Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-03 Planning Commission Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI€I MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3, 2004 The Planning Commission met in regular session at 9:00 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:Fred Galdones ABSENT & EXCUSED: Renes Siracusa Christian AlamedaBill Thibadeau Earl Fujikawa Bill Graham JeffreyMcCall Francis Smith Hannah Springer (Left at 2:52 p.m.) Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works The Chair introduced the Commissioners and staff to members of the public. All those testifying were duly sworn in. The Commission took this item up at 9:02 a.m. with REZ 04-010 approximately 16 people from the public in attendance. THAD E.BOND KALOKO, NORTH KONA APPLICANT: THAD E.BOND (REZ 04-010) Change of Zone from an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) to an Agricultural 10-acre (A-10a) district for approximately 20.992 acres of land. The property is located along the southeast side of Kaloko Drive, approximately 500 feet west (makai) of the Kaloko Drive„Huehue Street intersection, Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-27:21. (SEE EXHIBIT A) 1 The Commission took this up at 9:18 a.m. with REZ 04-011 approximately 18 people from the public in attendance. PHIL KNIERIM KALOKO, NORTH KONA APPLICANT: PHIL KNIERIM(REZ04-011) Change of Zone from an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a)to aFamily Agricultural 3-acre (A-3a) district for approximately 20.477 acres of land. The property is located along the north side of Kaloko Drive at the northern corner of Kaloko Drive and Mahi Street, Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-25: 7. (SEE EXHIBIT B) The Commission took this item up at 9:32 a.m. with SLU 04-007/REZ 04-012 approximately 20 people from the public in attendance. LILLIAN MAHI STND KALAOA 1 AND 2, NORTH KONA APPLICANT: LILLIAN MAHI (SLU 04-007/REZ 04-012) a.State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to the Urban District for approximately 1.8628 acres of land. b.Change of Zone from an Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to a Single Family Residential 20,000 square foot (RS-20) district for approximately 1.8628 acres of land. The property is located on the southwest corner of the Mahilani Drive „ Mamalahoa stnd Highway (Highway 190) intersection, Kalaoa 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-11:68. Mr. Darrow oriented the Commission and public of the subject and surrounding properties on the location map and site plan, summarized the requests, and noted the Planning Director recommended approval of the application, with conditions to the change of zone application. He then corrected the record to state that the parcel involved in both applications is 1.8628 acres and not 1.9628 acres. Commissioner Springer noted the Police Department commented on the increase in densityfromtheproposedproject.Mr.Yuensaidthatthereisinsufficientlandareafora fourth lot to be created being the area is zoned RS-20; and although the applicant could potentiallyhaveohanahomesconstructed,aproposedconditiondistributedthismorning would restrict another home on each of the lots. The applicant, Lillian Mahi, and her representatives, Michelle Castalon and Greg Mooers,wereinattendance. RegardingtheDOTscommentsandforCommissionerGrahamsinformation, Mr. Mooers said the lots on the makai side of the property is nonconforming as they were 2 created prior to the 1967 Subdivision Code. He added that the proposed use is consistent with the urban nature of the surrounding area. Mrs. Mahi explained that when they constructed their home in the latter 1970s, they had to pay approximately $300 for a $300,000 bond for their driveway to connect to the State Highway, noting only the top portion was paved because of insufficient funds. She clarified that this driveway would be the access for the third lot and the other two lots would have access off Mahilani Drive. Mr. Mooers added they did not believe that Mrs. Mahi should have to relinquish the access point to the State Highway which is intended to serve only one of the three lots to be used by her son, as the State did approve this access. In response to Mr. Yuens inquiries, Ms. Mahi clarified that Lot B-3, which has a storage shedonit,wouldhaveaccessoffMamalahoaHighway;andLotB-2,whichhasthe existing residence, and Lot B-3 will have access off Mahilani Drive. She admitted that the topography of the land does not make it difficult to make the driveway on Lot B-3 access onto Mahilani Drive. Mr. Yuen recommended that the Commission go along with his amended condition circulated this morning to have the access to the proposed lots be from Mahilani Drive. He said although the applicants have an access onto Mamalahoa