Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-21 TRIVERA LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIÒI HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 21, 2010 HIRAM RIVERA (REZ 10-120) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 9:40 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, HawaiÒi, with Chairman Frederic Housel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Frederic Housel, Brandi Beaudet, Lani Bowman, Geraldine Giffin and Richard Nelson ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Wayne Iokepa STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager) and Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner) And seven people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: HIRAM RIVERA (REZ 10-120) Change of Zone from Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to Family Agricultural 2-acre (FA-2a) for 5.341 acres of land. The property is located along the west side of the Old Mmalahoa Highway, nd approximately 400 feet north of Makua Lani Christian School, Honhau 2, North Kona, HawaiÒi, TMK: 7-4-6:22. HOUSEL: We will proceed with our first agenda item today. And that will be Hiram Rivera. This is a rezoning, 10-120, change of zone from Agricultural 5-acre, Ag-5a, to Family Agricultural 2-acre, FA-2a, for 5.341 acres of land. Mr. Darrow, would you like to present? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONERS: Good morning, Jeff. DARROW: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct your attention to our presentation on the wall. Our first application this morning is Hiram Rivera. He is asking for a change of zone from Agricultural 5 acres to Family Ag 2 acres for approximately 5.34 acres. The location of this application is within the North Kona District of HawaiÒi. More specifically, we are looking at the upper Palani Road area. To the left of your map, youÓll see Palani Road running in a north-south direction, as well as Old Mmalahoa Highway running in a north-south direction, and they intersect up at the top of the map. The subject property is identified with a red outline. The zoning for that particular property is light green, which in surrounding properties are zoned Residential Agricultural .5-acre, Agricultural 1-acre, which is the little-darker green color, and we have a property thatÓs zoned Family Ag 1-acre thatÓs located just to the south of the application. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map identifies the property in the Urban Expansion area. 1 EXHIBIT A The applicant is requesting a change of zone from Agricultural 5 acres to Family Ag 2 acres for 5.34 acres to be able to subdivide into two lots. One lot would be retained by the landowners who are the Campbells, and one lot would be conveyed to the applicant, Mr. Rivera. This is the applicantÓs site plan. Again, it identifies Mmalahoa Highway on the right side of the map. The property is outlined in red. And we show the proposed subdivision through the middle of the property. Just for your reference, there are two possible accesses: one would be from the mauka portion of the lot and be able to come down, or there is a possibility of an access easement through Easement A identified on the site plan. The applicant owns this property as well, and his son owns this property. This is a site photo of the area. This is Mmalahoa Highway looking towards the south, and this is the upper portion of the property that has the existing dwelling on it. This is the access Î thank you Î again, looking to the south on Mmalahoa Highway, we have the access easement entrance of the highway. This is actually down below on the access easement looking mauka, and this would be the sonÓs property. Directly to the left would be the access easement that is being proposed to the subject lot, and that would be this particular area here, so the actual subject property is identified in this general location, and again, this is identified as the sonÓs property. The Planning Department is recommending a favorable recommendati for this change of zone application. I do have a few items that I would like to address. Noriko, if you could -. Thank you. The Planning Department, after the application has been distributed to the Planning Commissioners, has added a condition, and it should have been distributed to the Planning Commissioners; itÓs a yellow sheet identified as Condition N. And this would be our standard fair share condition, and this would be for the one additional lot that would be created. Additionally, in discussions with Planning staff we have also, and the applicant, have requested that Condition L be deleted, which is our standard solid waste management plan condition, being that this is a simple two-lot subdivision thatÓs only going to create one additional dwelling. With that, that concludes our presentation, are there any questions? BOWMAN: I have a question. Can you go back to the -? Right there. So that is the entrance to the proposed easement going through the already existing lots. DARROW: This one here, the one you were just referring to, is this access. Now, this one here, right here to the right, is this proposed access right here. BOWMAN: Okay, so the first access -. DARROW: This one? BOWMAN: Yeah, you would have to, they would not be using the existing access, right? It looks like they do another road right above it? DARROW: There are two options. The intention of the applicant is to be able to provide access through this access easement here. If there are problems in securing that access easement, then 2 EXHIBIT A the other alternative is to come off from the mauka lot into this property. And IÓm sure that the applicantÓs representative can go into more detail about that. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. DARROW: Thank you. HOUSEL: Any other questions from Commissioners? If not, letÓs call the applicant or his representative forward, please. Good morning. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter now before the HawaiÒi County Planning Commission? FUKE: Yes, I do. HOUSEL: Thank you. All the proceeding, those providing testimony, please state your name and residence and proceed. FUKE: Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, staff. My name is Sidney Fuke. IÓm a planning consultant and IÓve been retained by the applicant to assist them with the processing of this application. My address is 100 Pauahi Street, Hilo, HawaiÒi. Just prior to coming down, I called the applicant to see whether he was going to be here, but unfortunately he is out on a job; Mr. Rivera is a contractor and heÓs fortunately one of those few contractors that still remains to be reasonably busy at this point in time. Your staff report was very comprehensive. There is very little I can add, with two other points, however. One is from an environmental standpoint, the property has already been graded; there is no flooding issue and all that stuff. But according to Mr. Rivera, the only issue that he has with that side is that he has a coqui frog problem, but aside from that there is really like no other environmental type of issues. We did discuss in terms of, the staff and I, and I also shared it via email, the different conditions that were initially advanced by the staff, as well as the amended version, and he has been made aware of them. And we understand as far as the fair share, that is a standard requirement on rezoning thatÓs three acres or less, so we understand and we would have to accept that as a condition. Specifically, as it relates to Commissioner BowmanÓs question, the applicant right now, the original plan was really to have the access be taken from the existing easement, which kind of runs down over here. And one of the reasons why he went for a two-acre, rather than a one-acre, zone is that if you were to secure the easement from over here, then the maximum allowed for subdivisions of this nature would be like six lots, and so youÓll see, one, two, three, four, five, this would have been the sixth lot. If you have, if this were to be further subdivided, and obviously it would need a variance and all that stuff, so thatÓs the reason why he went for the two acres. There is an issue, however, in terms of whether this easement area, you know, when you, this is an area thatÓs proposed to service for access to this lot here, but there is a question as far as when you take this easement, the residual area may be less than one acre in size, and if the CountyÓs policy is such that if you deduct this easement and if there is less, then theyÓre going to have to find another alternative. So the other possible alternative relates to creating like a flag lot 3 EXHIBIT A and easement from the top. In the alternative, if that cannot be achieved, then the option would be to still retain this easement but increase this lot by the area that you would be losing by creating this easement. So if this is one acre in size and if you reduce, if you eliminate the easement area and it comes out to maybe 40,000 square feet, then you need to provide maybe 3,000 or 4,000 square feet on this side to make this lot fully c HOUSEL: Does the applicant understand that they may, if indeed they want to use that access, that they may have to re-subdivide to allow for that acreage? FUKE: Correct. This would be like a consolidation and re-subdivision, correct. And we also understand that the fair share requirement would be for the creation of any new additional lot, and so primarily it would be this lot here however itÓs created. In addition to that, you already have proposed Condition E, which limits the number of dwelling units on the newly created area to one, so itÓs understood that the obligation for fair share would not encumber this parcel with this dwelling. HOUSEL: I see, okay. Is the applicant in agreement with the terms and conditions in the -? FUKE: Yes. HOUSEL: Okay. Commissioners, any questions? BOWMAN: So if this easement does not work, and they come off of the mauka, or whatever, that one -. FUKE: Correct. BOWMAN: Would they come off of the existing easement and then make a flag, or a whole another one above it? Because it looks like that road, like dogleg, bends. FUKE: Well, it probably, itÓs the photo shot, and you can actually see this section. ItÓs almost like near the elbow, yeah? BOWMAN: Right. FUKE: So you know, itÓs not the best of access point. This is t access issue. BOWMAN: But would the access come off of the existing -? FUKE: It would have to come off of this point over here. BOWMAN: Okay, not another one right above it. FUKE: No, not another, no, because the affected property is really this property; this property is someone elseÓs property, so -. 4 EXHIBIT A BOWMAN: I didnÓt mean that; I meant like right above it between FUKE: Right here? BOWMAN: Yeah. FUKE: It would have to be negotiated with the property owner, you know, the owner of this entire property. But obviously, you know, for multiple reasons they donÓt want to go back and renegotiate this access point. And given the location of this versus this, this is much better. BOWMAN: Right. FUKE: So heÓs going to make every effort to try to get that access easement coming through over here. BOWMAN: Thank you. HOUSEL: Are there on the five lots along the easement road, are there homes there? FUKE: Yes, there are homes. I think there are homes on each of these lots. HOUSEL: On the each one. FUKE: Yeah. HOUSEL: Is that, now the easement, is that a private road? FUKE: ItÓs a private road. ItÓs commonly owned by all of these different homeowners. HOUSEL: And they maintain it, is that correct? FUKE: Correct, yes. HOUSEL: Any other questions? Would anyone like to make a motion? public who would like to testify? No? Apparently not. Would you care to make a motion? GIFFIN: ThatÓs why I am looking at you. HOUSEL: Okay, Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the change of zone application, REZ 10-120, along with the recommendations as proposed by our Director, with the deletion of Condition L and substitute Condition N Î those are the only changes, Jeff? Î be approved. IÓm sorry, itÓs favorable recommendation, right, because it goes -. So, yeah, th recommendation to the County Council. 5 EXHIBIT A NELSON: Second. HOUSEL: Motion made by Commissioner Giffin, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Any discussion? Okay. Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, IÓll take the roll. Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? HOUSEL: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, five to zero. HOUSEL: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. FUKE: Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 9:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 6 EXHIBIT A