadway and qualify under the subdivision standard, sell off the makai portion and
use the proceeds subsequently to construct the balance of the roadway to make it to full
County dedicable standard.
However, you know, in discussing the matter further with the Planning staff, I've also
had some calls and discussions with Councilman Tyler, the importance of having the
Ahiahi Street extended and completed in conjunction with the initial subdivision became
very obvious and paramount. Fortunately, in this case, Mr. Young has commitment for
11 water units.
So his plan, at this point in time, is to subdivide the makai portion into like about seven or
eight lots in that area and the balance would be on the mauka portion, pretty much along
the lines of what's shown on the proposed subdivision map. And, in conjunction with
that, he would be in a position to construct the roadway as part of the initial subdivision.
So, the conditions as outlined by your staff, you know, are, as amended, also, you know,
would accommodate all his needs and, at the same time, he would be in a position to
comply with those conditions.
6
The other point I would like to make is that there are some, there was an archeological
inventory survey that was prepared, and I think the staff handed it out. We apologize for
not including that initially in the application, but the archeologist was rather busy; and so
we finally got it. But, fortunately, he discovered that there was really nothing significant
on the properties inasmuch as the site has previously been bulldozed and cleared in the
past. So no further work was required, based on this archeological inventory survey.
I think your staff has a condition associated with that. And what would then be required
to comply with that condition, essentially, is to have that report reviewed and accepted by
the DLNR, and, essentially, that condition would be complied with.
The final point is that, again, based on my discussions with Councilman Tyler, you know,
there have been some concerns about providing some "breathing space" between the
proposed subdivision and the lots within the Kona Palisades Subdivision. And, so, as
with other subdivision, rezoning and subdivisions in this area, there have been conditions
imposed which require a minimum 10-foot wide landscape buffer on all of those
proposed lots adjoining the Kona Palisades Subdivision. And if the Director has no
objection, the Applicant certainly has no objection to making that part of a condition of
approval, that would mandate a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along the southern
property boundary. And perhaps that could be made part of Condition G, you know,
where you have the restrictive covenants, yeah. But that's, you know, that's just a
suggested option.
So aside from that, Madam Chair, we don't have, we're open for questions.
GIFF[N: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Fuke? Mr. Togashi?
TOGASHI: I see on page 7 of the recommendation for the Change of Zone that
the Director did not want the 10-foot landscaping buffer, felt that it was unnecessary.
ARAI: It's not that the Director does not want such a buffer. It's more
one of, the County currently has a structural setback of 20 feet and that will be, I'm sorry,
I need to clarify that. Should the zoning be approved, it's going to be 10-foot side-yard
setback; and that setback would be applied all the way along here. So it is a structural
setback that will be consistent with the 10-foot landscaping buffer being proposed by the
Applicant. So we see no further need to include something that is already provided for
under existing law. So that is the basis for the landscaping, for not including a specific
condition regarding a landscaping buffer.
GIFF[N: Mr. Togashi?
TOGASHI: Thank you.
GIFFIN: Any other questions, Commissioners? Commissioner Kubota, did
you have a question?
7
KUBOTA: Well, how can your read my expression so well?
YUEN: Psychic.
KUBOTA: Getting psychic, yeah, I think so. So, the end result is that we have
no 10-foot buffer as it's volunteered by the Applicant, because
GIFFIN: We do.
KUBOTA: We do?
ARAI: There is a 10-foot, if the zoning is approved, there will be a
10-foot structural setback requirement along this entire property line that will be required
by the Zoning Code. So any structures they put on the property must comply with that
requirement. That 10-foot structural setback is consistent with the 10-foot landscaping
buffer that they're asking for, so
KUBOTA: Okay. So it doesn't matter what kind of a buffer it is, as long as
there's a 10-foot buffer, is that what you're saying, or it has to be a constructed buffer of,
that's l0 feet wide? Can we choose, the Applicant choose to plant instead of
having a
ARAI: Absolutely. It is only a 10-foot structural buffer. They can,
absolutely they can plant in it, you know, as long as they do not put structures in that 10-
foot side-yard setback. Now, if the Applicant's intentions for a landscaping buffer is that
they want to provide a minimum six-foot wide hedge or six-foot high tall hedge along
this entire buffer, within that buffer, you know, that's at their discretion, they can provide
that. I'd rather not have that legislated, put into the conditions of approval because we're
the ones who's going to enforce it; and I don't want to have to go out there and measure
hedges. So
GIFFIN: We wouldn't want you to.