Highway and the rezoning would not increase that access, the applicants are getting a substantial benefit by the rezoning to go from one to three lots, and it appears feasible to have the three lots come in at Mahilani Street. He added that, as a general rule, the Planning Department tries to restrict accesses whenever possible in rezonings inasmuch as traffic problems will be created when more and more people move into an area. Commissioner Springer questioned if it was a planning decision to limit the points of ingress and egress off State highways. Mr. Yuen said limiting access onto a State Highway is a recognized principle, as having a lot of multiple points of entry reduces both the capacity of the highway to carry a lot of traffic and also it is not safe. Commissioner Graham concurred with the Planning Directors amended condition to limit access to Mahilani Drive, referring to the Police Departments comments. Regarding an increase in density, Mr. Mooers noted that as Mrs. Mahis daughter and her family live with her right now the density will not be increased with the proposed action. There was no one from the public wishing to testify on this matter. On SLU 04-007, it was moved by Commissioner Fujikawa and seconded by Commissioner Springer to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council as recommended by the Planning Director. A roll call vote was taken and motion carried with seven ayes (Fujikawa, Springer, Alameda, Graham, McCall, Smith, and Galdones) and two absent and excused (Siracusa and Thibadeau). 3 On REZ 04-012, it was moved by Commissioner Fujikawa and seconded by Commissioner Springer to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council as recommended by the Planning Director, with amendments. A roll call vote was taken and motion carried with seven ayes (Fujikawa, Springer, Alameda, Graham, McCall, Smith, and Galdones) and two absent and excused (Siracusa and Thibadeau). In response to Mr. Mooers inquiry whether the applicant would have to obtain a permit to remove the existing driveway, Mr. Yuen said the applicant would have to take that matter up with the State Department of Transportation; but as far as the rezoning conditions, the Planning Department would just require the applicant not use the Mamalahoa Highway as an access and to have the access blocked in some way, as opposed to physically removing the driveway. RECESSEDTheChaircalledashortrecessat9:47a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 10:00 a.m. The Commission took this item up at 10:00 a.m. with REZ 04-013 approximately 18 people from the public in attendance. MITSUGI KOMO HONUAULA, NORTH KONA APPLICANT: MITSUGI KOMO (REZ 04-013) Change of Zone from an Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to a Family Agricultural 3-acre (FA-3a) district for approximately 6.069 acres of land. The property is located on the makai side of the Mamalahoa Highway, approximately two miles south of the junction of Mamalahoa Highway and Palani Road, Honuaula, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-24:25. Mr. Hayashi oriented the Commission and public of the subject and surrounding properties on the location map and site plan, summarized the request, and noted Mr. Fuke th inhisAugust7 letter corrected the staffs background report to that state there were two dwellings on the subject property. He then stated the Planning Director is recommending approval of the application, with the conditions previously circulated, and as amended as follows: Condition B amended to read, ‚The applicant shall submit the required water commitmentpayment to the Department of Water Supply in accordance with its Water Commitment Guidelines Policy within 980 days from the effective date of this change of zone.ƒ Condition H be amended to read, ‚All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties.ƒ 4 The applicant, Mitsugi Komo, and his representative, Sidney Fuke, stated the staffs background report and recommendation, as amended, were acceptable. He amplified that the reasons for wanting the rezoning was to provide family care. Commissioner Graham commented that whenever there is a rezoning of Ag land he thinks about setting a precedence, the value of Ag land, and safety, noting that Mamalahoa Highway was a very steep and dangerous highway. He said even though he did not question the applicants intention, he was not comfortable for the Commission to say one situation is more needed than another, and that he was also not comfortable from an agricultural use policy point of view. In response to Commissioner Grahams inquiry, Mr. Yuen pointed out that they were dealing with a property that someone has gone through the effort of making a farm on and has presented a clear family reason why the division of the property would not be