Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-02-18 THOLMES PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 18, 2005 STEVE HOLMES (SMA 04-008)) A regularly advertised hearing on the applicationwas called to order at 11:01 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Kamakahonu Ballroom, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:William GrahamABSENT & EXCUSED:Rene’ Siracusa Jeffrey McCallEarl Fujikawa C. Kimo Alameda Francis Smith Hannah Springer Fred Galdones Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 7 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: STEVE HOLMES (SMA 04-008) Continued hearing on the application for a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the conversion of a single family dwelling into a 3-unit multiple family residential structure and related improvements. The 5,419-square foot property is located 230 feet east (mauka) of Alii Drive and Kahaluu Beach Park, Kahaluu Beach Lots, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-8-14:41. GALDONES:Commissioners, we are on agenda item number 7. Applicant is Steve Holmes (MA 04-008) This is a continued hearing on the application for a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the conversion of a single family dwelling into a 3-unit multiple family residential structure and related improvements. Jeff. DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As mentioned this is a continued hearing on nd our December 2 Planning Commission meeting at the Hapuna Prince. A vote was taken to approve the request and the request did not- the motion did not pass. At our last hearing a motion was made to conduct a site inspection, that was done this morning. Today’s meeting, the item has been placed back on the agenda for a re-vote. Just to bring you- be able to bring you up to date on the application -. The application area is located directly across from the Kahaluu Beach Park identified in red. The zoning, which is identified in purple, is Resort Hotel - 1,250 square feet or 1.25, and as well as State Land Use Urban zoning. The area of the application is EXHIBIT D located within the Special Management Area. The applicant Steve Holmes is requesting a Special Management Area Use permit to allow his single family dwelling to be converted into a 3-unit multiple family residential dwelling. The Planning Director has recommended approval of this request by the Planning Commission, as well as also with an amendment. If you recall there was a- an amendment to condition 4 which had, regarding the sewer connection. Let me just get that here so-. Instead of it saying that- if I could just read it for you for clarification. The number 4 states that to “Install a septic system with leach field meeting with the approval of the Department of Health. Certificate of occupancy will be approved only upon compliance of an approved septic system from the Department of Health or upon connection with”- and we have amended it to say “an approved sewer system” instead of a County sewer system. Are there any questions? GALDONES:Questions, Commissioners, of Jeff? Seeing no questions, will the applicant or his representative please step forward. YUEN:While they’re coming up, I wonder if I could make another comment? GALDONES:Mr. Yuen. YUEN:This has been in front of the Commission a few times and I want to continue to recommend approval of this SMA permit. In reviewing an SMA permit the Planning Commission has to look at whether the project has a significant negative environmental or ecological effect. If it does then and if that effect can- if those problems can’t be dealt with by some kind of condition or mitigation, then the Planning Commission should vote against it. But in looking at the significant effect, scale is very important. What we have in this application is an application to take a building that’s legal as a single-family dwelling and convert it to a triplex. That means- the difference is that you can add two kitchens to it.It wouldn’t necessarily lead to more people living there. Chances are it would, but it does not increase the number of bedrooms. The concern about the- the additional- the concern about water pollution- the amount of additional nutrients that would come from having a few more people on the property if that is what happened, is not necessarily true, is really- it’s really a tiny increment. You really can’t look at that as significant factor in this location. It’s a tiny increment in an area that has a lot of homes that are also on septic. And if you look at the site visit today, you look at the neighborhood, it primarily consists of-it seems to be duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, pretty similar to what the applicant wants to put in. I do have a couple of- from the site visit I have a couple of suggestions that- for additional conditions that would deal with whatever issue there might be over gravel and runoff. And that would be, first, that the applicant pave the portion of the driveway on his property. That would eliminate any possibility that there’s gravel running off from the applicant’s property. He is going to have to pave the parking lot as a condition of doing the multi-family building. That’s something that’s enforced. That will be called plan approval in the County. It’s an administrative step in a V-zone