ARAI: Thank you.
GIFFIN: Commissioners? Mr. Togashi?
TOGASHL You're on that same section I alluded to on page 7? It says over
here that "Zoning Code imposes a minimum 20-foot," but you're talking about
10-foot structural setback buffer.
ARAI: Yeah, and that's why when I first started out, I caught that and I
kind of, yeah, that's On page 7, that little reference to "a minimum 20-foot wide
structural setback" should be changed to "minimum 10-foot wide."
TOGASHL Oh.
8
ARAL I apologize.
GIFFIN: Mr. Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA: I have a question with the Applicant, Sidney. On this particular lot
up there on the, I guess it's the makai side, is that the lower part, is it a sloped land?
FUKE: At that portion, the property is relatively level. I mean, the slope I
would say is like, from the top to the bottom, is probably no more than a 10 percent
difference in the grade.
FUJIKAWA: Is it a 10 percent slope?
FUKE: Less than 10 percent. You know, it's not really on the higher end
of the Kona Palisades Subdivision. It's more like, I would say like from Kaiminani
Street, maybe about like a third up, yeah?
YOUNG: Maybe half.
FUKE: About half way up and, you know, then it begins to rise beyond
that point.
FUJIKAWA: Okay, so we have an issue of the buffer, the 10-foot How are
you going to control the runoff coming down? Is there adjoining property down below?
What's happening?
FUKE: Well, as part of the subdivision approval process, the Applicant has
to prepare construction plans. And in conjunction with the preparation of the
construction plans, the drainage studies would have to be done; and whatever water is
generated from the roadways would have to be captured, you know, within the roadway
through maybe possibly a system of drywells. Likewise, any grading or grubbing activity
on the property, all water, based on existing County Public, Department of Public Works'
policy and rules, they require all of the water to be captured on the property.
FUJIKAWA: Okay.
ARAI: And maybe I should just emphasize that Condition F, as in Frank,
it will require the Applicant to prepare a drainage study.
FUJIKAWA: Okay.
GIFFIN: Any other questions, Commissioners? Hearing none, let's take
the There are two people who have signed up to give public testimony this morning,
Curtis Tyler III and Dr. M. R. Tek. Is there anyone else who has come this morning to
give public testimony on this agenda item? If not, will the two of you please come
9
forward? Do you swear or afSnn to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii
County Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS: I do.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Starting with you, Mr. Tyler, your name and residence
address, please?
TYLER: Madam Chair, if possible I'd like to have the benefit of one of
the nearby residents to speak first. I haven't heard his comments. If that would
GIFFIN: Mr. Tyler has asked that you go first.
TYLER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
TEK: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is M. Tek. I'm just a, we're
just next door neighbors. And I am here because my wife wanted me to make some
comments I was, quite prepared as I am I was pleased to see that some of the
questions I formulated in my mind have already been answered. But I wish just to say
that, note that being next door to the property and, in fact, we have an access easement
going through this property and I had the benefit of meeting Mr. Young sometime ago
NOMURA: Please use the microphone.
TEK: Okay. I don't have to repeat everything I said, do I
GIFFIN: No, no.
TEK: It was long time prepared
GIFFIN: No.
TEK: I had the benefit of meeting Mr. Young some time ago and I do
wish him luck. But I did have some concerns which I really, basically, environmental,
privacy, the buffer issue because we're next door, and we are quite concerned that we do
keep the privacy aspect, environmental, traffic safety, and such issues that usually come
before the members of this council. And I wish to express that we would cooperate in
any way, as next door neighbors, and wish the members of the council and the Applicant
luck in this fine venture.
GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Dr. Tek?
Mrs. Kubota?
KUBOTA: Dr. Tek, can you locate on that map, Daryn, can you locate on that
map where his house is or his lot is?
10
TEK: We are immediately mauka of the property. The entrance goes
right through Mr. Young's property and goes on our driveway, goes on through, as a
matter of fact, almost two-tenths of a mile to where our house is located. And we are
quite interested in keeping the beauty, and the trees and flowers. And recently we
noticed that there has been some removal of trees and flowers that we carefully cultivated
and worked on for some 20 years. And we have the black-topped driveway for which we
paid. And we hope all this is restored; and I think that would be to the benefit of them as
well as us.
