HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0718.003 2012-2014 COUMCLBRK
OOU RF�CENFD �
�
March 18, 2014 Tima,..1;,.4
Date
Dear County Council Members:
At the October 2013 Planning Commission Meeting the Planning Commissioners made an
unfavorable recommendation for Mr. Vincent Tai's rezoning application. Mr. Tai objected to
this and requested a community meeting that would allow neighbors to express concerns and
allow changes for his application. The community meeting was held on December 18, 2013 with
concerns expressed and agreement by Mr. Tai to make several conditional requirements for his
application.
At the request of the Planning Commission, surrounding neighbors met with Mr. Tai, and
facilitated by Mr. Alan Rudo, Office of Housing and Community Development, in good faith
with an agreement for the following conditional requirements for the rezoning application:
• The minimum yard setback will be 20 feet along all property boundaries adjoining RS-
7.5 zoned properties.
• The applicant, successors, or assigns shall provide an on-site manager for the residential
development.
• The applicant shall install a 6-foot high chain link fence along all property boundaries
adjoining RS-7.5 zoned properties. All existing perimeter rock walls will be kept in
place. The fence will be installed on the inside of any existing rock wall.
e Construction on the property will not exceed two stories in height.
These agreements were confirmed in writing by both Mr. Tai and the Planning Department. I am
asking the County Council to include these"Conditional Requirements"on Mr. Tai's application
for rezoning of his property. I believe you will find these items to be a reasonable request which
will aid in limiting the impact of the development on surrounding property owners.
Sincerely,
Charlene Nishida
lkpueo e,,yahoo.com
(808) 216-1028
16 Hale Nani Place
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Comm. No. d.�
Ref. To:
Ref. Date_MAR 18 2014
Meeting called by Vincent tai,Developer
Type of meeting Community Meeting
Facilitator Alan Rudo,Office of Housing and Community Development
Note taker Alan Rudo
Timekeeper Alan Rudo
Attendees See Sign-in sheet attached hereto.
. .................
A,
MUNI'. 14 1
--
Ground Rule s I read the following ground rules that were posted on board:
1. Cell phones to OFF/Vibrate,
2.Respect everyone's comments,
3.Every signed-in guest may speak at least once,
4.Each speaker would have at least 3 to 5 minutes max but that I hoped not to have to enforce the time limit,
5.No Booing or Missing would be tolerated,
6.We will summarize everyone's comment,
7.We will summarize Vincent's responses,
8.Only comments related to the project would be accepted.
Note:Two people expressed concern to the last rule and I told them I would allow a lot of latitude in the discussion.
...........�71711_1710177�771
Developer Discussion
Vincent posted three large scale layouts illustrations:A possible layout given existing RM 2.5 zoning,possible layout given RM 1.5,
Google earth view of the project with proposed RM 2.5 project layout including a senior vegetable garden as part of buffer zone.
Vincent discussed the three illustrations along with a summary on the affordable vs.workforce housing and that some people had
mistakenly believed this was low-income project housing.Vincent talked about the urban zoning how Hilo is zoned"urban."
Vincent discussed the reason behind the community meeting and that the planning commission was going to give a negative
recommendation if Vincent did not hold community meeting.
-jr ...........................
6'20,PM 3TPhA
A.T. 'The number of people&traffic will increase with 2.5 RM zoning over the 1.5 RM zoning."
V.T. "The unit sizes are smaller,so only 94 bedrooms are proposed compared to 115 currently."
"As far as traffic,the traffic engineer speaks very technical,he says maybe only I second."
'A.T "What times did he check?Did he check peak hours?I didn't see it in his report."
V.T. "Yes,he checked all times.It is in there(report)."
R.M. "The minimum setback puts the project too close to our homes."
V.T. "The minimum setback will be 20'along the RS 7.5 zoned residential properties,some spots
30'or more."
"Parking is a problem.There doesn't seem like enough parking spaces.The overflow parking will be
E.P. adjacent to Hual5lai Street and people will through the bordering properties as a short cut.
