Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-17 KPC REZ04-033 SMA04-009 EXHIBIT E 1 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT June 17, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of KPC VILLAGES, LLC (REZ 04-033/SMA 04-009) was called to order at 2:49 p.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Kamakahonu Ballroom, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Fred GaldonesABSENT & EXCUSED: Hannah Springer Jeffrey McCallC. Kimo Alameda Rene€ Siracusa AndrewIwashita Allen Salavea William R. Graham Rodney H. Watanabe Chris Yuen, Deputy Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works And approximately 2 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: KPC VILLAGES, LLC (REZ 04-033/SMA 04-009) a.Change of Zone from Multiple-Family Residential 1,000 square feet (RM-1) to Resort-Hotel 750 square feet (V-.75) for approximately 51,052 square feet of land. b.Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of sixty-seven (67) multiple family residential units and commercial spaces within a 45-foot high structure, and related improvements. The property is located on the mauka side of Alii Drive across from Huggo's Restaurant rd and the Royal Kona Resort Hotel complex, Kailua-Kona, Puaa 3 , North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-9:23. GALDONES: Commissioners we are on agenda item number 6 KPC Villages, LLC, REZ04-003andSMA04-009).ThisisaChangeofZonefromMultiple-FamilyResidential 1,000 square feet RM-1 to Resort-Hotel 750 square feet, V-.75 for approximately 51,052 square feetofland.AndBaSpecialManagementAreaUsePermittoallowthedevelopmentofsixty- seven multiple family residential units and commercial spaces within a 45-foot high structure andrelatedimprovements.Norman. EXHIBIT E 2 HAYASHI:Thank you Mr. Chair. Directing your attention to the presentation map on the wall. First of all I€ll go to the overall location map. The subject property is indicated by this red dot. It is situated along themauka side of Alii Drive. And just a matter of orientation we€re currently located here at the,thishotel is located at this location at the corner of Palani and Alii, I mean Kuakini Highway and Alii Drive. This would be Queen Kaahumanu Highway going towards South Kona and this would be in the North Kona direction. I€ll go to the next map here and I€m sorry but this map was just presented to me a couple of minutesago so. This particular- again the subject property is located here it€s a 52,000 sq. ft. property. It is situated along the mauka side of Alii Drive. This particular complex is the Royal Kona Resort Hotel. Across of the subject property is the Huggo€s Restaurant. The Kona Billfisher€s Condominium Complex is located at this location. It€s about; it€s one lot away from the subject property, so it will be in this general direction. And you did receive some correspondence from some of the residence in that area. Under the current multiple-residential zoned district the Applicant is entitled to construct a maximum of 51 units based on its zoning density. The Applicant had received a SMAUsePermitbackin1998toallowtheconstructionofa48-unitcondominiumproject. Under that particular zoning the- excuse me, under the current multiple-residential zoning also, the Applicant is also allowed to provide limited commercial uses by the Planning Director. However, the maximum commercial space will be 1,200 square feet and 5 employees. The Applicant is now requesting the zone change in order to increase, allow the increase in density by 19 units. The zoning would also allow for additional commercial spaces as proposed by the Applicant. I will explain that shortly. The SMA Use Permit is to allow the 44, 45-foot height limit, excuse me 45-foot height residential commercial structure. The maximum allowable height within the, this, the Kailua-Kona area resort zone is 45 feet. The Applicant under this particular rezoning and under this particular SMA Use Permit is to allow 67 multiple residential units so that would be an increase from 48 to 67 units or 19 units I think if my calculation is correct. The units would be 4; there will be four 1-bedroom units and 63, 2-bedroom units. And the average size of the units will be slightly over 1,000 square feet. The units are proposed on the top floor levels of the proposed, of the structure and the commercial establishments or commercial use would be on the ground floor area. Parking would be underground and they are proposing under the current-, under the current proposal 92 underground parking stalls. Initially the Applicant had proposed in his initial app-, when the application was first submitted they had proposed 2 access to the property. However, as a result of the Department of Public Works comment that they would recommend that only 1 access be provided from Alii Drive the Applicant has since revised his plans to provide a 1 driveway access from Alii Drive. This is again the site plan of the property. This is Alii Drive and the Applicant€s driveway would be at this particular location. They are also proposing a loading area but that basically would be for loading purposes. The Department of Public Works also required that the Applicant provide a 5- foot road widening along the length of Alii Drive for future road-widening purposes. They also required that, recommended that improvements be provided within this particular area including curb gutters and sidewalk. As, going to the Staff€s recommendation that would show that we are recommending those improvements as proposed by the Department of Public Works. They are currently 73 water units available to the subject property and wastewater would be a hook-up to the County system. Again the Planning Director is recommending approval of the zone change and I€ll highlight some of the changes that are of significance. And first of all that would be on Page 1 of the Change of Zone conditions of approval. If you refer to condition D it basically states that the Applicant shall provide a road reserve on the southern portion of the property for a EXHIBIT E 3 future hookup with Kuakini Highway and that would be in this location along the south side of the property. Again as far as condition E as a result of the Department of Public Works recommendation which they are