Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-26 Tumphrey PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT May 26, 2006 JACK AND BARBARA UMPHREY A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (REZ 03-032) was called to order at 10:53 a.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Fred GaldonesRene€ Siracusa Bill Graham Andrew Iwashita AllenSalavea Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 26 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: JACK AND BARBARA UMPHREY (REZ 03-032) Continuation on the application for a Change of Zone for 25,580 square feet of land from a Single Family Residential ƒ 7,500 square feet (RS-7.5) to a Village Commercial ƒ 7,500 square feet (CV-7.5) district. The property is located along the east (mauka) side of Mamalahoa Highway and across from Saint Paul Road, approximately 430 feet south of Teshima Restaurant, st Kawanui 1, Honalo, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-9-3:61. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen of the public, we are on Agenda Item No. 2, Applicant: Jack and Barbara Umphrey. This is Rezoning 03-032. Staff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct your attention to the location map. This is to refresh your memory. This is a continued hearing for Jack and Barbara Umphrey. We€ve had several continuances for this application. At our April 22, 2005 meeting a motion was made to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council which did not pass with a vote of three to two. The area of this application is within the North Kona District of Hawaii, more specifically in the Honalo area. Just for reference, this white line moving in a north/south direction is Kuakini Highway turning into Mamalahoa Highway. The area is identified by this blue dot. The applicants in this case, Jack and Barbara Umphrey, are requesting a change of zone for 25,580 square feet of property from RS-7.5 to Village Commercial-7.5.Theapplicant€sintentionistoconvertanexistingresidencetooffices,create two new structures and use them for mixed uses purposes -- but at this time it€s unknown specificallywhatthoseusesare--todemolishanexistingefficiencystructurethat€slocated approximately in this area, and to create approximately 27 parking spaces on the property. EXHIBIT B There are several conditions to mention. Condition E, it states that the effective date of this ordinance shall be either the completion and the opening of Mamalahoa Highway Bypass Road to Napoopoo Junction or the completion of Mamalahoa Highway improvements along the subject frontage, including a continuous two-way left turn lane, whichever occurs first. Until one or the other of these actions occur, the zoning will remain in RS-7.5. Condition F requires that, because this property is being proposed for Commercial uses, if a use such as a convenience store is proposed for this property that a TIAR be submitted to the Department of Public Works. We have sent out a revised list of conditions. On there you will find revisions to Conditions F, H, and I. This morning we€ve received several letters; and one of them is from Gerry Herbert and Nancy Redfeather and another letter is from Janice Bovard. Those should be with the Commissioners at this time. We have received letters previously before this hearing as well. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendationtotheHawaiiCountyCouncil.Arethereanyquestions? ALAMEDA:Questions,FellowCommissioners?CommissionerGraham? GRAHAM:Justonequickquestion.Jeff,IjustmadeanotewhenIwasreadingthis stuff the other day about what you just spoke of as a TIAR may be required under certain set of circumstances. I didn€t notice anything in there like it has to be done before this or that, or anything like that. Is that something that was omitted, or not necessary, or -? DARROW:It appears that there€s no timeframe. If the applicants, assigns or successors propose to put a convenience store on this property, it would trigger the requirement of a TIAR. GRAHAM:So then the TIAR would need to be done before the Planning Department gives final approval for it? DARROW:I see your point there. GRAHAM:And it also doesn€t speak to what the TIAR says as to what might be required or anything. So it just seemed a little floating to me. ALAMEDA:Good point. Mr. Darrow? DARROW:Mr. Director, would you want to add in something requiring a timeframe, such as prior to plan approval, Condition F? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:I€m sorry. What is the date on the latest recommendation? DARROW:It should be a yellow copy. The date is May 22, 2006. 2EXHIBIT B YUEN:Prior to submission of plans for plan approval. DARROW:This would be on -? YUEN:The sentence that says the applicant, it€s better to say shall‚ thanwill,‚ The applicant shall submit a TIAR for review and approval by the Department of Public Works, prior to submission of plans for plan approval.‚ DARROW:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, follow-up? GRAHAM:None. ALAMEDA:Othercomments?Questions?Idon€tbelievewehaveanytestifiers today, which means we can move into a discussion or a potential motion, and then discussion. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I was prepared to make a motion. ALAMEDA:Sure. WATANABE:I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-032), inclusive of the amendment to Condition F, clarifying that the TIAR is required prior to subdivision approval. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Watanabe. Is there a second? GALDONES:Second. ALAMEDA:Seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:I just wanted to reiterate my continuing concern about, because of the very significant conditions on the rezoning becoming effective, that is the requirement for the highway improvements, I really see this action as premature,that -. We always talk about concurrency and a concern about making sure the infrastructure is there together with the development that we anticipate in terms of requests like these. And, to me, having such conditions basically ignore those expressed concerns, that if we€re going to be serious about concurrency then let€s get the improvements done, and then we€ll look at what kind of development it can sustain. But doing things like this really makes no sense, cart before the horse. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. I€m going too quick ahead of myself. I have to ask the applicant or its representative if they€re here today. Yes, can you please come forward. Let me swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? 3EXHIBIT B UMPHREY:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you, sir. Canyou please state your name and address for the record. UMPHREY:Jack Umphrey, 2895 Kalakaua Avenue, Honolulu. ALAMEDA:Sorry,Mr. Umphrey, we just got finished with all of the amendments and wedidn€t have, it didn€t feel like there were applicants today so I totally forgot. I know you got the Background Report by the Departmentand all the revised conditions. UMPHREY:I have. ALAMEDA:Do you have anything to add, or any comments, or feedback regarding thoseconditions? UMPHREY:I€dliketojustmakeastatement. ALAMEDA:Sure. UMPHREY:Wefullyunderstandthatthisissuewasallaboutthetraffic;andasowners we also understand that any adverse impact on ingress and egress is going to have the corresponding negative impact on the investment of the location. Now this is a small property; and for this principle reason it has been our plan to limit the investment to several modest-sized buildings that might serve as offices, particularly for the medical profession because it€s close to the hospital. If the property remains Residential, one additional dwelling might be added; however, it would sit within about 40 feet of Mamalahoa Highway; and that€s a questionable option. With the office concept a parking area would be located close to the Highway. We apologize that this application has been on your agenda for too long; and I would ask for any questions. But I would like to clarify one point, that there is no intention for a development of a convenience store at this location. It just wouldn€t work. ALAMEDA:Okay, any questions for our applicant? Seeing none, you may be seated. UMPHRY:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Once again, there€s no testimony regarding this particular application. So now we€re back right on track where we left off. We don€t need to revisit, remake the motion, do we? TORIGOE:No -. ALAMEDA:Okay, so we€re at discussion again. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Thinking of the comments of Commissioner Iwashita a short while ago, and trying to be a little more concrete as to why that€s a problem, I had the same feeling he does about doing, well, highly contingent rezonings. We look at the situation we have now and then we say if in the future this other highway gets built or if certain work gets done on a highway out 4EXHIBIT B front that€s a big mitigating addition that will help with the traffic, so we couldgoforward with this at this time and make it contingent on that. But we really also have no way of knowing when those conditions might be met, like when this other highway may bebuilt. So if, in fact, we took up this rezoning at some point in the future, let€s say four years from now, then there€s a whole set of circumstances and traffic and all that that we can evaluate at that time and decide if, in fact, that mitigation is sufficient. But we€re trying to make that decision now and we make these highly contingent kind of rezoning decisions. So I€m inclined to follow Mr. Iwashita€s lead and feel like it€s premature in that given the situation we€re in now and the traffic being what it is it we can€t justify it in that situation; and that if the situation was different in the future, we should deal with it in the future. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Other discussion items? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:I€djustliketoreiterateCommissionerIwashita€sandCommissioner Graham€s sentiments. I think my opinion is that by doing the rezoning this way it just raises the speculative nature of this particular lot and it does nothing more than make it more valuable as the bypass road becomes closer to completion. And if the intent is to provide services then, again, like Commissioner Graham stated when the Bypass is in, the traffic patterns have settled, I think that will be the more appropriate time to submit the application with the most current information available to Commissioners if it would be, whomever that may be. But at that point in time a more informed decision can be made, rather than speculating on what might be. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Salavea. Motion was made on the table by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Galdones, in favor of this application. Seeing no further discussion, staff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:No. DARROW:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:No. DARROW:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:No. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? 5EXHIBIT B ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:The motion does not pass, three votes to three votes. ALAMEDA:You will be informed of this decision in writing. Corp. Counsel? TORIGOE:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Basically this item has been on your agenda way past the 90-day timeframe for your consideration, so it will go up to the Council with a default unfavorable recommendation. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you. The discussion ended at 1:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, SharonM.Nomura,Secretary 6EXHIBIT B