Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0598.007 2006-2008 08/22/2007 12:19 3265697 KCO ~FGE 'a M~. ~ yi~,:!..!yya Brenda ,T. Ford ? . ~ 4;1, Phone No.: ($U$) 32b-:i6E~~ Cvanci7 bfenaAer FAX No.: ($U$j 3.^.9-'4T9( District7-CentralKam L-Mail: bJc.rd~i_ico.hAwasi.hi.i:~ 'b:'.. HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL County oJ'Iiaivai `i Kaih~a 7'rtxd? Ce>7rer 75-$ i 06 Hann. nm Place. Suite ! 09 h'ni7vn-h'nnrr Hn wni'i 9(i60 r~> FAX TRANSMITTAL - N DATE: August 22, 2QU7 T0: Laura Murashige 961-8912 (fay) J 1 1~ROM: Debralee Kailiwai-Ray SU 13.TFCT: Testimony on Bill 151 -from Terry Cisco PAGES SENT INCLCJDING COVER PAC?G: 4 pages COM. MT;NTS: comma. No, 5°18 Ref. Toy Ms Ref. Date 2,__ /)awai'i County is ,1 as Equal Oppnrmntty Pravider.4nd Fnaplnyer 00/22/2007 12:19 3265697 KCO FeuE 02 ~ e~: V'eF$tcrn 2 5:3D pm SasuAa3~ ~ lVQ'c.~,~ TElu2Y C_'1S.C0 - AKCHITECTS ZONE X.(UI`1SH,t-1DED) Good' Morning County Couztcii members. My name is Terry Cisco and T am a member of the Big island Section of the Amezican izrstittlte of Achitects arnf have been a n:sident of13,c Big Tstmtd Community .istce 1980. 1 ltiave vr~1y enpuglt ttn~.c M explain one gfthc rntuty masons that i am opltfrsed to the yellowed portion of bill 151. Thy yelltrw pezti©n are tl~se rttxrrdates vvcz arul ahorc F'tderal nxluirernents, I will use my fvru iililawtca W fo,:lts Section 27 -1.8. l Standards.for Constractinn in .Flood Zc?ttes ptlierThatt Special Flood F3azacd Areas. Nate that this portion is NOT mandated by P1FMA. (Please pull out the two exhibits titled ZdNE X (UNSI-iADE13) with tvpicat legend of rile Flood lnsurartce lt.ate Maps and the DPVV exhibit) Note that the fifth wozd Tin. This section tide is misleading as Zone X (unshaded) is not a flood zone btrt shown as "U'~-FE.R AREAS" in the map legend attd is further defined as outside the 500 year flood plain. This area is handled by drainage standards. pur, first choice is to have this. S~tiran concemitlg Standards for Construction in Zone X (unshaded), be deleted as it forces flood construction standards where no flood danger exists. As architects we sec this proposed law causing an unneeded increase in costs without bcnefiYand causing negative consequences nn project.des,ien because the law is not written clearly and will limit other Hood drainage design solutions.. There are hurxlTeds of solutions to each site design problem. Some solutions are better than others. The architect is charged to look at each project as a whole and provide a balanced project design considering the: overall project goals, Federal. State, County codes and cost benefit to the Owner and to the public. This. proposed construction standard for elevating new construction one foot above adjacetat grade is a single solution to a perceived problem within Zone 08/22/2007 12:19 3265657 KCO F%^3E 03 X (not shaded). This requitement is uttnecessary as there are other sta~idazd water drainage Solutions that exist now. FJnlike this proposed solution, better design sohttions don't wait until the water teaches the perimeter of a building; they address it as far away as possible from buildings. A building may have a lower arcs below the defined ADJACENT GR;!.DE. A design can be developed to keep the water away and protect these areas, but, llus proposed crnistruction standard inadvertently has prohibited to fiver level conditions and the common split level design that allows one to walk vut at awry level. Our dcsigrrs can keep water away in a multiple of ways without hindering the flow of pedestrians or equipment from the outside to the inside of a structure. This Section 27-18.1 #2 (A) of 13i1t 151, which requires one foot above adjacent grade to floor lime, will inadvertently restrict the flow of pedestrians and equipment. How does this proposed wnsuuaion standard work with an entry to a large retail complex? Why should a supetmazls et like KTA be forced to .have aone-foot drop at their doorway to lake caa a of drainage? Why would a residence need a ramp? Placing a multiple of steps and ramps in liront o#~ an exit is not a preferred design and is dangerous and expensive. It is unclear what this Standard is trying to achieve, that is plot already covered in good drainage design. 'this is a `"one size fits all" solution that does not take in to consideration all the criteria that must be consi~iexed when designing different building sites. (Please pull out the drawing titled "TYPICAL COMMERCIAL BUILDING OR WAR>?HOUSE & the WHY LIMIT ALTI'RNATIVE SOLUTi01"dS) Commercial projects and publicly funded residential projects cannot ctanply witth this section and also comply with American Disability Guidelines (ADA). As shown on the exhibit the ADA guidelines allow a maximu•+n at 1/~° oflevel change at the door. Sidewalks outside the door should have a minimum of cross slope. Accessible parking stalls have a 2% slope maximum. This means a good. design for accessibility for all people is a relatively flat entry outside the building for a great distance. As architects we. must comply with the ADA, AND keep water from getting into the building; be it commercial or residential. 1T iS UNCLEAR HOW TO 08/22/2007 12:19 3265697 KCO f=^5E E'.4 DESIGN FOR THIS STANDARD AND UNCLEAR AS TO HOW IZ WILL BE ENFOI2('F.t). In this Section item # 3 discusses a WAIVER. To comply with Federa3 AL)A laws we will have to ask the County for a waiver from this proposed construction standard. Notional Flood Insurance Program does not like waivers. The Department of Public Works does not like to give out waivers. The WAIVER T'ROCI;SS IS POR THE. UNUSAL NOT TI-ITr USUAL. Ta sT~IAxlzra: I. STANDARDS ON ZONE X (USHADED) ARE NOT APPROPRTATE TO CFTnPTER 27 AS TT~TTS ZONi; IS NOT A FLOCID 7_,ONE. 2. THIS STANDARD t4 M[CROMANACTNC DESIGN AVD LIMTTING DESIGN SOLIJTTONS & DRTVTNG UP PU}3LTC COSTti NEEDLESSI~,Y, 3. THIS STANDARD TS CLEARLY NOT BASED ON ETv CiINEERING PRINCIPLES. 4. THIS CONSTRUCTION STANDARD IS MIRED IN CONTROVERSY WITEIOUT A CLEAR RESOLUTION AND SHO$.TLD BE DELETED. AS ARCHITECTS, WE AKE THE PART OF THIS COMMtTNl'TY THAT WILL BE WORKING DAILY WITH THIS PROPOSED LAW. WIi_F.N AR(:W1TfiCTS ARE LISCENCE.D BY TFIE STATE OF HAIUAIT. WL ARE CHARGED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. TO PROTECT TTiE PLTTiT.TC WR St iPPORT BRINGING TITS COtJNTY FLOOD ORDINANCES UP TO FEDERAT.. STANDARDS AND WF. ARE ALSO PROTRCTTNCi TI3E PUBLIC BY OPPOSING ONLY, TIIE PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSED BILL i 51, WHICH NEED MORE RT=VIEW.