recommending that the condition be that only 1 vehicular access be provide off of Alii Drive for the project site. That doesn€t include the loading area. We are also requiring as recommended by the Department of Public Works that this frontage along the Alii Drive be improved with curb gutters and sidewalk drainage improvements and excess uses that would be required by the Department of Public Works. As far as the SMA Use Permit we are also recommending approval and there is a proposed condition 4 and that would be under the revised SMA recommendation dated- if you look at the top it says June 7, 05 and that is the latest recommendation. We are recommending that, we€re actually deleting condition, proposed condition 4 so condition 5 would be actually condition 4 etc. And that€s basically the condition 4 that we had we had initially recommended so it states that the height limit of the structure shall not exceed 45 feet. We felt that that was not necessary since the zoning height limit for this particular area is in fact 45 feet so they wouldn€t be able to exceed that height limit anyway. Therearesomeconcernsrelativetothemethodofcalculationoftheheightforthecurrentplans that the Applicant and the Planning Department would still need to work out should this application be granted. Related to these 2 application the Applicant has as I indicated earlier an existing permit, SMA Permit. Existing permit number 276, which allowed a 48-unit condominium project. Should this rezoning application be approved and a SMA application also be approved then the Applicant is requesting that this permit be revoked. However the revocation would be contingent upon them getting the rezoning, change of zone application by the County Council. As far as the status of the existing SMA Use Permit 276 I would like today to these conditions back in 1988 when the permit was originally approved the only time condition was that they received Plan Approval within 2 years from the date of receipt of the permit. They did receive time extension within the 2-year period so technically the application, I mean the SMA Use Permit is still valid. Okay with that I€ll answer any questions you may have regarding both the Change of Zone and the SMA Use Permit applications. GALDONES:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah Norm just a clarification. The Kona Billfisher is not immediately adjacent to this there€s one lot between the two? HAYASHI:Yes, there€s one lot between the Billfisher and, the Billfisher I believe is this particular property, one of these, it€s one lot away from the subject property. MCCALL:Okay, thank you. GALDONES:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Norman, we€re still am I right requiring that the existing 12-inch main be extended to that site? HAYASHI:The existing 12? WATANABE:12-inch water main? EXHIBIT E 4 HAYASHI:That would be a requirement that they meet with the Department of Water Supply. WATANABE:Yeah that€s still in there? HAYASHI:Yeah. Yes. WATANABE:Oh, okay. GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes, several things. I€m wondering first of all how far the closest point would be to the shoreline? HAYASHI:I€m sorry but I really didn€t measure the distancefrom the shoreline. SIRACUSA:The reason I€m asking is because the architect who was here before Dr. I forgethisname,wasreferringtoyouknowtheheightofthebuildingcanincreasewithdistance from the shoreline. And this is 45 feet and I was also wondering is, with the underground parking does that mean will some of it be above ground or does the ground floor of the building start at ground level? HAYASHI:The parking would be below ground. SIRACUSA:Totally? Is that what you€re saying totally below ground? HAYASHI:Yeah. Say this is the ground elevation. SIRACUSA:Uh, huh. HAYASHI:Then parking would be sub-surface. SIRACUSA:Okay. HAYASHI:Okay. Response to your question regarding how far the proposed- the property is from the shoreline. Based on this map it seems like the, I€m not sure is this 1-inch equals 16? ARCHITECT:Those are yes. HAYASHI:Includes this here. Well it€s a substantial distance from the shoreline. You know this is Huggos Restaurant, which is next, abutting the shoreline, and the subject property starts at this point here. So if you measure the distance I would say its over 70 feet or even further than that. EXHIBIT E 5 SIRACUSA:Thank you. GALDONES:Any further questions? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Norman, I€m not sure if you know this but in the previous permit was the height, the planned height for the development 45, 45-feet or is that also an increase? They€re increasing the number of units along with the height or is it just the number of units? HAYASHI:I don€t what exactly the height limit, I mean the height was for the proposed 48-unit structure. But the height limit under the current RM zoned district is still the same 45 feet as the proposed Resort zoned district. SIRACUSA:Excuse me I think it€s here in the revocation. Their previous landowner had applied for a permit to construct a 4-story building and parking structure on the site. So that mightgiveyouabitofanindicationthereMr.Salavea? SALAVEA:Okay,thankyou. YUEN:I€mnotsureifthisispartoftheareathat,wheretheheightlimitwas changed in Kailua-Kona. Two and a- two or three years ago the height limit was lowered in parts of Kailua-Kona. I€m not and I say I€m not sure if this is part of one of the areas that was, that had a higher height limit before and now has a lower one. HAYASHI:The height limit was for areas that were zoned resort. Those areas you were able to-. And also for those areas that are, were zoned for General Commercial. And I think the height limit at that time was 70 feet. And since then they reduced, the Council reduced the height limit to 45 feet. YUEN:Overall. So this property was always at 45 feet. HAYASHI:Yes. YUEN:Okay, thank you. GALDONES:Further questions? Further discussions? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:There€s one more issue on the 45 feet. Norman it seemed like you€re kind of indicating that there was a little bit of discussion within the department about how you did the measuring and all. And I do notice when I read the 1994 Master Plan for Kailua Kona on page 326 it says under general recommendations for Alii Drive corridor all along the entire Alii Drive corridor should have such and such a setback and a maximum height limit of 45 feet from the Alii Drive ground floor elevation. So it seems like that you know unless there€s some pressing reason otherwise we would like to follow this. EXHIBIT E 6 HAYASHI:Yes we will be following that because the actual height, the height limit by zoning is 45 maximum height limit is 45 feet. So it€s just a matter of interpretation as to where the ground floor starts and method of calculation. GRAHAM:Right and that€s why I say this here specifically says it is at the ground floor from the Alii Drive ground floor elevation. So presumably the ground floor, the part of the building closest to Alii Drive. YUEN:I think I- I know what you€re talking about but there is that recommendation in the Kailua Master Plan that is not part, that has not been adopted by ordinance so it€s not part of the current zoning code. So until its, because its not adopted we€re not following that. The building is taller than 45 feet but what we would accept, the Planning Department, me putting aside the fact that we have a difference between us and the Applicant as how, as to how to measure the height. The building is taller than; the building that we would acceptistallerthan45feetfromtheAliiDrive.Wehavea2-pagedescriptionofhowtheheight is calculated in your recommendation but essentially we€re taking a ground elevation of 10 feet above the lowest point which is about at Alii Drive. So I this building, a building that we would accept is 55 feet above Alii Drive. And there€s it€s a little complicated. I don€t think it€s necessary to get into it here because it€s something if the Commission is interested we can do that. But there is a disagreement between us and the Applicant as to the building that they€re showing here as they measure it at 45 and we measure it at 52. And it has to do with the grounds, where on the ground elevation do you measure the height from. But just as I said that part, we€re not following that part of the Kailua Master Plan because it wasn€t adopted by ordinance and so this- we would be allowing a measurement of 45 feet that does work out to be more than. I believe it will work out to be more than, it will about 55 feet from Alii Drive to the high point of this building. GRAHAM:Could I just do a little quick follow up? So since it wasn€t adopted by ordinance then there€s no requirement that you follow it. However this was put together by the community and all I would presume you would follow it by choice unless there was some particular reason otherwise and so I wondered what that might be? YUEN:You€re, well in effect you€re going to wind up with them, they would probably just go back to their original zoning and their original SMA which would still allow them to build a building to 45 feet as measured in the current zoning code. If you say that they cannot exceed 45 feet from Alii Drive level they€re not going to get the units in there anyway. There would be no point in their going ahead with this application. And you wouldn€t end up with a lower building in the end; you€d just end up with the same. You€d end up with this building with the same height and fewer units in it. GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yeah so it sort of hinges on where ground level is and whether this is the natural ground level or whether there was previous grading on the property that built it up an additional 10 feet above Alii Drive. Would you know which the case might be? EXHIBIT E 7 YUEN:The eventual height is measured from the finished grade- the height of the building. The disagreement in brief the disagreement between us and the Applicant is whether you- they are proposing to bank essentially bank some land against one side of the building and then measure it from that raised embankment. We disagree with that as a basis for measuring the height of the building. GALDONES:Any further questions? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:One more plan issue. In the new Hawai i County General Plan that just came out in the land use element for North and South Kona. If I look in the Resort section since we€re looking at a rezoning for resort here under courses of action it says a) discourage strip resort development along Alii Drive. So that sounds a little contrary to what we€re doing here to me. Do you see it differently? YUEN:Iwouldsaythisis,thisjustbuildsontheexistingresortarea.Andit€s, you know in the end you€re back dealing with the fact that you have a piece of property that€s zoned for an RM building. That if you though we€re calling this it€s the resort zoning that they€re getting enables them to have some commercial activity on the- to have a larger commercial area on the ground level and slightly more units, multi-family units. So in essence what you€re doing, we€re allow- although it€s a V zone we€re simply allowing a slightly larger multi-family building with some commercial. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Didn€t you just say like a half, you know right before lunch or something that essentially when you grant the zoning you grant all the rights within the zoning? Like when we were talking about the Kawaihae project so that even though a particular project gets a rezoning with a particular representation you were indicating that they have the full rights for the rezoning. So they€d presumably have the full rights for the resort rezoning in the long term over here also. Is that not right? YUEN:That€s correct. But at this, this also is within the SMA. So they have a SMA permit application for a residential building with some commercial so they would have to conform to the specifics of the SMA permit. In other words if they, if for example they wanted to convert this whole thing into a shopping center we€d be, they still would have to come back with the SMA. GRAHAM:Right and we did go through that also earlier today about how the SMA has a limited range in which we can apply our criteria correct? YUEN:Right that€s true. It€s- my point was in describing in practical terms what we€re doing here. As what we have before us is an RM zoned property that€s likely to be replaced by a similar building but with some commercial on