of parking is supposed to be paved. So, to get the occupancy on the multi- he would have to do this plan approval and then have the parking lot paved. So while he’s out there paving the parking lot they would pave the driveway. The second suggestion- 2 suggested condition is that he install gutters and a downspout and lead that runoff into a sump. A sump is a little pit, and that would take care of the drainage from the house itself. Rather than it running off over the ground, you would have a sump and it would drain directly into the ground. GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Yuen. Mr. Mooers, you have already been sworn in. Mr. Mooers, will Mr. Holmes and I’m assuming that’s Mrs. Holmes, will they be making testimony also? MOOERS:No, they’re just here to answer any questions if the Commissioners have clarifying issues. GALDONES:Okay, if they are going to present any testimony then later on I’ll have them sworn in. Mr. Mooers, have you received a copy of the background report and the recommendation and, also, you have heard the additions to the recommendation, conditions from our Director? Do you have any comments on that? MOOERS:Yes, I’ve brought them up, the proposed conditions to the applicant, and they are quite comfortable with those conditions. So that the driveway on their property will be paved, as the parking areas, both be required to be paved as well, and also he install gutters and a downspout and lead that runoff into a sump. I do appreciate the Director’s continuing support of the project. I would like to just make a couple of comments on my own. I know we’ve gone round and round on this project for a number of meetings. And, I just want to make sure we don’t lose fact, sight of the fact that what we’re looking for here is not approval of that house, or that lot, or anything else. We’re talking about the installation of two additional kitchens and what impact that might have on the special management area. These are interior renovations. And the impacts, I believe, are minimal and do not effect the SMA; and I strongly believe that the SMA should be granted. I’m just cautious …(inaudible) get caught up in the fact that, obviously, you speak to the neighbors about driveway runoff and uses of the property that really have nothing to do with the SMA. It really shouldn’t be taken into consideration when we look at this. If you have questions on that I just request that you either ask the Director or your attorney, Mr. Torigoe, for guidance as to what the real issues are and what you should be making the decision based on. Thank you. GALDONES:Commissioners, are there any questions of Mr. Mooers? Thank you. Mr. Mooers, you’re going to have to relinquish the chair. I believe that we have some testifiers. Norman, oh, Jeff, can I have another chair, please? DARROW:I’m sorry. GALDONES:Can I have another chair, please. DARROW:Sure. 3 GALDONES:Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mooers. There are two individuals from the public who have signed up to testify, George Dupont and Ellen Kjos. Could you please come forward. Are there any other individuals from the public wishing to testify on this matter now before us? Could you please come forward. Could Mr. Dupont, Ms. Kjos and Ms. Cook Walls, could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:I do. GALDONES:Thank you. We’ll start with Ms. Kjos. Could you please speak into the mike so that we can have you recorded. State your name and your address, and then you may begin your testimony. KJOS:My name is Ellen Kjos, spelled K J O S. I reside at 78-6701. I own 78- 6703B, which is adjacent to Mr. Holmes. Contrary to what Mr. Mooers said we don’t have a feud going on in our neighborhood. My only concern is the added use of the driveway will further deteriorate the driveway and continue to pollute Kahaluu Beach. You were there, you saw. Yes, I put the rock there. Yes, the rock is what’s washing down but it is the water from all of the grounds, all of the area that comes down there. And, I have used this period to bring attention to that so that it can get fixed. That’s my only- I told him last time, I don’t care if he turns that into a- I would rather see a vacation rental then if you get undesirables they’re gone in a week. Where if he rents it by month, he doesn’t know what kind of people rent in this area, it’s not good. So, you know, I just want some cooperation. Till this point we have not had any cooperation from anybody in that neighborhood. Nobody has done anything to improve the driveway since I moved here in 1999. I just would like somebody to say this needs to be done; and it needs to be done sooner than later. And that’s my only concern. GALDONES:Thank you. Commissioners any questions of Ms. Kjos? Seeing none, Mr. Dupont. Could you please state your name and your address, and you may begin your testimony. DUPONT:George Dupont, 78-6701 #A Alii Drive. I’ve lived in that area since 1993 and prior to the blocking down, you had the normal runoff of the water, but we didn’t have a problem that’s being pushed down. It’s a combination of all the different areas, like Mrs. Kjos says, that the water does have intensity to come down. But it’s not necessarily Steve’s water runoff that’s really causing the problems down there. A lot of it is the top of that driveway. The renters that have come in here for the vacation from places and stuff, they come in about 90 miles an hour; and they’re the ones that are tearing up the prop- the pea gravel and throwing it down on top of the concrete. And that goes down into the street, which could cause a potential problem down there. Something does need to be addressed where we have all the neighbors get together to do it, or is that considered a County highway or something a part of the County that should be dealt with? GALDONES:Any questions of Mr. Dupont? Commissioner Graham. 