V.T. "110 parking stalls+visitor parking.Whatever the code requires,that is what I will do
D.M. -There will be an increase of people,No management of them,no enforcement of what goes on.-
. . �
` .
' .
. *
�
. . .
�
�
M. "I intend to have a management company,possibly on-site resident manager."
D.M. "Increased visitors,parking will Impact us."
M. "Whatever the code requires,that is what I will do."
J.G. "Need a privacy 15'high because It's two story."
V.7. "I can agree to a 6'fence along the RS 7.5 bordering properties,If they are going to climb or
cut a 6'fence,they will climb or cut a 20'high.fence.
C.N. "He needs to agree to have his statements as conditional requirements,so he can't just say he will than
change later..-
V.T. "I will do the 6'high fence along the RS 7.5 zoned residential properties"
"Need 100%privacy buffer thru landscaping,fencing and rock wall.The buffer yard will provide privacy
C.N from the development,the street lights,parking lot and headlights from the cars.This will also address
security concerns of the neighbors.And you need to agree to have them as conditional requirements."
V.T. 'I will do the buffer,I will install the 6'fencing but I just don't know what landscaping"
C.N. "And leave the rock wall,you can't build on top of the rock wall,it's loose rock.
V.T. I will leave the rock wall.I will but my fence on my side of it and not touch the rock wall.I just
don't knq-w-
C.N. Conditional Requirements?He hasn't agreed to have them conditional."
V.T. Yes,conditional requirements.That's fine.
C.T. "School traffic is awful.During school rush hour it can be dangerous.There needs to be a stop sign at
V.T. -We'not that stage yet.,Wbatever they tell me.We will have to put in street lights.
R.T. "There are a lot of elderiy,people in their'70s and'80s,they're vulnerable."
V.T. 'We will do a fence,a privacy buffer."
Unknown "Sometimes a 100%privacy buffer makes it unsafe because people know you can't see them."
V.T. No response.
V.T. '6'is consistent with the neighbors,Lanikila has 4'or 5'fence.If they are going to cut or
climb a 6'fence it doesn't matter.
D.M. "Kupukupu Street is how wide.We don't want you or the other developer opening that street up later."
What if you sell the property?Can someone open that street?
V.T. 'Kupukupu Street no longer exists.I made this 15'in case of an emergency.I was told I have
to have a 15'emergency access.
A.R. "the Change of Zone Ordinance runs with the land.So if Vincent sold and new owners wanted
to continue the project they would have the same requirements as specified in the Ordinance."
T.W. What about flooding.The parcel adjoining to the North is a big bowl and fills with water.We don't want
that to flood our parcels.The police station gets flooded.Flooded is serious problem.
V.T. "I have to install drywells along the property to contain water."
TX "How many dry wells.What if they overflow?I've seen them over flow in heavy rains.It floods us."
V.T. "I will install drywells.I won't touch the stream."
Unknown "Can he go higher than two-stories?*
V.T. "Only two stories.The adjoining parcel is 3 stories,but I will keep it at two stories."
A few people stayed to discuss the fence,privacy border and wall.
�
U,
W" 1;00010 by OM1144
w I rig tt683 Gvaii.rr.corn
Tim Wright My main concern is flooding. As someone who has lived in this area for
close to 30 years I have seen the stream that runs under Popolo St.fill up
with rain water and flow towards Mr.Vincent Tai's Hualalai property. A
few weeks ago a had a long talk with retired County Police officer Jimmy
Day. Mr.Day who grew up in this area in the 1960's told be how there
was a large lake above Kumukoa St.(the stream that runs under Popolo St.
was cut off at the top of Kumukoa).
On Nov.3,2000, 1 was working for the Honolulu Advertiser. The photo
editor Seth Jones asked me to take photos of flooding around Hilo. I was
shocked when he gave me the address of a home a few houses away from
my home. This was Lanikukila St. This was a new subdivision next to the
Popolo St.stream.
In the 80's I use to see cattle in the pasture above the police department
on Kapiolani St. When in rained for a few days the cattle would be belly
deep in water.
This is another area that the County approved for RM-1.5 zoning.(Mr.
Boschett's property). I will send you photos in the next emails.