the ground floor and a few more units. EXHIBIT E 8 GALDONES:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Okay I€m just trying to make sure that I understand this properly. So basically they already have the right to 48-units and limited retail on the bottom floor but with no impact fees. And this would increase the density somewhat, essentially the building is almost the same height but we€re going to attain some impact fees with regard to the potential roadway and I believe you also had some monetary impact fees stated in here. Is that correct? YUEN:There will be impact fees for the additional units. The roadway is much more significant though in turn because the impact fees would not amount to a great deal of money for the additional units allowed. There€s a matter of standard practice that we- when people are coming in for amendments of zoning that may increase what they have. We are only charging a impact fee or a fair share assessment for the increase in the number of units not for the whole development. But that€s, what you€re saying is correct. The road is, from our point of viewtheroadreserveissignificantasfarasapublicbenefit. WATANABE:AsIrecallthat€ssupposedtohelpwiththeconnectorandcontinueonto Nani Kailua is that correct? YUEN:Yes, and this goes back to the Kailua Village Master Plan. They proposed a road they called a Village By-pass in that and that would come from- and it was just conceptual in that plan. But it would come from about here up to Kuakini first stage and then Kuakini to the end of Nani Kailua Drive would be another stage. To be really candid about this we€re not, until we do the archaeology on this, on the remainder of this property we don€t know whether that can be implemented in the Alii Drive to Kuakini part. And the Kuakini to Nani Kailua part will be very tough because there are a lot of archaeological sites in the only possible right-of-way for that. There€s only a limited area that skirts existing development. The lower part between Alii and Kuakini would be a very good road to implement in the Kailua road system. Because right now from Walua Road which is the road that comes down by Huggos, comes diagonally down there to Hualalai there isn€t any way out. And traffic gets really backed up on Alii Drive to Hualalai. And then that 3-way intersection moves, people, things move very slowly through that intersection. So that is something that the County, we really would like to implement that lower part of this road. GALDONES:Seeing no further questions from the Commissioners of Norman. Norman? HAYASHI:Mr. Chair just for, in response to Commissioner Salavea€s question as to the height of the 48-unit building that was approved on SMA 276. I checked the file and the height proposed height that, for that building was 45 feet. And I also wanted to place on the record the correspondences that were received and circulated to all of you. All of these were from landowners, well residence of the Kona Billfisher or I guess condominium owners of the Kona Billfisher. GALDONES:Thank you Norman. No further questions then I would like to ask the applicant or its representative to please come forward. EXHIBIT E 9 SONG:Good morning Mr.- good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. I€m Sandra Song and with me todayare the developer Tony Nee and also Donald Getman who€s the architect for this project. GALDONES:Okay before we begin Ms. Song I would like to have- I believe the two gentlemen will also be providing testimony then I would like to have all of you sworn in. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to the tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai i County Planning Commission? Ma€am? SONG:I do. NEE:Yes I do. GETMAN:Ido. GALDONES:Couldyoupleasestateyournameandyourresidenceaddress? NEE:MynameisTonyNee.Myaddressis656SouthHudsonAvenue,Los Angeles, California 90005. GETMAN:Donald Getman 1241 Blair Avenue, South Pasadena, California. SONG:And I€m Sandra Song. My address is 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 124 in Hilo. GALDONES:Ms. Song have you folks received a copy of the background report and the revised recommendation for the SMA and also the recommendation for the Change of Zone? SONG:Yes we have. GALDONES:Do you have any comments to them? SONG:Well we- we have no objection to the recommendation and we would agree with the recommendation. GALDONES:Ms. Song there was amendment to condition on the SMA- the revised recommendation, Condition number 4 will be deleted and on the Change of Zone Condition E- I didn€t get the full gist of it Norman but there was an amendment to Condition E. HAYASHI:I don€t believe we proposed an amendment to Condition E with the zone change. It was only to delete Condition 4 of the SMA Use Permit Recommendation. GALDONES:Okay so the Change of Zone the Recommendations and the Conditions remain as proposed? Okay. So, Ms. Song in reference to the SMA deletion of number 4, I would assume that you would, the party would be okay with that? EXHIBIT E 10 SONG:Right, we have no objection to that. GALDONES:Commissioners are there any questions of Ms. Song or the representatives? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I just wanted to comment that if we€re deleting Condition number 4 because since it€s already the law it€s redundant then all the other conditions after that have to be renumbered as a matter of housekeeping. GALDONES:That€s correct. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Before Norman spoke to us about what the time requirements were on the original SMA 276 and I notice here on Condition 15 on the SMA permit we have an initial extensionoftimefortheperformanceofconditionsmaybegrantedbythePlanningDirectoretc. But when I look at the prior conditions I don€t see any time conditions maybe I€m missing something. SONG:Mr. Graham I think I can answer your question. Are you asking about the original SMA permit? GRAHAM:No I€m asking about the current one. SONG:Oh. GALDONES:Norman will you be able to address that? GRAHAM:The question was where are the time conditions on the current one I don€t see them in the conditions here. HAYASHI:Oh you mean the current SMA? GRAHAM:The current SMA. HAYASHI:SMA 276? GRAHAM:Not 276- HAYASHI:You mean the proposed? GRAHAM:I€m asking the one that we€re acting on today the SMA 04-009. HAYASHI:I think we need to refer back to the proposed zone change conditions because some of the time conditions are required. If you notice Condition C of the zone change it says construction of the proposed development shall be completed within 5 years. So that€s EXHIBIT E 11 actually, we normally don€t repeat the conditions, the change of zone conditions in the SMA conditions. We say that you comply with the zone change conditions. GRAHAM:I don€t- of course I don€t dispute what you say since you know but it seems to me that the SMA permit is being granted on the Conditions that we€re seeing here today. And so that if in fact in the future be it 10 years from now whenever if the conditions were such that we wouldn€t want to grant an SMA permit but maybe the County Council would grant an extension to the zoning we wouldn€t be covered to be able to deal with the SMA new again so I would think we should include those time conditions also within the SMA permit. SONG:Mr. Graham my client would have to objection to time restriction in the SMA permit. GRAHAM:Thank you. SONG:Mr. Galdones there are a couple of matters that were some questions beforeandIthinkwewouldliketoclarifysomeissues. GALDONES:Proceed. SONG:Firstofall,therewerequestionsabouttheexistingbuildingorwhatwas originally proposed and, for this property under the existing SMA permit and what is proposed now. The building that was proposed was approved back in 19-. The permit that was approved in 1988 that received Plan Approval actually it was 45 feet high in accordance with the zoning code. So this building is no higher. And it was actually larger in bulk than the existing building because there wasn€t a road reserve in the property. So the units were larger. It was only 48 units but the units as proposed were much larger per unit but the size of the building was actually a bigger building than what is proposed right now by Mr. Nee and his architect Mr. Getman. So we€re not increasing anything size wise. My client did this because he felt that when you look at Alii Drive in that area there is a walking environment along Alii Drive. And that commercial on the ground floor made sense because when you see people they€re walking along Alii Drive. Huggos is across the street. The Royal Kona Resort is across the street. There€s that marketplace down, just right next door. And so we just felt it would be a better feature and a better amenity. But in order to do that meant changing the zone and getting an SMA permit. Mr. Yuen wanted to see this road reserve and my client then agreed to put in the road reserve to have a connecting road between Kuakini and Alii Drive in order to go ahead with the zoning and SMA. And it has taken a lot of work to redesign the building cause this is only an acre site it€s not a huge parcel. And- but, and his architect has been working very diligently trying to meet Planning€s concerns about height. And in fact there is a letter from my client that he will comply with the height limit if any redesign is necessary or a reduction even in units to comply with the height limit, my client is willing to do that. So, there€s not going to be any request for any variance or any way to go exceed the height limit for this building. The other thing that was also asked is about a waterline. The existing waterline is an 8-inch line. There€s going to be about 1100 feet of it that€s expand- that€s wide- that€s increased to 12-inch, which is a significant improvement as well along Alii Drive for fire fighting purposes. And finally, this application just from my clients and Mr. Getman I€m sure will have more to say. This application the notice EXHIBIT E 12 tothisapplication was probably more extensive than any other notice I€ve seen. The Kona Billfisher Condominium is not next door but it€s about 144 feet away from the closest boundary. And shortly before the last scheduled hearing last month we received a list of 780 property owners, timeshare owners and we proceeded to send notice to each of those owners. And I can tell you almost less than a dozen out of 780 lived in the State of Hawai i. They were all over the United States, Canada and Internationally. And because it was so close to the last Commission meeting we requested a time extension to allow any further comments to be fair to everybody. And so we did get, the Commission did approve the continuance and we sent out yet another notice about the continued hearing. And we also send out another map because as soon as people received notices they started calling me, they started calling the Planning Department and everybody thought this building was right next door. Most people that called, once they found out it was not next door and that we€re not going to have a cabaret that€s open till 2 in the morning with wild loud music, were not opposed. I know you did received some letters of opposition. But, if you note about some of the letters it€s because they€re still concerned about loudnoise,they€restillconcernedabouttheirviewsandIbelieveMr.Getmancanhelpexplain so that the view should not adversely affect the Kona Billfisher. Kona Billfisher is almost the same height as this building proposed it€s 43 feet high. So it€s about the same height but it is not next door. In addition there were some Billfisher owners that came here today and saw the renderings for the project and Mr. Nee talked to them and they were pleased and they left. So we€ve tried the best we can to communicate with people about this project. They€re trying to design a project that would fit in to the Alii Drive, the Kailua Village area. And Mr. Getman will also explain some more changes he€s doing in design to accommodate some of the suggestions the Kailua Village Design Commission also made. GALDONES:Mr. Getman would you like to add to her statement? GETMAN:Sure. Can you hear me okay? GALDONES:We need to have you recorded. GETMAN:Okay. If you note the designs, the exterior of the building. HAYASHI:Would you like to come up here? GETMAN:Yeah. When we met with the Village Commission in March they had a lot of comments and concerns about the exterior materials and the architecture of the building. And we€ve redesigned the entire exterior of the project in keeping more with the specific