KUBOTA: So, my understanding, Dr. Tek, is that you're not here to oppose
this application?
TEK: No, purely informational, and expressing the concerns and going
on record as a neighbor.
KUBOTA: Okay.
GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other questions of Dr. Tek? Hearing none,
Dr. Tek, thank you very much. Mr. Tyler?
TYLER: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Madam Chair and
members of the Commission and staff. Happy holidays to everyone. And before I begin
my testimony, Madam Chair, if you'll indulge me, I know that you and Commissioner
Togashi, I believe this is your last meeting. Is that correct?
GIFFIN: Yeah.
TYLER: And I want to thank both of you for your service to the County.
You've done an admirable job. I haven't made all of your meetings but, you know, I try
to make as many as I can. And I thank you very much for your service and I wish you
very well. And you'll have some big shoes to fill, but I know those who come in will do
what they can to fill them. Thank you.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning. My name is Curtis Tyler. I live at
73-4325 Laka Place, which is directly mauka or east of this, number of streets up. I am
coming this morning, not only as a resident of Kona Palisades Estates community but,
also, as the elected Counci] Member from the district, and in response to calls I received
from a number of my constituents regarding the roadway connection.
I have received yesterday copies of the Background Report and, also, the two
recommendations from the Planning Director. I want to thank Alice and staff for
providing those to me. I have reviewed both of those, Madam Chair. And I'm very
pleased to see that the Director has included conditions in the rezone for, and the
Applicant agrees to build a road to County dedicable standards. As I think everybody can
see from the various maps that you have in front of you, this is going to be a very, very
11
important roadway connection, and one to Kauhale Street; and we wouldn't want to do
anything to thwart that. So I also thank Mr. Young for his willingness to reconsider.
At the same time, I would point out to you, with respect to that particular issue, that
although it is not shown on Figure 2 in your Background Report, which is on page, well,
it's called Figure 2, it shows all the maps and everything It doesn't show on the subject
site on Figure 2. It does show in Exhibit A of the proposed rezoning conditions another
roadway to the east. And Mr. Fuke has, and you will note on the map, the large proposed
subdivision map which is contained in the Background Report, it's afold-out map, you
will note that there is a roadway headed mauka. Mr. Fuke has informed me that this
roadway is an easement to Dr. Tek's lot. And, as you can see, there is a possible roadway
connection there, if you would look at Exhibit A and compare it with the fold-out map.
I would, again, command to Director Yuen's attention, as has been mentioned in the
Background Report as well as in his recommendation, Resolution 97-20 by the Council to
establish a comprehensive traffic plan here, which is yet to be completed. And I hope
that in this next term we can work together to get this completed. This is clearly part of
that, of what some of us see in the community, as part of that traffic circulation plan for
health and safety. So, in any case, I wanted to command that to you. I realize that,
ultimately, the Council is going to make a decision on this, but I wanted to point this out
to you in case there were any questions of the Applicant.
I have some other comments I'd like to make with respect to the proposed conditions on
the rezoning, 02-020. With respect to Condition No. E, the Department ofPublic Works
has indicated in their memorandum to the Planning Director dated November 26, 2002,
which is contained, third page, excuse me Third individual page from the end of the
Background Report, on the second page of that memorandum under Traffic, they say the
following, this is the Department of Public Works: "The proposed development
incrementally increases traffic on Kaiminani Drive, the only corrective road serving a
large tributary area. Kaiminani Drive is signalized at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and
stop controlled at Mamalahoa Highway." Here's the key - "An acceptable level of
service on Kaiminani Drive at Mamalahoa Highway should be verified." And I don't
know if we're going to do this as part of this or part of the traffic circulation plan. But as
a resident there and, also, as a Councilmember, I have almost daily calls regarding the
incredible traffic that does not adhere to the, most of which does not adhere to the speed
limit. In fact, people passed me on the way here this morning as I was going 35 miles an
hour, and they were flying by. In any case, I wanted to call that to your attention. As to
whether or not that should be included as part of Condition E, I'll leave that to your
discretion.