4 GRAHAM:I had some questions to ask the Planning Director -. If they keep aside from this Special Management Area permit, if the County has any way to help bring around this initiative which the testifier has spoken of on the driveway going up to the property? GALDONES:Mr. Yuen. YUEN:We talked about this a little bit with Ki Emler at the other meeting, as to whether it’s a violation of something in County Code to have gravel wash off of a private driveway into the County right-of-way. If I recall correctly he said might be, but it’s not something that they normally enforce. But what they do is they will periodically, in this situation which is, of course, by no means uncommon, they regard this as part of their maintenance responsibilities and they periodically go clean it up. In a particularly bad situation they might make the private owner do something about it. But that’s the only angle as to any kind of control. KJOS:May I -? GALDONES:Any further questions from the Commissioners regarding to Mr. Dupont. Otherwise, I’ll move on to the next testifier. Then Ms. Kjos later on when I call the applicant you may present further testimony. Ms. Walls, could you please state your name, your residence address, and you may begin your testimony. COOK WALLS:My name is Kimi Cook Walls and I live at 59-458 Akaka Place; and I’m here to speak on behalf of my mother who is May B. Cook who lives in the property on Alii Drive. And I don’t have the TMK number but it’s just adjacent to this property. It is sort of kiddy-corner to it and right on Alii Drive. It was built in 1946 and it has stayed the same throughout all these years; and it is part of a trust and it probably will stay like this forever. The problem that I see here and it has been an issue since 1978, is that Mr. Holmes at one point took it upon himself to go onto my mother’s property without permission and cut down a huge tree leaving the rubble right there in the lot in which I didn’t-we didn’t know about it till we came back because it is their, my mother’s family home. He has not acted responsibly or acted respectfully toward our property or my mother’s property. And now that we have cleared up the lot there, all the people from that corner travel down through my mother’s property to go to the beach, instead of going around down the road. This has nothing to do with the high density, it’s a very high-density area and I understand that. But now there will be more people coming on from his property to access the beach through my mother’s property. And what I would like to see is for him to let us know that he will not further allow people, that he won’t allow anybody from his property come across our- my mother’s property all the time. Because it’s very disconcerting to people who are there staying at our house as a little vacation spot to have all these strangers coming in through our house. It’s just not quite right; and I think he needs to address that so we can- my mother can feel very comfortable about it. That’s a very minor thing, I think, don’t cut our trees down, leave us alone, and stay off our property. Thank you very much. 5 GALDONES:Thank you, Ms. Walls. Commissioners, any questions of Ms. Walls? If not, Ms. Kjos you wanted to add to your testimony. Could you speak into the microphone please. Thank you. KJOS:I said this last time also. This easement is not owned by any of us. This easement is owned by Kamehameha Investments, or Bishop Estate, or whatever. It is granted to all of us equally for ingress and egress, and that’s all. We don’t own it. Joe Spencer has informed me that he will be transferring title to all of us at some point in time. He told me that about 4 years ago. So, that’s the lesson. So King Kamehameha Investments is what owns this- this right-of-way, perpetual right-of-way. By right, I guess, they’re the ones that should fix it, I don’t know. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Again, we’re being presented with a number of issues that I think are outside of our proper deliberations, whether it’s bad neighborly activities. But this matter of the ownership of the easement does peak my interest. When we’re deciding on a property owned by an individual but the easement is- to that property is held by a distinct and separate party, should we be taking that ownership into consideration at all? The easement is apparently not owned by all of the residents along the easement, it’s owned by another party. Do their rights or interests enter properly into our deliberations? GALDONES:Mr. Yuen. YUEN:Well, if Mr. Holmes as holder of an easement over the fee- over the property of the finders- if the testimony is correct Bishop Estate is the fee owner, Mr. Holmes has an easement, the others have easements, so they have the right to use it. As Bishop Estate being- they would’ve been on the list of property owners to be notified, right? DARROW:That would be within the 300 feet, I’ll check the file and make sure they were notified. YUEN:I believe we notified them both as holders of the road lot if they are the holders of the road lot and as adjacent property owners independently of that. So they had notice and the opportunity to come in and say if they had any problems with this. SPRINGER:Thank you. GALDONES:Ms. Walls. COOK WALLS:Yeah, I’d like to say one thing. GALDONES:Proceed. COOK WALLS:I’m not talking about the easement. There is an easement but they don’t use the easement. They come on our property that’s- that’s all I’m saying. 