detrimentaltothefurtheragriculturaluseoftheproperty.Mr.Fukesaidthatthesite already has two dwellings on the property and a proposed condition would restrict each of the property to have one dwelling each; the density or infrastructure impact remains the same; the only difference between the existing situation and the proposed situation is that the property would be able to be subdivided and conveyed. Mr. Fuke added that because the children come from an agricultural background he thought there would be a greater opportunity to maintain this thriving farm, which the applicant would like to see continued. Commissioner Graham pointed out that if the only change was to say the lot would be able to be subdivided, he would give an example out in North Kohala where a thriving piece of agricultural land with the purpose of leaving the land for the children was sold to third parties within a few years after the rezoning took place. In response to Commissioner McCalls inquiries, Mr. Fuke noted that there is an existing dwelling on the property to the south, and a second dwelling used as a coffee shed that will be demolished is on the property to the north. He added that proposed Condition G would restrict an additional farm dwelling, or in the case of a residential zoned property an ohana dwelling. There was no one from the public wishing to testify on this agenda item. It was moved by Commissioner Fujikawa and seconded by Commissioner Springer to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council as recommended by the Planning Director, with the proposed amendments to Conditions B and H. A roll call vote was taken and motion carried with six ayes (Fujikawa, Springer, Alameda, Mcall, Smith and Galdones), one no (Graham), and two absent and excused (Siracusa and Thibadeau). 5 The Commission took this item up at 10:23 a.m. with REZ 04-017 approximately 16 people fro the public in attendance. ALYSSA ACKERMAN KOKOIKI, NORTH KOHALA APPLICANT: ALYSSA ACKERMAN (REZ 04-017) Change of Zone from an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) to a Family Agricultural 1-acre (FA-1a) district for approximately 3.936 acres of land. The property is located on the northeast side of Kokoiki Road, approximately 1,200 feet northwest of the Kokoiki Road„Akoni Pule Highway (Highway 270) intersection, Kokoiki, North Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 5-5-4:33. (SEE EXHIBIT C) The Commission took this item up at 10:54 a.m. with SMA 04-007 approximately 15 people from the public in attendance. WILLIAM HALL WAIAHA, NORTH KONA APPLICANT: WILLIAM HALL (SMA 04-007) Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the construction of a three-story, 12-unit apartment building and related improvements. The property is located between Walua Road and Kuakini Highway, approximately 930 feet northwest of the Walua Road- Lunapule Road junction, Waiaha, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-18:92 and 93. (SEE EXHIBIT D) „ The Commission took the following two items up ORDINANCE NO. 91 71 simultaneously at 11:12 am. with approximately REZ 628 & SMA 04-006 11 people from the public in attendance. KONA OASIS, INC. ND KAILUA-KONA, PUAA 2, NORTH KONA APPLICANT: KONA OASIS, INC. (ORDINANCE NO. 91 71 € REZ 628) Amendment to Condition B (timein which to file a Special Management Area Use Permit) of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 91 71, which reclassified 2.23 acres of land from the Multiple Family Residential 1,000 square foot (RM-1) to the Resort-Hotel 1,000 square foot (V-1) district. The property is located between Alii Drive and Kuakini Highway and adjacent to the Kona Billfisher and Kona Mansions condominium nd complexes and mauka of the Royal Kona Resort Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Puaa 2, North Kona,Hawaii,TMK:7-5-9:40. APPLICANT:KONAOASIS,INC.(SMA04-006) Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the development of a 93-unitcondominiumprojectwithcommercialoffice/retailspaceandrelated improvements. The 2.23-acre property is located between Alii Drive and Kuakini 6 Highway and adjacent to the Kona Billfisher and Kona Mansions condominium nd complexes and mauka of the Royal Kona Resort Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Puaa 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-9:40. (SEE EXHIBIT E) The Commission took this item up at 2:37 p.m. with SMA NO. 243 approximately 4 people from the public in attendance. GREATER PACIFIC, LP ND KEAUHOU 2, NORTH KONA APPLICANT: GREATER PACIFIC, LP (SMA NO. 243) Continued hearing on the request for a time extension to Condition No. 3 (construction deadline for Phase I) of Special Management Area Use Permit No. 243 which allowed the development of a 405-unit condominium project and related improvements. The area involved in the time extension is situated