With respect to Mr. Fuke's comments about no objection to including a 10-foot
landscaping buffer as a condition, Mr. Arai pointed out that there are 10-foot side-yard
setbacks should this rezoning be approved and 20-foot front and rear yard setbacks. And
he made that correction in the recommendation. I would tell you as someone who is a
resident and who has requested 10-foot landscaping buffers in the past, unless you put
them in as a condition, they will not happen, or let me say, they may happen but there
12
will be no way to enforce them. And what I have witnessed in my own side-yard is that
people came in and built stonewalls, and put it on all of the landscaping that have been
built up over the last ten years, and this has created a significant problem. In some cases,
we've gone to talk to the neighbors and they have been nice enough to leave it in. But
because there is no condition, they're under no obligation to keep that in there.
And I would also point out that there's a significant difference between having a 10-foot
no building setback and a ] 0-foot landscaping buffer, and anybody who lives in one of
these azeas will tell you it is. And landscaping is not required under the law. So I would,
with all due respect, beg to differ vehemently with Mr. Arai on why he doesn't want to
have it included in there. Although I have not heard personally from any of the residents
regarding this, I can tell you from my personal experience what has happened. That's
why I wanted to share that with you.
The issue of the amendment for Condition G, wherein on the second line after the word
"property," the words "less than 30,000 square feet" were added. And the explanation by
the Planning Director and Mr. Arai, you know, makes sense, except I have not calculated
it here. But they have an excess of eight acres, which would mean there would be, the
maximum number of lots, excluding roadways, would be approximately 23 acres,
according to the Background Report, twenty-three lots, excuse me, I'm sorry. And while
the Applicant has indicated they do not intend to do that, they would have the right to do
so, as long as they met the Subdivision Code. So I don't know ifthis language, I
understand what the purpose was. I don't know if it, in fact, in doing this, will not allow
greater density. I don't know. But I applaud the Planning Director for putting in the
second dwelling and, no sccond dwelling and CPR. I thank him for that.
The addition of Condition H, a new Condition H, regarding a separate water service for
each dwelling, I certainly can understand that from a Water Supply standpoint as well as
a density standpoint.
However, the subsequent recommendation to delete Condition J as a result has me
concerned. Because I think, you know, Commissioner Togashi asked the question, well,
ifthis is a new language, we haven't seen too many of these; and, likewise, I haven't seen
too many of them.
However, in addition to the water variance, there's the possibility of other variances.
And my experience in that area is that people have come in for PIJD's and other kinds of
variances which are unilaterally, which the Director has the unilateral ability to grant.
And, so, I would feel more comfortable if Condition J were left in there just to ensure that
not only were water variances are included, which have been specifically mentioned in
the new language, for proposed language for Condition G, but that, also, further variances
might not be allowed. And if the Director has any comments to that I haven't thought
this thing completely through because I just heard your language this morning while I
was, a few minutes ago, but I'm sure [he Director might have something to say about
that. I'm almost done, Madam Chair.
13
And I note in Condition L, which as I think most of us know, it will be amended by the
Council to include its normal fair share specific assessment numbers. The language says,
"based on a maximum density for each lot as determined by the zoning resulting from
this change of zone." So I think it's important at this meeting to clarify for the residents,
for myself and, most particularly, for the Applicant and his representative Is it your
expectation that the fair shaze assessment will be based on 23 lots, 11 lots, 12 lots, what
will it be based on and Because when this comes to the Council, I want to have some
knowledge as to what your intention was here. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd be happy
to answer any questions if you have any.
GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Tyler? Perhaps this is a
good time for Daryn or Mr. Yuen to respond to some of the comments that he made
regazding Let's start with the old Condition J.
YUEN: The old Condition J would not have forbidden a PUD, and I would
not like to forbid a PUD on this property. A PUD is Planned Unit Development. And
what that allows you to do is, to just give an example, if you have a 90,000 square foot
lot, as may result from this subdivision and this rezoning, that divides in by 15,000 six
times. So you can put six houses on it, you can make asix-lot subdivision, ignoring, for
the moment, ignoring roads. As an alternative to putting each house on 15,000 square
feet, you can come to the Planning Department with a Planned Unit Development, still
six houses, but you can cluster the houses in one part of the property and have open space
around it. And you can have the flexibility on how the site is designed and laid out.