6 GALDONES:Thank you for the clarification. DARROW:Kamehameha Investments was notified. GALDONES:Thanks, Jeff. Of the testifiers, are there any other comments that you wish to produce for us, otherwise I’m going to be excusing the testifiers. If not- Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:I don’t feel like I really understand Ms. Homes’ testimony completely. When they don’t use an easement but they come on the properties where is this other property that they come on, and they don’t use the easement? That’s why I don’t get it in my head here. Excuse me. GALDONES:Ms. Walls, would you like to clarify? GRAHAM:Excuse me, Ms. Walls, I’ve identified you wrong. COOK WALLS:That’s okay. GALDONES:Ms. Walls, could you use the microphone please. COOK WALLS:Okay. Along the South border of my mother’s property is an easement. Okay, Mr. Holmes property is right up here in this corner. Instead of coming down the easement, which is all overgrown with kiawe and whatever, they can’t get there, but my mother did clear her lot off, so they come right through her lot. GRAHAM:Are speaking of walking or driving? COOK WALLS:Walking. GRAHAM:Okay. COOK WALLS:Yes. YUEN:Can I ask you something? Excuse me. You mean so instead of- there’s a gravel road that goes up to his property, right? COOK WALLS:No, no, no. YUEN:No, no, I’m saying is there is a gravel road that goes up to Mr. Holmes’ property. COOK WALLS:I don’t know. I’ve-. 7 YUEN:Oh, okay. But they- apparently they’re using some other pathway to get to the beach park rather than-? COOK WALLS:Exactly. There’s no driveway across ours to his, he just comes- they- it’s like a path and I-. GALDONES:Ms. Walls. Maybe you might be able to help us if you could go to the map on the wall, maybe you might be able to show us. DARROW:Mr. Chairman. If I could direct your attention to application under Exhibit A, regional location maps. Those- one of- the first map there identifies the area a lot clearer than the location map; and you can see distinctly a roadway easement on this north side of Mr. Holmes’ property identified as TMK #41 and then also on the south side. GALDONES:Okay, any further questions? Any further comments? If not, Ms. Kjos, Mr. Dupont, Ms. Walls, you may be excused. Thank you. Mr. Mooers, are there any further comments, having heard the testifiers? MOOERS:Yeah, I’m a little confused about the discussion of the trespassing. I found it somewhat odd that Mr. Holmes does not go down the driveway to get to the beach. In asking Mr. Dupont, Mr. Holmes may be able to speak to this, is that, he indicated that there’s some affordable housing projects above that area that people who are coming down from mauka are utilizing that easement. I think certainly Mrs. Holmes is not blocking out the path behind the house. So I’m a little confused again by that. Once again, I don’t believe that’s an SMA issue that relates to whether or not these two additional kitchens should be constructed in this house. I believe Mr. Holmes can speak to the issue of the trespass. GALDONES:Mr. Holmes, if you’re going to testify could I have you sworn in please. Could you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? HOLMES:I do. GALDONES:Could you state your name and your residence address and you may begin your testimony. HOLMES:My name is Steve Holmes. I live at 78-6701 B as in Baker. And there is low income housing behind the property that I have, and the kids come down through from where they live up above, and there’s a path that comes right down into the east end of my property, and they just walk right down to the highway on the gravel road, as far as I can find it. Whether they’re going on the north side or not, I don’t see. The only place I ever see is going back by the back door. MOOERS:Are you going down that side? HOLMES:What’s that? 8 MOOERS:Are you walking down the backside? HOLMES:No, no, never do, there’s no path off of our property. The wall there- and I understand that there is no County easement there. But it’s growed up so much I don’t think anybody can get through there, unless they’re going all the way on the north side from where they live up above, all the way down on the north side, which would be on the neighbor’s that live just east of this testifier. No, it isn’t anybody from our property that is going down across her property. GALDONES:Any further questions of the applicants? Seeing none, Commissioners, it comes with a recommendation that the application be approved by the Planning Commission; however, along with that consideration there were some amendments that were articulated by Mr. Yuen that should be added on to the recommendation, and also the amendment to Condition 4. Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Mr. Chair, I move that the Hawai`i County Planning Commission approve the application of Steve Holmes for Special Management Area Use Permit Number 04-008 to allow the conversion of a single family dwelling into a three-unit multiple family residential structure and related improvements, for the reasons and with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Director, including condition 4, which has been circulated previously, and two new conditions as articulated by the Planning Director which deal with the applicant paving a portion of the driveway, which will be a part of the plan approval process, and also to install gutters and a down spout and to direct the water from them into a sump. GALDONES:Do I have a second? MCCALL:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Springer and seconded by Commissioner McCall that Steve Holmes application for Special Management Area use permit number 04-008 be approved by the Planning Commission along with the background report and the recommendation as amended, as so stated by Commissioner Springer. Discussion? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:I’d just like to- since that issue as I see it just for the- not just you know talk with the Commission here, in our rules on the grounds for approval of an SMA use permit, we may permit proposed development only upon finding that- and I quote, “The development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect except as such adverse effect is minimized to the extent practicable and is clearly outweighed by public health, safety, or compelling public interest.” And then I might try to just apply that to the specifics here. I don’t think we have much in the way of compelling public interest, or public health, or safety arguing for this development. On the other hand let’s look at whether there is a substantial environmental or ecological effect; and it seems to me that those, that comes in- in two forms. One is my initial concern about 9 sewage treatment from this property. And I know in response to that Mr. Mooers contacted the Bishop Estate folks and found that it was not practicable to hook up to the sewer; and we do have the condition that the Department of Health will approve the sewage system, the sewage coming from this project. And Mr. Mooers at our last meeting, and the Planning Director didn’t attend that because of other obligations, but he indicated that his sense was that the Department of Health would be likely more stringent upon the kind of wastewater treatment that’s allowed here. Consequently it’s not easy to see that there will substantial adverse environmental effect from the sewage, I don’t believe. And the other issue, of course, is the road; and as Mr. Dupont declared today, as he put in his testimony the additional traffic, which there probably will be on this substandard road, may exacerbate the runoff, which also could effect the ocean quality. And the Planning Director has put forth a couple of amendments for us to this permit which presumably will help to mitigate any of that kind of runoff issues. So I think all issues are being addressed; and we have to decide whether they’re being addressed sufficiently. I do carry a little bit of concern for the Planning Director’s comments, both with regard to the prior rezoning in Kaloko and with regard to this property about them being only small. Somehow I have a sense that the impact should relate to the size of the project so that a hundred small projects that have a certain degree of impact, each of which is very small can add up to as much as one large impact. So if the impact is somewhat large compared to the scale of what’s being proposed, then I’d find it is substantial even though the whole project itself is going to be a project -. I guess through all of this, it’s a tough decision for me but I am inclined to probably support this application because of the steps that have been taken to mitigate it. But I’d be happy to hear what other Commissioners have to say. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Commissioners, any other discussion? Seeing none, Jeff. DARROW:I had a request for clarification. There’s been a motion to add a new condition regarding paved driveway access. That- in condition number two for the final plan approval, we did mention paved driveway access and parking stalls associated with the proposed development. Is that sufficient or do we still want to have a separate condition specifically added? GALDONES:Mr. Yuen? YUEN:Well I’m- thanks for bringing- reminding me of that. I missed that. And, well, I don’t think we need a new condition as far as paving the driveway then. DARROW:So do I-? YUEN:It would only be the gutters and discharging into a sump. DARROW:Thank you. GALDONES:Is the maker and the seconder of the motion okay with that? 10 SPRINGER:Yes, thank you. GALDONES:So noted. Jeff. DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? GALDONES:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes 6 to 0. GALDONES:Mr. Mooers, you will be informed in writing of today’s actions. MOOERS:Thank you Chairman. Thank you, Commissioners. GALDONES:You’re welcome. The discussion ended at 11:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynette H. Sanemitsu, West Hawai`i Secretary 11