'-'OVAE ma�
Alan Rudo
Housing and Community Development Specialist
50 Wailuku Drive
Hilo,Hawai'i,96720
Phone:(808)961-8379
Email:ohcdplanning@hawalicounty-gov
vT'a� ,{,Q,.pk�,'r6.r .•�. .'",�, �.,.:�y,�g,� '�'�4�Hi SS. �'k.�,v�a�. ,w-• ..........«.........
`��'��m�4:R y'�¢',:.Yw.• �)�e� �� '}� 'v^S• e�Y S4e�'mc a•^�• •�� e t�•�•ae'�sY.� ..
�a.,.v' �h R. .a '^^pq�nuY°,:ag�s�` 4�,. � z9,...=ps°.•w' '• F a Ie
�Rl � kk-gr��' f,e• r rA � f
,�`y: 'Yaw' ', ';3.,� ,• g:
I
FH
...............
......... .
�a
r
d
AOL
I
g y]
a ,
u _ so 9z-v-z �Iwt
OU-96 IIVMVH'OIIH
¢ 133H is IVIVlvnH b9E
x 4 imnoO RlivdlvnH a
o a
> v 1
lwlq rw111 � 79{�
N
a
Sf 1Lt w
yo� O
N T O J
� w
>
Li
=G=W 0 I
N
7<U MI` 1 � I =
a v W II W o x N O ° �Li
W y t�i^ Q e�C Y > N' _ V
2 _°�? n<oa 2 a i C
in
0
>
D Kx4 12 70 (�
N Z
N
n �a
U•I.o)uww.e.Iw+111wo ro
B DA R�
' O
jooj4 ;S ndnlndn� o, �
L LO
LO i
Q N
Ln p
y
it a0 y Q- U- 0
1 ♦ n ' Q Z
ap Q N N ¢ INN—
N _
�& N N N
N
N N M
O N z
N V LLJ Z
M
« M Q
v J O
V Z N LLI
O O
a0
M
a
M y
M ¢�
6 9
N�
F
f i t 00�80ti-Im �8H
a NVAVH .s�
iaw=rf T."9ft oiA
>� JJ1JIf100MIr7MnNi��
LLJ
AD
o m
0
e m
� N
0 a Z
f � O
La
n o R
a o0 LLI
IL
M)
I \\�0 11 Y 3N F 1 ° W
: Q �
o ~ ~ W
Cap xx °e W
LLJ
pa+S ndnxndnA +" Q
v O
0
Q W
.9 ° W UN
3 Ln O N
O
CL
aaros �' 3 W
CL co o
a co z
a
c Z U
M
.: O a z
°
Y V N N
LLI
g V D
o ° 2oc Q = p
s� O O_'
' w
j
Hualalai Court Housing - Community Meeting.
SPEAKER SIGN-IN SHEET
AUPUNI CONFERENCE CENTER
Wednesday, December 18 , 2013
5 : 00 P.M.
NAME , SIGNATURE
Celt-
I
S (t,'.^,,_t o La 0—7 a
-Jx rte,.' C4 z4_ �,
itAL
Zel
C7
I
r
a
� 4...-,,_... ,�,,..'.���, .''"�"` •,Y� ,3 � '� � R � -�� * l�t -fir s�
�'�"�'t� �+«^ t`;'�,•�} }� '-'�'s � ��� � ��,7� ,µms ..,,,,� ;�1�� iR
d T
Ptll
v T.V
Ak
��`«...�. � �P�� i �► � ��}�,t��� �4� i �� � ��� }���n, tom'
v -.. v �" � ' ..:1,is l"��.,_ „�'� �`'�a4 ` raj /P� r+�, � ✓r "Y.+. ��
x
Y
.�g.x xx
Mot"I
's
w �
r x r
- �e��� '���u,.�, ���� �a.,.