This is actually something that [would like to encourage in the County. It does not
increase density. For the most part, it creates something that will be more attractive for
the surrounding community than a typical cookie-cutter subdivision where everybody has
a lot of the same size. So under the rezoning and, as what is suggested, a PUD is a
possibility; and it's something that would be administratively considered within the
Department. If they have the water, they have the land area, we would not generally
oppose things that do affect the neighbors like changing the setbacks or increasing the
height of the building. But, all in all, a PUD is something that might work well in this
subdivision.
Then on turning to the question of how to handle the fair share, we would normally, on
the Department level, the fair share is per lot. Now, then, if somebody did subsequently
follow up with a PUD, then there would a fair share assessed on the division of the
property within the PUD, so that they wouldn't escape that by using that mechanism.
TYLER: Madam Chair, may I just respond very briefly?
GIFFIN: Yes.
TYLER: 'T'hank you, Mr. Yuen, for your comments. My concern on the
PUD was not what you explained, because I applaud that use of a PUD, but the
substandard-sized roadways in terms of the fire appazatus and emergency appazatus.
14
And with respect to the fair shaze assessment, my only concern was that, I heaz what
you're saying. But if it's not defined up front in the number of lots, our language says if
it's greater number of lots then it's that many more, if it's fewer number of lots it's
adjusted downward. Would that cover it, in our normal language that we put in there in
the Council? So if they came for a PUD and they had, they can't get a greater density,
right?
YUEN: No, no, there would be a maximum.
TYLER: Okay. Maximum would be 23, less whatever the roadways are,
right?
YUEN: Right, right.
TYLER: Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
GIFFIN: You're welcome.
FUKE: Except there's further constraint by the availability of water.
GIFFIN: Water, right.
FUKE: Right. So, you'd be, you know, further limiting yourself. I mean,
I think he only has 11 units of water. So, even if he does come in with a PUD and I
think, the Director shared a very good point because at this point in time You know, if
he has a PUD or Cluster Planning project in mind for the makai portion, then what you'll
achieve is a greater buffer adjoining the Kona Palisades Subdivision.
GIFFIN: Councilman Tyler, did you have any questions that you wanted
answered by the Department regazding Condition G, and the new wording, and you want,
on there?
TYLER: No, Madam Chair, thank you for asking. I believe that the
Director has, and Mr. Fuke, themselves, have further clarified that. You can't exceed
your maximum density. The point here was just to make sure that the necessary, that
they didn't come in and ask for a water variance. I think that was clear.
GIFFIN: Like you, I had a question about the Public Works' memo, dated
November 26`h where, in the last paragraph, they speak on traffic, "an acceptable level of
service on Kaiminani Drive." What is your feelings on that, Mr. Yuen? Mr. Tyler said
that there was nothing to address that in the conditions. Are we comfortable and correct
to leave it unmentioned?
ARAI: The project by and of itself, Public Works didn't feel I mean,
the area roadways can support the proposed project. That is clear. The Department of
15
Public Works simply wanted to make a statement that with the increased You may
recall in this area there was the De Luz rezoning, Calhoun, Garver and I'm trying to
remember, Rinkenbach. It's clear that this area is slowly evolving into a higher density,
more residential-type of development from this current agricultural. So the Department
of Public Works is wanting to look at it from a cumulative standpoint and not place such
a burden on having to deal with a regional traffic issue by a single applicant. So I guess
Public Works was simply trying to make a statement.
One thought, and this is something I was discussing with Ki, was that maybe we can look
at, every project similar to this, there's this fair share assessment. So we were thinking
maybe that's a good way of using the monies where we can maybe ask the Council to
appropriate some of those fair share monies so we could do a comprehensive traffic study
at this intersection.
GIFFIN: Right, right.
ARAI: But to place that entire burden on this applicant, we don't see it's
warranted.