adjacent to and southwest (makai) of the nd existing Mauna Loa Village complex at Keauhou 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-8-10: 69 and portions of 95 and 96. Mr. Hayashi noted this matter was continued from the last meeting to resolve some of the issues raised by the parties requesting a contested case hearing, and that Mr. Fuke has faxed a correspondence to the Planning Department indicating that the parties granted standing have subsequently withdrawn their requests for a contested case hearing. Mr. Hayashi explained the request, and noted the Planning Director recommended approval of the time extension request. In response to Commissioner Grahams inquiry, Mr. Fuke clarified that the request would allow the applicant to complete Phase I of the project by constructing 41 single family residential units. Mr. Fuke said in light of Commissioner Grahams concern expressed at the last meeting, theapplicanthassubmittedastudywhichconcludedthatimpactsfromthisprojectwould be negligible both to the ground water as well as to the marine environment. CommissionerGrahamexpressedhisappreciationforthestudypreparedasitis especially valuable to the Commission. There was no one from the public wishing to testify on this agenda item. Commissioner Graham said he supported only Phase I for the 41-unit project, with the PlanningDirectorsrecommendation,andnotPhaseII. Mr. Hayashi clarified that the applicant is currently requesting an amendment to Condition 3 of the permit which refers to when the 41 units in Phase I had to commence and complete construction, noting the applicants have reduced the number of units within Phase I. He added that there will also be 177 units to be constructed in Phase II of the 7 project, which will be triggered by Conditions 4 and 5 after construction of Phase I is completed. In response to Commissioner Springers inquiry, Mr. Hayashi said that the applicant would not have to return to the Planning Commission to do Phase II as long as they comply with the existing conditions of the permit. He then read into the record Condition 4 of the permit which states, ‚Plans for the second phase of the proposed development, including a landscaping and parking plan, shall be submitted for Plan approval within one year from the date of completion of Phase I.ƒ Commissioner Graham said the SMA law warrants protection of resources and public participation in the process and he felt like the SMA process was being subverted by the approval of Phase II without specific plans and not knowing the impacts of the 177 units. InresponsetoCommissionerSpringersquestionwhetherthosewhooriginallyrequested a contested case hearing were aware of the project being developed in phases, Mr. Fuke said besides these parties, they also had separate discussions with the association of apartment owners adjacent to the second phase area who raised concerns not so much with viewplanes but more about the present unkempt condition of the area. He noted a concession was made between the developer and the homeowners association that they would do all of the landclearing in the area to make it look more like part of the existing golf course fairway. He then clarified that what happens to this area in the subsequent phases would probably be either a continuation of what was previously approved and represented to the Commission or a combination of the condominium units and single- family units, depending on the market condition. For the Commissions information, Mr. Fuke explained that when Condition 3 is complied with and subsequent phases are entered into, the applicant would have to go back to the Planning Department for plan approval review, at which time the staff would be obligated to review all of the pertinent conditions of the SMA permit to make sure issues such archaeology, access, etc. are addressed. Commissioner Springer questioned how the spirit of the SMA law to engage the public in the planning process is accomplished in the Commission taking action today. In response Mr. Fuke said the surrounding property owners were notified of the time extension request and have had the opportunity to express their concerns to the Commission, as well as to the applicant. Mr. Fuke added that it was fully disclosed that this entire area was the project; but more specifically, as it related to the time extension on this particular component, the project concept has been somewhat modified to have a reduced density rather than an equal or higher density. Commissioner Springer then said that with Mr. Fukes explanation, given the amount of time the Commission has spent in a number of public hearings, and public notices were published in the newspapers, it appears as though there has been opportunity for public input. 