y' y
Al
:ss.g o YoWt + 5
A
W,
� y
4
4v
r
.-
Ns�
.wslow^'• sa^r'+`;kdk.�.m i,", ; .. .°_ 4, � »^ ..rs..9�y ..tir� +". �'Ir° i. as'
I
el
f £
^• �� �t i � 4' FAY'3:X ���y} �.. ?` �3���.E' �!" S' � y �.� 3,;. St �,: �L � ..� � t Nr�' +`
6 ,3 T t Y i4
�e'
Ah
{ 'y
l5f ft�
„f ss
arse
�;4
�
4N
y
+
".u4" 'Rif
VW f +l :.5 v
AO"" Z e e. 's 3
iy0 4 l�.s 4 - N ,' i t{ e r ss -
b�
�k €E S� �� ,,.�x�`F � �,✓�-"���3 � � c„�'° � s�yR't`t#" '"� ^a x'�K,� � ��`"",�+ `4 � '.s f� '�?
^_.,
.► �' er i,p"^'�',� fit, � ",. 11�7�4 q ''►`f.s'� Lfi T i"� � # ��'� 'r� � .�T '�� ""�E'�'�;
"
�€ ��r p
a `t" �� E' t � s � �/ f-.� J Ems. 1 • '� E L-, m � � ^' � #� � n
3
h S �
4 1 -
j
i
4
F
!p
V�
4 y
a
V
I
4.Fs
w
Rp
u:@ s
PH
a
i � •
d
Llkl-
AO
zz
1
' � R
$A ;FIT
�� ga
g
N �
F M
s
m
.at
i Da
C f
� d HYI
E
On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 9:37 AM, "Cottle, Maija" <mcottletc_co.hawaii.hi.us>wrote:
Aloha Vincent,
Thank you for providing the meeting minutes from the 12/18 community meeting,
photos of vegetation along your property boundary with properties on Hale Nani Street
and your emails to Charlene Nishida. I am glad to see the meeting went well.
I would like to clarify the issue of what type of buffer yard landscaping is required for
RM zoning since this seems to be a concern that you and Ms. Nishida are having a
difficult time agreeing to. The zoning code does not require buffer yard landscaping
around property lines for the RM zoning district. However, it does have a requirement
that a minimum of 20% of the building site in the RM district be landscaped to reduce
the effect of the potential higher densities permitted in this district. The 20%
landscaping requirement can be fulfilled by landscaping along the adjacent property
boundaries or within the interior of the property.....it is up to the discretion of the
landowner and/or their landscape architect(if one is hired),with final approval of the
landscaping treatment to be made by the Planning Director at the time of Final Plan
Approval for the project concept.
Below I have outlined commitments that you have made to your neighbors based upon
the meeting minutes and your e-mails to Ms. Nishida. Please let me know whether you
are supportive of the Planning Commission including these commitments as possible
conditions of approval for the change of zone ordinance.
• The minimum yard setback will be 20 feet along all property boundaries adjoining
RS-7.5 zoned properties. Please clarify this because your latest schematic site plan
shows only a 10-foot setback along the boundary with TMK 2-4-25:59 (George and
Richard Paiva property).
• The applicant, successors, or assigns shall provide an on-site manager for the
residential development.
• The applicant shall install a 6-foot high chain link fence along all property
boundaries adjoining RS-7.5 zoned properties. All existing perimeter rock walls will be
kept in place. The fence will be installed on the inside of any existing rock wall. (Do
you intend to only install fencing along the Hale Nani neighbor properties or all RS-7.5
properties? See zoning map below).
• Construction on the property will not exceed two stories in height.
I understand that you want to address your neighbors concerns by installing additional
landscaping along the perimeter of your property but it is unclear what type of
landscaping you are committing to install at this time (at the rezone stage of
development) and which existing trees and shrubs (if any) along the property
f
Y
r• Y Y .
boundaries you intend to keep. If the rezoning is approved, you will need to submit a
landscape plan at the time you apply for plan approval. This is typically done just
before applying for building and grading permits and typically the plan is approved by
the Planning Director without a public hearing. Are you willing to have the Planning
Commission include a condition requiring landscaping along the RS-7.5 zoned property
boundaries? It could say something like this: "Prior to submitting plans for plan
approval, the applicant shall meet with each landowner of adjacent properties zoned
RS-7.5 to determine appropriate landscaping along the mutual property boundary. The
applicant shall incorporate all reasonable landscaping requests into the landscape plan
submitted for plan approval,and,shall install and maintain the landscaping per the
approved landscape plan."