plan that is in place in the Village. And we€ve changed the, we€ve made it more in keeping with the Village theme. We€ve broken up the roofs; originally it was a continuous line. We€ve added gables and more detail and changed the roof heights and varied the heights so there was concern about looking too horizontal. We changed the balcony railing system to something more in keeping with the residential project direct before it was just glass system. We€ve added stone along the retail fronts in here. And we€ve also broken up the roofs of the retail area down in this area. So what we€ve done is trying to keep the project more in keeping with the concerns that we had, we heard at the last meeting. Also the access to the project was changed significantly to a single point at the other end, at this end which was previously explained. So and we€re continuing to EXHIBIT E 13 listen to the concerns and when we go back to the Design Commission we€ll go through that again and see what other concerns they may have. GALDONES:Mr. Getman can you address the noise concerns? GETMAN:Well, the building, well we€re not, it wouldn€t be even in our own interest as a project to have a noisy tenant as part of our project. So, you€re not going to, we€re not going to have any sort of cabaret or something in here or a bar of any kind. We have the same; we would have the same concerns and interest as other residences up the street, the same kind of issues. We wouldn€t want our owners having that same kind of thing. But as far as mitigating it our building is U-shaped and the noise is coming down from here. And the people that were worried about it most are going to be actually the noise area will be blocked from our new construction so it will actually help isolate them more than they are right now. GALDONES:Commissionersanyquestions?CommissionerSalavea? SALAVEA:Canyoutalkabouttheviewplane,theimpactoftheviewplaneofthe Billfish residence? GETMAN:Well, they€re 140 feet up this way is the start of their project. This is our site and then they, the hotels the existing large hotels are in here. So, whatever views they have right now we€re back away from them at least 140 feet so. But frankly in the future we don€t know what this, cause you got a 140-foot lot here under separate ownership. We don€t have any control of what can be built there either so it€s the best we can do. NEE:In addition you know the previously proposed building has the same mass as what we€re proposing so it won€t make any difference as far as you know what we proposed. GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Getman. Thank you Mr. Nee. Commissioners are there any further questions of the applicant? If none on the sign up sheet I do not see anybody from the public signing up for testimony. Is there anyone here from the- who wish to testify who has not signed up? If not, Ms. Song are there any closing statements? SONG:Well all we€re asking is that the Commission consider this favorably. My clients committed to do a project that is a good quality project and also start construction as soon as he can get the permits not delaying in this matter. Thank you. GALDONES:Thank you. Commissioners it comes with recommendation- we will be addressing the 2 recommendations separately. We will first take the SMA. HAYASHI:The zone change. GALDONES:Zone change? I€m sorry. Okay. Change of Zone REZ 04-033 then go to the SMA 04-009. The Change of Zone Application comes with a recommendation from the Director that it be given a favorable recommendation and forwarded to the County Council. Commissioner Graham? EXHIBIT E 14 GRAHAM:I have a question primarily to the Planning Director and its directly regarding the SMA but since they are kind of tied together I don€t know whether it might be appropriate to ask the question now and since it€s sort of a global issue as opposed to a small specific issue. GALDONES:Yes sir. GRAHAM:Would that be alright? GALDONES:Now would be the right time to do it. GRAHAM:My concern let me just tell you where I€m going with my concern is cumulative impact of all development in this area right down Alii Drive. Primarily the traffic senseandinthetrafficsenseasfarasitaffectsaccesstotheoceanokay?WhenIgoandIxerox from the law library in Hilo a couple of years ago when I joined the Commission the TOPLISS opinion from what I could get from the books. And the TOPLISS Commission sent back to the Planning Commission the particular application at that time and it says I€m just going to quote here. On remand the Commission should consider the permit petition and determine whether the traffic generated by a development will or will not have a substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect on the coastal zone.‚ So to me since we€re in the coastal zone we€re talking about the impact up and down the access along the coastal zone. Since we don€t have a good access right along the shoreline it feels to me that it is pertinent. And where I€m really going with that is we did approve another sort of large condominium project large meaning of the scale. Maybe it was Mr. Ghalan Farsa a while back. The cumulative effect if I look at all the vacant land including the vacant land right next to this parcel that is zoned, the cumulative effect if you go ahead and continue to recommend and we continue to approve developments in this zone we will way have superseded what the highway, even with some possible future road mauka - makai goes through we will way have superseded what can be supported by the infrastructure we have here for people going to use the coastal resources. So I guess what I€m saying is rather than trying to say the burden is on this applicant but just to say I think the burden is kind of on you to come up with a policy which is, there€s so many possible thousands of units that can be built along this area with the existing zoning. They will all need SMA permits and this is the stance I take in regard to what should be done with the SMA permits so that we can assure that the shoreline resources are available and serve their purpose to the population here. And I haven€t seen anything like that. It seems to me like every application we see is pretty much, if the zoning says it€s okay we€re going to go ahead and do it. And whereas the effect