I guess since I have the floor, there are two other issues that the Councilman touched
upon. One was, he mentioned there are some access alignments in the area and maybe
this kind of heads up through the doctor's property. We noted that as well. It is clear the
County wants the extensions of Kauhale and Ahiahi as one of those lateral and collector
roadways. What other roadways in the area would be appropriate, we're not really sure
yet. So, obviously, if we're not sure, we don't want to try to legislate something in this
ordinance. So if you look at Condition E, as in Edward, at the very, very bottom of that
condition, it says, "The applicant shall consult with the Department of Public Works
regarding additional roadway connections to adjoining parcels, if necessary, prior to the
submittal of plans for subdivision review." It's giving us just one more chance to look at
the area and see what we think is appropriate. So I just want to let you know that there is
some, a statement in there that addresses some of the concerns of Councilman Tyler.
He also made mention of the landscaping. I would standby our position, or the Director
would stand by his position. But if the Director so decides that maybe we would
incorporate something that would address landscaping, then I would prefer to see a
condition require a comprehensive landscape plan. The reason being is, if we are asked
to enforce it, I want to know how high, how thick, what color, exclusion of stonewalls.
GIFFIN: Sure.
ARAI: I want to know what we're going to enforce instead of just
enforcing a landscaping buffer. So if you think that's appropriate, you know
GIFFIN: Mr. Yuen?
16
YUEN: I'd like to make one more comment on that. And that has to do
with if we think that when somebody comes in for a residential rezoning adjoining an
existing residential subdivision, that the new residential subdivision should plant
landscaping to block the new subdivision from the old subdivision, we should pass an
ordinance that you have to do that everywhere in the County. There's no particular
reason to do it in Kona Palisades and not anywhere else. So, rather than putting this on as
a condition for Mr. Young on an ad hoc basis, if it's good for Kona Palisades, then isn't it
good for people in Hilo and elsewhere in Kona?
TYLER: Madam Chair, may I just respond.
GIFFIN: Yes.
TYLER: I think Mr. Yuen has an excellent point; and he's drawing on what
I try to do all the time, that is be consistent. I think, and I appreciate Mr. Arai's
comments about the difficulty in enforcement. And that's another area that has also been
a stickler for me, is, no use having something that the poor folks can't enforce. Because
there's no condition So I thank Mr. Arai for his suggestion and perhaps we can talk
some more about that. I just wanted to give him my own personal experience as a result
of having a condition, all the residents coming in, and then if it wasn't put on as
condition, and it just never happened. So, you know, things change substantially for
some of us who had a 20-acre parcel when we first bought, you know, to our north and
then it got changed down to, you know, 10,000 square feet.
The other comment 1 wanted to make was regarding the, well, the inter-connections; and,
yes, I did read the last sentence in Condition E. My concern is that we have done these
kinds of things before; and it has now been seven years, over seven years, it's going on to
eight years, since the resolution was passed by the Council. Members of the community
have been meeting almost, you know, every other month for almost that entire length of
time to try to come up with some helpful comments and, yet, we still don't have this plan.
And, at the same time, we have had numerous rezonings that have come in and, myself,
as well as other Councilmembers I met, had noted that this plan was not complete. So,
and I agree that the entire cost of a level of service study for a particular intersection
which includes, literally, thousands and thousands of people and hundreds and hundreds
of lots would be little too draconian.
So perhaps, as Mr. Arai suggested, we should sit down together and come up with some
kind of a timetable so we can begin to pencil these things in. Because what's happening
is, I'm sorry, you want me to pass this along, okay. Because these things are happening
quickly. And sometimes the rezonings, I'm sorry, the subdivisions don't actually get
built for five years, although we're seeing more of them happening very rapidly We
should be able to show these folks and the people nearby that, you know, we have these
roadway connections. And that's why I said when I looked at the different maps, I
noticed some discrepancy there. And so I'll look forward to working with Mr. Arai and
the Director to see what we can do to mitigate the situation. Thank you, again, Madam
Chair.
17
GIFFIN: You're welcome. Were those some new issues that you wanted to
address? Mr. Fuke?
FUKE: Madam Chair, someone just brought up a note, I guess, either to
myself or to
GIFFIN: They want to testify?
FUKE: No, it's basically The question was, is subdivision approval
contingent on completion of the EIA connector to Kaiminani from Ahikawa? That, my
read on the condition is that it's half correct, because the property doesn't go all the way
to Kauhale Street. But to the extent, well, it'll take it as far as it can throughout its
property; and that'll be a condition of Final Subdivision Approval.
GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions? Is there anyone else in the public
who would like to testify on this agenda item?