8 A roll call vote was taken and motion carried with six ayes (Fujikawa, Smith, Springer, Alameda, McCall, Galdones), one no (Graham) and two absent and excused (Siracusa and Thibadeau). The Commission took this item up at 3:02 p.m. with REZ 03-027 2 people from the public in attendance. U OF N BENCORP WAIAHA, NORTH KONA APPLICANT: U OF N BENCORP (REZ 03-027) Continued hearing on the application for a Change ofZonefor approximately 35.3 acres of land (amended from previous request involving 61.949 acres) from: a.Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) to Multiple Family Residential 4,000 square feet (RM-4): 32.489 acres. c.Single Family Residential 7,500 square feet (RS-7.5) to RM-4: 2.847 acres. The property is located between Kuakini Highway and the Hualalai Road „ Queen Kaahumanu Highway junction, adjacent to and south of the University of the Nations- Kona campus and north of the Kona Hillcrest Subdivision, Waiaha, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-10: portion of 85 and 7-5-17: portion of 6. Mr. Hayashi noted George Atta, project planner, in his written correspondence dated August 30, 2004 requested the hearing be continued to resolve on-going traffic issues, as wellastoclarifysomeofthedesignchangescontemplatedfortheproject.Henoteda Mr. Richard Bell signed up to testify, but apparently left after being informed that this matter will be continued. He then said that the Planning Department is recommending the hearing be continued to a later date. There was no further discussion on this matter. It was moved by Commissioner Fujikawa and seconded by Commissioner Alameda that the hearing be continued (no date set). A roll call vote was taken and motion carried with six ayes (Fujikawa, Smith, Alameda, Graham, MCcall, and Galdones) and three absent and excused (Siracusa, Springer and Thibadeau.) The Commission took this item up at 3:04 p.m. with SMA NO. 288 2 people from the public in attendance. FLORA BEAMER SOLOMON NIULII, NORTH KOHALA APPLICANT:FLORABEAMERSOLOMON(SMANO.288) Contested case hearing on a request to amend Special Management Area Use Permit No.288,byallowingtheconstructionofa5-bedroomsinglefamilydwelling(previously requested 3 single family dwellings) to be used for a bed and breakfast operation. The initialpermitallowedtheconstructionofa3-unitapartmentbuilding.Thepropertyis located along the south side of Keokea Park Park Road, approximately 1,500 feet from 9 the Keokea Park Road „ Akoni Pule Highway intersection, Niulii, North Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 5-2-12:14. (SEE EXHIBIT F) MINUTESThe Commission took up the following minutes at this time, 3:30 p.m. June 4, 2004 „ It was moved by Commissioner Fujikawa and seconded by Commissioner Smith that the minutes be approved as circulated. Motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. June 18, 2004 - It was moved by Commissioner Fujikawa and seconded by Commissioner Alameda that the minutes be approved as circulated, with a correction on Attachment A, Hearing Transcript of Mark Fabyonic, page 9, third line, changing ‚neutral roadƒ to ‚neutral role.ƒ Motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. July 2, 2004 - It was moved by Commissioner Fujikawa and seconded by Commissioner Smith that the minutes be approved as circulated. Motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. August 6, 2004 „There was no August 6, 2004 minutes as the meeting was cancelled due to a lack of quorum. ADMINISTRATIVEThe following were discussed under administrative matters: MATTERS Status of appeals filed on Planning Commission decisions „ Corporation Counsel „ Mr. Torigoe noted that Judge Ibarra reversed the Planning Commissions decision on the special permit of Doutor Coffee Company based on the question about whether the proper area of the project had been considered; and that Doutor then filed a motion for clarification on whether the Commission would have to look at the matter again as a new application or simply look at the issues that flow directly from the question of the proper area to be considered. He said the Judge is currently considering this motion and has asked parties for proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order, notingadecisionshouldberenderedshortly. ANNOUNCEMENTThefollowingannouncementsweremade: HCPOConference„Mr.HayashinotedanyoneneedingassistanceregardingtheHCPO Conference to let Mr. Darrow or himself know. Commission Meeting „ Mr. Hayashi noted the next meeting is scheduled for September16,2004(Thursday)inHilo. 10 ADJOURNMENTThere being no further business, at 3:59 p.m.,it was moved by Commissioner Graham and seconded by Commissioner Smith that the meeting be adjourned. Motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary A T T E S T: Fred Galdones, Chairman Planning Commission HawaiiCountyisanEqualOpportunityProviderandEmployer 11 12