may be very incremental like here talking about 18 second wait at the light at Hualalai intersection. Boy you start putting them together it€s not incremental it just kind of brings the whole system down and so I€m just trying to pass the burden to you a little bit like that. You know we gotta stop someplace and look at where it€s all going. So you know I feel like this is appropriate time for you to try to address where we€re going with all these SMA permits, which all together it would seem to me they would very strongly violate the purpose of the SMA chapter. EXHIBIT E 15 YUEN:If I can rephrase your question you€re asking if the cumulative effect of the SMA permits would be such that traffic would get so bad that public access to the shoreline, which depends upon Alii Drive in this area would be affected to a degree that we would say this is something that the SMA law was meant to cover. And I think it€s theoretically it€s possible and that€s why in previous discussions on this I€ve said traffic- although traffic per say is not an SMA issue that if it rises to the extent that it interferes with the ability of the public to get to the ocean to enjoy the public recreational resources and the like that yes theoretically you could take traffic into account. As to whether the SMA permits on existing zoned property that we have approved or are pending have been of a scale that really make things that much worse on Alii Drive I don€t think that that€s true. And I don€t think that, at least what I€m aware of pending along Alii Drive on the zoned, already zoned but needs SMA side is that significant. We have 19 here, additional if this goes through, the change of zone goes through. We had a dozen from the Huggett - Soto application that we saw earlier. Trying to dredge my memory here but- we have Kona Alii rezone which I think was- was that an SMA? You know the one I€m talking about thatwasanother.Butthatwas,thathad,thatwasalreadyzonedforsomethinganditwas,Idon€t remember what the additional was there. We€ve had another rezone. We had the Lehua Lani rezone along Alii Drive which ended up with 58 I think was the total. We€re, there are some vacant, there€s some properties along Alii Drive that are, that have been zoned before and are, all they need is SMA permits. I don€t think it€s to that extent that the, that these actions are going to make Alii Drive intolerable. There€s more detail on this. The Applicant does have a TIAR which talks about the existing conditions on Alii Drive and their- how much their additional 20 units, 19 units, how much difference that would make. That€s certainly more technical and professional than what I€m saying to you. But, I also should mention that we have tried to in this application to accommodate a road that is- for this immediate area is probably the only thing that provides any help at all. It€s the only feasible thing in this immediate area. For the broader picture of Alii Drive we have to have the Alii Parkway to relieve traffic off of Alii Drive. And we also need a couple of mauka-makai type roads. Those are all at various stages of being worked on or having problems but we, that€s the only other solution to it. GRAHAM:Well, needless to say you haven€t totally convinced me by any means. First I mean you said theoretical and you said to the extent that the road conditions going to access the beach becomes intolerable. But I did just read from the Board of Appeals where it said substantial adverse not intolerable and not theoretical but that was what the court said. And you know I was around here in 1975 when the EIS Law went into and I think Coastal Zone Management went in sometime around then and certainly we€ve had a substantial adverse effect on access along the coastline since that time which has all gone through with SMA permits. And, the only way I can read what you€re saying that€s sort of even square with what I can see is just reality is that you feel that the rate at which these additional rezonings will add to the problem will be equally matched by a rate of improved roads mauka-makai or Alii Parkway. Is that your understanding or am I reading too much? YUEN:On the SMA permit side it€s, it€s, I don€t think the Supreme Court is saying that you can deny an SMA permit simply because it makes traffic get significantly worse. It would have to be something that was, that had significant negative effect on using the road to get to the ocean. And you know, it€s a little different than saying that there may be some additional delay in people using Alii Drive to get to a County beach park. I think we€re talking EXHIBIT E 16 about something much more, something considerably more significant or severe than that. You know, on this project, on change there€s a good deal more discretion on the change of zone to look at traffic impacts. But I come back to the fact that we are, with this road, with this change of zone there is a road reserve requirement on it that would help the overall situation. IWASHITA:Mr. Chair. GALDONES:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I think I restrained myself today so I€m going to get my last dig. I appreciate the concern raised by Commissioner Graham and my comments don€t directly address this particular project but I think in the big perspective in terms of what our job is supposed to be, what I see and read as needed to address the kind of concerns that Commissioner Graham is raising is the need for- and I strongly suggest to the Director to ask for more funding so we can getmoregoodPlannersandStafflikewealreadyhave.ButyouknowtheStaffdoesandIwant to say for the record I really appreciate all the hard work the Staff does in putting together all that you do you know in terms of supporting what the Commission needs to do. But, the kind of concerns that Commissioner Graham is raising to me requires more staffing in order to address those particular concerns. And then to me it€s a broader issue in terms of having staff that can be dedicated to looking at these broader issues and developing ordinance and law that address these broader issues. And I, you know in my mind just off the top of my head at least 2 more full-time Planners to take care of these things. And I, and to me that would be money well spent you know to address these