ROSS: Yes.
GIFFIN: Then you need to come forward, sir. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission?
ROSS: Yes.
GIFFIN: Your name and residence address, please?
ROSS: My name is Glynn, G-I-y-n-n, Ross, R-o-s-s.
GIFFIN: Oh, I think you're on the other agenda item.
ROSS: I can't hear you, ma'am. I thank the Commissioners and ladies
and gentlemen forme to have the opportunity to
PUBLIC: Glynn, I'm sorry to interrupt you. This isn't our hearing. These
people are holding hearing on a different piece of property.
ROSS: Oh, I see, okay. I have bad hearing, don't I?
GIFFIN: It's on a different agenda item, isn't it?
ROSS: It'll be later, I guess. Thank you.
GIFFIN: Commissioners, any other discussion? Hearing none, do I hear a
motion, first, for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment application? Mrs. Kubota?
18
KUBOTA: Madam Chair, I move that a favorable, I move that we approve the
State Land Use Boundary Amendment application, SLU 02-010, along with the
recommendations and findings of the Planning Director.
GIFFIN: Do I hear a second?
FUJIKAWA: I second.
GIFFIN: It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded by
Commissioner Fujikawa that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council
regarding the State Land Use Boundary Amendment application, SLU 02-010, along with
the findings as provided to us by the Department. Discussion? Hearing none, Daryn?
ARAI: Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA: Aye.
ARAL• Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Galdones?
GALDONES: Aye.
ARAL• Commissioner McCall?
MCCALL: Aye.
ARAL Commissioner Mina?
MINA: Aye.
ARAL Commissioner Smith?
SMITH: Aye.
ARAL Commissioner Togashi?
TOGASHI: Aye.
ARAI: Chairwoman Giffin?
GIFFIN: Aye.
ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, motion carries with eight aye votes.
19
GIFFIN: Thank you.
KUBOTA: Madam Chair, I move that we send a favorable recommendation
on the Change of Zone application, REZ 02-020, to the County Council, along with
corrections, amendments to our proposed conditions of approval: Starting with
Condition G, an insertion of a phrase after the word "property" on the second line, "less
than 30,000 square feet in size;" addition of a new Condition H, which speaks to separate
water service for all, for each dwelling, and I think staff has the verbiage for that;
renumbering the subsequent conditions; deleting Condition J in its entirety. And I think
there was some discussion on Condition L. Are we putting a number on the maximum
density as requested by Councilman Tyler or are we just leaving it as is?
FUJIKAWA: Second.
GIFFIN: Daryn?
ARAI: No, my understanding is there was no proposed change.
KUBOTA: All right. I think that's about all.
ARAI: Can Ijust
GIFFIN: Discussion?
ARAI: And could the motion include that little change to, 20 to 10, in
page 7 of the Rec
KUBOTA: Oh, yes.
ARAL Thank you.
GIFFIN: That was page 7?
KUBOTA: Yes. First paragraph, page 7, two, four, sixth line, I think it is, two,
four, five, six, yeah, "The Zoning Code will impose a minimum 10-foot wide structural
setback," rather than " 20," typo.
GIFFIN: Okay. It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota and seconded
by Commissioner Fujikawa that we send a favorable recommendation for the Change of
Zone application, REZ 02-020, along with the findings and recommendations as they've
been brought forward before us today, along with the changes noted on page 7, from " 20"
to "10," the change to Condition D, a new Condition H and then the re-lettering, the
elimination of the old Condition J. Daryn, I think that's it, right?
ARAI: Yes, ma'am.
20
GIFFIN: Discussion? Hearing none, Daryn?
ARAL Commissioner Kubota?
KUBOTA: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Fujikawa?
FUJIKAWA: Aye.
ARAL Commissioner Galdones?
GALDONES: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner McCall?
MCCALL: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Mina?
MINA: Aye.
ARAL• Commissioner Smith?
SMITH: Aye.
ARAI: Commissioner Togashi'?
TOGASHI: Aye.
ARAI: Chairwoman Giffin?
GIFFIN: Aye.
ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, motion caries with eight aye votes.
GIFFIN: You'll be informed in writing of this morning's actions.
FUKE: Thank you very much.
21
The discussion ended at 11:34 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary
22