Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-16 TPARADISE LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIÒI HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 16, 2010 PARADISE RETIREMENT HAWAII A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (USE 10-19) was called to order at 12:10 p.m. in the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, AliÒi III Room, 69-275 Waikoloa Drive, Waikoloa, HawaiÒi, with Chairman Frederic Housel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Frederic Housel, Brandi Beaudet, Lani Bowman, Geraldine Giffin, Wayne Iokepa and Richard Nelson STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner) and Maija Cottle (Staff Planner). And approximately ten people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PARADISE RETIREMENT HAWAII (USE 10-19) Use Permit to allow the establishment of a 160+-unit assisted living facility and related improvements of 9.2 acres of land situated within the Multi-Fami district. The property is located on the east side of Huallai Road, approximately 300 feet south st of the Nani Kailua Drive Î Huallai Road intersection, PuaÒa 1, North Kona, HawaiÒi, TMK: 7- 5-10:61. HOUSEL: Our last applicant today is Paradise Retirement HawaiÒi, and they are requesting a Use Permit to allow the establishment of a 160-unit assisted living facility. And so, weÓd like you to come forward, please. Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, if I can direct the CommissionersÓ attention to our presentation. Our next applicant is Paradise Retirement HawaiÒi. They are requesting a Use Permit. The location of this application is within the North Kona District. More specifically, we are looking at Queen KaÒahumanu Highway running through the middle of the map in an east- west direction, IÓm sorry, that would be a north-south direction. We have Huallai Road that branches off from Queen K and is directed more towards the makai of the highway. The actual subject application is identified with a black outline. The color of it is a darker red, which signifies Multiple-Family Residential-2.5 zoning. As you will notice, again, the surrounding area is identified in different colors. Your different greens that you see, shades of green, identify Agricultural types of zoning. Your different shades of brown identify Multiple-Family Residential. And your darker yellow, as well as your lighter yellow, will represent Single- Family Residential. YouÓll see a little bit of pink colors in there and some purple that represent Neighborhood Commercial zoning, as well as some Resort zoning. This is an aerial photo of the area. Again, we have Queen KaÒahumanu Highway running in a north-south direction with Huallai Road heading in a makai direction from the highway. And 1 EXHIBIT B we show the subject property identified with a blue outline. Just to the north, youÓll see the Pines subdivision. Nani Kailua Drive with Single-Family Residential zoning is just north of that particular development. This actual picture was taken probably, I would say, sometime around 2006; so youÓll see that certain developments in the area were just being started that are now completed. But you can also see that there are certain vacant properties in the general vicinity as well. The applicant is requesting a Use Permit to allow the operation of an assisted living facility and related uses. These uses include approximately 160 residential units for 200 seniors. The operation will be a 24-hour, 7-day a week operation. Included w personal service uses such as hairdressers, barbers, beauty salons, as well as wellness establishments, a gym, medical offices, shuttle service and approximately 53 employees. This is a particular site plan that was submitted by the applicant in the application. On the right side of the map we have Huallai Road. On the left side of the map is the Queen KaÒahumanu Highway. And again, you have the outline of the property. The Pines subdivision is located on the lower portion of the map. The darker objects on the map identify different structures, which are also identified within the application. You have different layouts Î Buildings A, B and C. Again, so youÓll see the different layouts for these, as well as a common building, which is identified in the middle of the property. YouÓll see identified roadways that run through the actual property and parking areas that are identified. This is a site photo. This is looking makai on Huallai Road. The actual subject property would be on your right side. This is on the property looking towards the Pines subdivision. So you can see that the actual property is vacant at this time. Unfortunately, one of my pictures in the transfer went somewhere else Î that was the one looking mauka. We had some funny things happened when the PowerPoint was transferred onto the computer. Anyway, the Planning Director is recommending approval of this Use Permit with conditions. Just to bring to your attention, we have had several correspondences that were received after the th application was distributed to the Planning Commission. One is dated April 6 and this is from Christian Sieber, President of Paradise Retirement HawaiÒi. We have another letter dated April th 6 from Witcher Engineering LLP, Bruce Witcher. And lastly this morning we received a th correspondence from the applicantÓs representative dated April 15 and this actual correspondence is addressing the matter regarding the revised Traffic Impact Analysis Report. GIFFIN: What about the other one from Judith Waskow? DARROW: Correct. Thank you very much, Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: YouÓre welcome. DARROW: And even more recently we have just received a letter from a Judith Waskow and th that is dated April 15 as well. Are there any questions? 