Some of your neighbors had concern about adequate onsite parking and asked that you
provide more parking spaces than the minimum-required by the zoning code, which is
1.25 stalls per unit. You indicated you will provide the minimum required by code.
Please let me know if you have the same understanding of the outcome of the
community meeting and if you agree to these commitments. I will be providing a copy
of this e-mail and your response to the Planning Commission and Ms. Nishida so that
they can see the meeting outcome and agreement.
Maija Cottle
County of Hawaii-Planning Department
Ph: 961-8159 Fax: 961-8742
101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3
Hilo, HI 96720-4224
i
i
a 1
;l
February 4, 2014
Dear Planning Commission Members:
This letter is written as follow-up to the requested community meeting with Mr. Tai on
December 18, 2013. The meeting was productive with a full room in attendance and
multiple concerns cited by surrounding neighbors. Mr. Tai has agreed to compromises
for his development with some of the concerns and has agreed to "Conditional
Requirements." However,he did not agree to all of the requested changes and did not
provide answers to many of the specific concerns raised by the neighbors. He has stated
that certain concerns were only raised by individual property owners but these individual
concerns were also collective concerns of the neighborhood.
Specific to our families concerns, Mr. Tai has not agreed to a bufferyard setback for his
development that would shield neighboring lots from the adverse affects of the
development including the increased occupancy, noise, parking lot lights, car headlights
and safety concerns. We have repeatedly requested from Mr. Tai the need for a
comprehensive bufferyard setback that includes the entire development and not just
individual plantings along the boundary. He states that he will preserve the "already
extensive growth of vegetation and trees along the property lines"but this growth is
overgrown weeds and not a planned landscaping design as the attached photo shows
evidence of. In fact,the trees that he is referring to have caused previous property
damage to our home when one of them fell on our roof above the porch and main
bedroom of our home. These trees are non-native, invasive and rapid growing which
requires reoccurring trimming and constantly shed leaves on our roof. These concerns
are not addressed in Mr. Tai's proposed development. In addition, the rockwall that is
along the boundary of Popolo Stream and the neighboring properties is acting as flood
control and Mr. Tai's development does not address the seasonal flooding of Popolo
Stream.
There are too many unknown concerns to Mr. Tai's increased development and as a
result we are opposed to the change of zoning application from RM 2.5 to RM 1.5 for Mr.
Tai's development.
If for reasons beyond our control the Planning Commission does grant the Change of
Zoning application, we request that the following items be included as "Conditional
Requirements":
1. Bufferyard setback that includes landscaping along the RS 7.5 zoned property
boundaries. (We prefer adopting Rule 17-6 (b)(2)(A) as a template.) To exclude all
visual contact between the development and residential uses and to create a strong
spatial with concomitant lessening of noise intrusion, the landscaped buffer shall be
opaque from the ground to a height of at least six feet, with intermittent visual screening
from the opaque portion to a height of at least 20 feet. Compliance shall be determined
i
1
I
I _
on the basis of the average mature height and density offoliage of the subject species, or
field observation of existing vegetation. At maturity, the portion of intermittent visual
screening should not contain any completely unobstructed openings more than 10 few
wide.
2. Sideyard setback to 20 feet.
3. On-site manager for the residential development.
4. Six foot high chain link fence inside the existing rock wall and along all property
boundaries adjoining RS 7.5 zoned properties.
5. Existing perimeter rockwalls will be kept in place.
6. No building will be taller than two stories.
In discussions with the neighbors, we believe that the change of zoning application will
negatively affect our property values and quite enjoyment of our properties. Mr. Tai has
already received a change of zoning from RS 7.5 to RS 2.5 and we oppose any further
increase in density. We believe our request to deny the application is reasonable.
Sincerely,
Shad and Charlene Nishida
Shad and Charlene Nishida
k ueogyahoo.com
(808) 216-1028
kpueo @yahoo.com
16 Hale Nani Place, Hilo, Hawaii 96720
2