2 EXHIBIT B HOUSEL: I had one. If you can go to the site plan. Is the only access to the whole property from Huallai Road? DARROW: Correct. HOUSEL: So there is no connection to Queen K. DARROW: No, sir. HOUSEL: Only through Huallai Road. Okay, thank you. IÓd like to call the applicants, wh you are here already. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission on this matter today? Please use the microphone. Let the record show that everybody consented to telling the truth today. Could you each state your name and address, please? ZELKO: Jennifer Zelko, 120 Pauahi Street, Suite 312, Hilo, HawaiÒi 96720. CHU: Newton Chu, 120 Pauahi Street, Suite 312, Hilo, HawaiÒi 96720. SIEBER: Christian Sieber, P. O. Box 1450, KeaÒau, HawaiÒi 96749. HOUSEL: Have you received the background information and the Planning DirectorÓs recommendations? CHU: Yes. Yes, we have. HOUSEL: Are you in agreement with those? CHU: Yes, we are. HOUSEL: Okay. Would you like to give us some comments on this project? CHU: Yes, and I promised the Planning Director I would be brief. Basically, we think this is a, with this proposal it is a positive proposal for the Kailua-Kona community. The use of this property for senior housing is a win for our community. Statistics will show that as my generation ages every year, the number of seniors grows by an as baby boom generation, and this project is designed to meet the n my generation Î maybe not her generation but others in the community. Two issues were brought up, and IÓll just get to the two issues that were brought up in the Planning DepartmentÓs report. One is the issue of traffic, and thatÓs why we have Bruce Witcher here in the event you have any questions on the traffic. There was an earlier traffic report study done and Mr. Witcher stands by that earlier traffic report. There was an issue of whether we needed to do another traffic report prior to this hearing; our position is we do not need to do one. The earlier traffic reports concluded that a left-turn lane into the property was not necessary; however, there have been drawings that include a left-turn into the property and the applicant has no problems with including that. So to require another traffic report would be redundant and probably unnecessary 3 EXHIBIT B at this time. The other thing is we are probably exempt from having to do that based on the ordinance because we are doing a senior housing. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. The other major issue has to deal with the archaeological findings of -. The current owner, or the previous applicant who went through the zoning before the County Council for the zoning, a change of zoning, did several studies and there were reports, there were activities to address what findings were contained in there on the property. There was work done; a data recovery plan was submitted to the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Natural Resources has come up with five conditions for the completion of the date recovery plan, and the applicant is in agreement that they will finish and comply with those conditions. So those are the two issues that we see that you may have with this application. With that, we thank you. HOUSEL: You mentioned, just to maybe get a ballpark idea of the amount of traffic that this may generate, you are expecting 53 employees, is that correct? CHU: ThatÓs correct. ThatÓs a rough estimate. HOUSEL: Okay. Will any live on site? CHU: No. HOUSEL: So all will commute. CHU: Yes. HOUSEL: And then at capacity you expect approximately 200 seniors to be living there? CHU: Yes. HOUSEL: What do you anticipate as far as the traffic at full capacity? CHU: Well, one of the good things about senior housing is that it generates much less traffic than if it was a condominium unit, which is itÓs currently zoned for and approved for. So seniors, if you, there are studies about seniors and their activities, and they tend not to drive as much; when they do drive, itÓs not in the peak hours. And with this concept that the applicant has come up with, is to provide as, to serve the needs of the se much, there will be a lesser impact on the community than any other type of proposed development. HOUSEL: Now, there will be a restaurant and food service? CHU: Food service, yes. HOUSEL: So youÓll need supply vehicles for that, right? 4 EXHIBIT B CHU: Yes. HOUSEL: You say that there was a traffic study done. CHU: Yes. HOUSEL: When was that? CHU: I believe it was dated 2001. HOUSEL: One? Okay. That area seems to be, you know, growing considerably Î a lot more development now on the Huallai Road area than there was in 2001. Do you still believe there wonÓt be a significant change in the traffic? CHU: Yes. We have an expert, thatÓs Mr. Witcher, who did the traffic study, and if you would like, we can bring him up at this time, if you have any specific questions on that. HOUSEL: Yeah, IÓd love to. That would be great. If I can swear you in, please. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth, or affirm to tell the truth, on this matter before the Planning Commission today? WITCHER: I do. HOUSEL: Thank you. Could you state your name and address? WITCHER: Bruce Edward Witcher. I live at 75-1119 Kamalani Street, Hlualoa. HOUSEL: Thank you. Can you help clarify the traffic situation? WITCHER: Say that again Î I can hardly hear you. HOUSEL: Can you help clarify the traffic impact of this development? WITCHER: Okay, I can. What specifically are you looking for? HOUSEL: Well, at full capacity with 53 employees and 200 residents, what do you believe will be the increase in the number of cars, or traffic, over whatÓs currently the traffic on Huallai? WITCHER: Well, No. 1, you have 53 employees who are going to sh different shifts most likely. And then you have the other folks that live there who are going to be either transported in and out on a shuttle bus to go shopping or whatever they have in mind doing, or if they are traveling around, they are not going to be running around during peak hours. Now, the only reason you would have a traffic study is to determine whether you are going to have a left-turn lane or not; they already have been mandated to design a left-turn lane and it already has been designed and approved. 5 EXHIBIT B HOUSEL: No, actually, I donÓt think I questioned the left-turn lane so much; thatÓs readily apparent in here. IÓm concerned about the ongoing traffic on Huallai Road right now as a result of the new developments that have been built along that Huallai Road since 2001. WITCHER: It has not increased that much. HOUSEL: Do you know how much it has increased? WITCHER: Not off the top of my head, I do not, but I do have statistics at the office. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions? BOWMAN: I have a question. Just because we just had an application where there were 75 employees for a restaurant and I see that there are 53. Are these 53 then employed, these would be the employees that work for the facility, but you would have, like, the hairdressers, the restaurant, the medical offices, the gym would be non-employee, or would be contracted? CHU: Yes. These facilities are designed for the residents, so itÓs not, you know, in comparison to the Kawaihae situation where you are open to the general public and youÓre serving meals to crowds, this is to supply the needs of a senior community. And a senior community, while we support an active life style, seniors are just not as Î how would I say Î you probably donÓt need the size of a Kawaihae restaurant to service seniors at this restaurant; itÓs not going to be at the same scale as that restaurant. BOWMAN: But are these additional entities Î whatÓs the word Î are they going to be contracted out, so youÓll have, you know, a gym with additional people, medical offices, hairdressers, the restaurant staff? Is that included in the 53? CHU: Yes. And I just want to make sure you understand that the scale of this is not, itÓs designed for the residents, so the scale is much smaller than when you think of a restaurant, beauty salon, gym for the general public; the number of personnel required are much less. BOWMAN: So could you -. Again, IÓm sorry IÓm maybe not clear on this. The 53 includes the contract people if Î I thought you had said that the hairdressers, barbers, the gym would be contract people. CHU: Yeah, it includes the restaurant. And we are estimating, of course, as you know, now. Possibly, there might be others that come in as contractors. We are not certain yet, but I mean right now we estimate about 53 people to handle the food service. There is going to be housekeeping service. There is going to be nurses and physicians that come in and visit with people to meet the needs of the residents. BOWMAN: Okay. And you have no approximate idea of how the addi people -. The services that maybe youÓve looked at, there would be maybe ten or 15 people more possibly? 6 EXHIBIT B CHU: Possibly, possibly. BOWMAN: And the medical offices would just be to serve your residents. CHU: Yes. BOWMAN: Thank you. CHU: Thank you. HOUSEL: This application, or back to the rezoning ordinance, was approved in 2003, is that correct? CHU: Yes. HOUSEL: Now, the language that I read in the rezoning ordinance states that Î itÓs on Page 5, Paragraph H Î ÐShould actual construction of the subject property not commence within one (1) year from the date of Final Plan Approval or within six (6) year ordinance, whichever occurs first, or should such development not constitute a housing development restricted to qualified elderly ÈÑ that essentially a Traffic Impact Analysis Report should have been done, because more than six years has expired since this was rezoned, right? CHU: Yeah, thatÓs what we were trying to point out in our letter that we are exempt from that condition because we are senior -. HOUSEL: Okay, so as elderly -. As you are probably aware, Huallai is a major collector from, you know, mauka-makai. And so that does have significant traffilai, which is not a very wide road to start with. CHU: We understand that. But what weÓve tried to point out to you is with a facility like this where itÓs seniors, many of whom will not be driving Î no childr well, I donÓt know, thereÓs just less traffic with senior housing. And if you visit, down the street there is even Huallai Î I forget the name of it Î Regency, you can, if you were to amount of traffic that goes in and out of that property, you will see thereÓs much less than if a condominium unit was, or townhouse facility was built. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of our applicants? Thank you very much. We do have one person who signed up to testify. IÓd like to ask John Kitchen to please join us. Thank you, sir. If you could use the microphone. Please raise the right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth before the Planning Commission on this matter today? KITCHEN: Yes, I do. HOUSEL: Thank you. Could you state your name and address, please? 7 EXHIBIT B KITCHEN: John Kitchen, Post Office Box 5537, Kailua-Kona, HawaiÒi. Good morning, Mr. Commissioner and Members of the Planning Commission. I live in The Pines I, which is to the south of the planned development. I live in Unit No. 40, which is one of about 25 units directly adjacent to the boundary line of the property, so I absolutely have particular interest in this plan, Use Permit. I have lived there for four years. And I have been involved on the board of The Pines Community Association and IÓve also been a board president. I donÓt speak for them; however, I do have an interest in the community beyond the normal. I have a number of concerns to raise in regard to the Use Permit application today. No. 1 relates to the experience of Paradise Retirement HawaiÒi in developing an assisted living facility. I checked the website; I looked for any information I might glean regarding the competency or background of the developer in developing such facilities. I couldnÓt find anything. And why do I ask this question? Well, this is a major proposed development in terms of its scope and scale and size. So my concern is, does the applicant have any previous development to qualify them to do the project? This is not a small single-family home, itÓs no rather large-scale development by Kona standards. The previous developer, Granite Bay, who I spoke to often as my role of, as board president, they had done numerous large developments on the mainland. However, the current project, I could find nothing about, on the website it directs me to a place called Nanea Care in Hilo. And Nanea Care Î I don Paradise Retirement HawaiÒi, but they seem to be by their address and phone number Î has a couple of retirement homes, single-family homes I believe, in Hmkua and in Kurtistown. But in any case, my concern is, does the developer have the competency to build such a project in a beneficial way? And not only in the construction of the project but then in the actual operatio of the project, because as neighbors we would like to see it built well, weÓd like to see it operated well, weÓd like to see it not have negative impacts on us as neighbors living there. So thatÓs a question IÓd like to see answered. I looked through the record for the Planning Commission out in the lobby; I couldnÓt find anything about the developerÓs background there, either. The second and third concerns I have relate to the density and scale of development. I understand the zoning for this property. I believe the scale is a little bit large for it. This map doesnÓt really show; itÓs really not a very big piece of land Î I think itÓs nine acres. In particular the size of the building, I think I would be more comfortable if the buildings were perhaps smaller, meaning two floors rather than three. Three floors, of course, even two floors will require elevators. So that would be my comfort level with that. And the size of the buildings will also relate to the actual construction period itself, which will be problematic for us who live adjacent to the proposed development and for all of the units in The Pines Î there are 91 units in The Pines I. And I say that because a larger building size requires stronger foundations, more lava removal for the foundations and the installation of elevators and so forth, making for a longer construction period than it might be to be expected for another type of development. So during the construction period -. And IÓve lived next to, twice in the last 30 years in Kona, project of this type; normally they take about two years, they create a lot of dust and n itÓs not pleasant to live next door to them no matter what the ultimate outcome might be. So those are basically a summary of my concern regarding the project. 8 EXHIBIT B HOUSEL: Commissioners, do we have any questions? Mr. Kitchen, you said your property is directly north of this land? KITCHEN: ThatÓs right. ItÓs directly north; itÓs right on the boundary lines Î one of about 25 homes that are directly on the boundary line with this subject property. HOUSEL: How long have you lived there? KITCHEN: Four years. HOUSEL: Four years, okay. Your biggest concern is the density? Is that the major issue? KITCHEN: As I said, I would be more comfortable, I believe, and I think Î IÓm speaking for myself here, representing only myself Î but I think I would be more comfortable if the density was scaled back in terms of the actual height, meaning that basically our viewplanes will be gone, okay, but not only viewplanes of the ocean but almost viewplanes of the sky at three stories. So thatÓs just my particular thought about that. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. LEITHEAD TODD: Mr. Kitchen, are you aware that this property is already zoned Multiple- Family? KITCHEN: IÓm aware. LEITHEAD TODD: And so that even if it wasnÓt an assisted living facility -. The only reason they are here before us is for a Use Permit for the assisted living facility. If someone were instead to take the existing zoning and build a multiple-family come for a Use Permit and they could have this exact same densit KITCHEN: All right. Well, I think -. LEITHEAD TODD: And the exact same height as already permitted with Multiple-Family. KITCHEN: ThatÓs right. I understand that. And I think the ultimate use is a good one as an assisted living facility for seniors Î I think thatÓs good. My contention is not with that, or my concern, I should say. HOUSEL: Any other comments, questions of our testifier? Thank you very much, sir. KITCHEN: Thank you. HOUSEL: Would anyone like to make a motion? 9 EXHIBIT B BEAUDET: IÓd like to make a motion, to move in support of the Planning DirectorÓs recommendation for approval for a Use Permit 10-000019 of Paradise Retirement HawaiÒi and its conditions as stated. HOUSEL: Do we have a second? NELSON: Second. HOUSEL: Second? Commissioner Nelson. Discussion? th BOWMAN: Yes. In the Public WorksÓ dated March 9 Î and forgive me if it is included, but I didnÓt see it Î No. 5 said, ÐAny vehicular security gate shall be set back a minimum, exclusive of gate swing, of 50 feet from the County right-of-way.Ñ And I apologize for not asking the applicant if they were going to put a security gate in, because if they were, I think it needs to be a condition. So IÓm sorry I didnÓt do this earlier Î my bads. HOUSEL: Would you care to respond? CHU: Yes. Thank you for the question. The applicant didnÓt have any plans for a gate right now. Do you -? He asked me if you wanted -. Did you want us to gate it? BOWMAN: If it would be gated, it needs to be in compliance with this -. CHU: Absolutely. BOWMAN: And I donÓt know if we need to put it in. CHU: ThereÓs usually a condition that we comply with all, as part of the plan approval. BOWMAN: ThatÓs what I was trying to look at. I just saw this specifically. Maybe staff, you can -. HOUSEL: I believe if they choose to put a gate in, they have to comply with the County requirements. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. Just making sure. HOUSEL: I still have a problem with the traffic impact. Reading on, I mean even though itÓs not in the conditions, there is a sentence on Page 3, ÐThe DPW also requires the submittal of an updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report as required under the Department of Public Works (sic).Ñ LEITHEAD TODD: I want to point out that thatÓs actually a misstatement, and DPW has withdrawn their condition of the TIAR because they were misreading the ordinance. The reference from DPW says that Ðrequires submittal of an updated Traffic Impact Analysis Report,Ñ but it misread the ordinance because it says that if itÓs a qualified senior housing 10 EXHIBIT B project, that that condition is not a requirement of the ordinance. And so weÓve had a contact from DPW that for this project they are not requiring an updated TIAR because it is exempt under the ordinance. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you for the clarification. I see, okay, so thatÓs new information. Mr. Darrow? Does anyone want to make any more comments? Okay, it looks like we are ready. DARROW: Could I ask the Director a quick question? In light of what was just mentioned, Condition 4, should that remain the same or be changed? LEITHEAD TODD: Condition 4 should be removed because under the underlying ordinance this project is exempt from doing an updated TIAR and we have had confirmation from DPW. DARROW: Thank you, Ms. Director. HOUSEL: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. So Mr. Beaudet, would you like to restate your motion? Either withdraw or amend it. GONZALEZ: If the maker of the motion is fine with that amendmen record, and the second can state on the record, and then you make sure there are no objections from the other Commissioners. HOUSEL: Okay, sounds good. Is everyone in agreement with that? BEAUDET: For the record I agree with the additional change of deleting Condition No. 4. NELSON: IÓm okay with the change. HOUSEL: Is everyone else in agreement on that? Okay. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to ap application with the deletion of Condition 4. With that, IÓll take the roll call. Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Giffin? 11 EXHIBIT B GIFFIN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? HOUSEL: No. DARROW: No? HOUSEL: No. DARROW: The motion passes, five to one. The discussion ended at 12:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 12 EXHIBIT B