kind of concerns and frankly reduce our workload. So if its addressed at a bigger picture right planning wise, law wise, County ordinance wise, zoning code however you want to address it then that means less for us to do you know in terms of Special Permits or Zoning Changes and those kind of things. GALDONES:Thank you. Any further questions or comments? IWASHITA:Let the record reflect I think the Staff supports my comments. YUEN:We are getting 4 additional positions in the recently passed County operating budget. I appreciate what you€re saying and your kind words for Staff. There are some, there€s some traffic issues that are very difficult and- but I, you know to- on getting back to Commissioner Graham€s point. I don€t see a great way to do it besides saying you€re going to shut down SMA permits on Alii Drive to give an example and I€m not, I am not ready to take that- to take the step that says that. IWASHITA:Just to clarify. What I see or maybe not too clearly but what I€m suggesting is that to have additional sufficient staff to help support the- as I look at it, the Community Development Plan in the process that we€re going to go through, we€re supposed to going through now and should wrap up within 2 or 3 years. Is that to have Staff to support that and then these kind of concerns will come out from the community which I think is what Commissioner Graham is expressing that there is a significant part of the community, I€m one of them, that you know look at these kind of issues with great concern right. Because I like this development, I like what you€re proposing to do but all of it€s not going to be like that. And I EXHIBIT E 17 think in the big picture we have to look at what in this particular place is Kailua Village going to really look like in 10, 15, 20, 30 years. What do we want it to look like? That€s a community decision right? I mean it involves property owners but in the end that€s a community decision. And I think we need additional Planning staff in order to help develop that vision in the next 3, 4, 5 years and I think and then we can you know step back and come to a common vision as to what that is and that€s why I say they€ll be less for us to do. GALDONES:Thank you for those comments. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, I may be expanding a little more I think if we just look at the current zoning. I mean if we just look at you know not talking about rezoning but if we just look at the current zoning that we have in Kailua when the properties were rezoned several years ago I don€t know that the Planners really believed that you know 90 or 100% of these properties were going to be developed to their maximum potential. But I think, it seems to me now that may wellbethecaseinsomeoftheseareasandifthat€sthecaseourPlannersneedtobelooking ahead towards that and- cause I don€t think. It seems to me it€s a physical impossibility that if everything you know if every lot on- in Kailua that is built up to its zoning there€s just things are going to come t a standstill and I think we need to look at that and see what needs to be done. I don€t know what the answer but I think that- I think we need to, we do need to look a little bit closer at where we€re going. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:The Planning Director indicated that at the end of Commissioner Iwashita€s comments that well his alternative was maybe to shut down SMA permits. Well, that€s not what I€m aiming at. I know a couple of years ago or a year and a half ago there was an agreement made at the Kohanaiki parcel, which wasn€t shutting down it was generating community benefits of a scale equal to any loss that was incurred at the time. And I know the Council right now has been dealing with this other development- the Suffolk development one where we didn€t vote that one through when it was proposed but the Council is putting in schools and some other conditions which sort of bring back to the community a comparable benefit and here we€re in a situation where we€re losing open space and where we€re generating increased congestion on the attempts to get to the beach. So I would like to see the Planning Department put together something comparable like you know if there was a fund set aside so the County would buy open space which we€re losing. And on each developer would pitch into that. If there was a fund set aside for you know highway development that would be necessary to make it so you can get to the beach that, that would be brilliant. Whatever, you know I don€t have the expertise for that but I don€t see any movement by the Planning Department to do that along any of these condominiums that we€re seeing along Alii Drive. YUEN:Let€s- on the road reserve on this rezoning is a pretty significant community benefit. On the Suffolk and Pua€a rezonings, I€m actually, I€m a little concerned with what the Council is doing because what I don€t support an ad hoc kind of one by one negotiation of exactions from a developer that are unrelated to issues on the site. Talking about Kohanaiki. That€s an example where because of the public use of the shoreline and the sensitive anchialine pond area we put a lot of conditions that moved the project off the shoreline and EXHIBIT E 18 resulted in a greatly reduced density. Using the standards in the SMA law. Every, all the conditions that we put on Kohanaiki are tied to things that are in the SMA law. We didn€t say build a public library or set aside a school site for example because there isn€t anything in the SMA law that tells us that those are things that you can attach as a SMA permit condition. So the suggestion, if you€re talking about zoned property and then somebody comes in for an SMA permit there€s a range of things that you can get them to do that are public benefits. You can have, you can make them have a greater setback from the ocean because the public enjoys and uses the shoreline. You can require public access, public parking places again because the SMA law talks about public recreation but we can€t say give us a million dollars. And, for some public use or we can€t say, give us a school site for example. On the rezone side for off site improvements there is a County policy on fair share and it€s a set amount of money and we apply that and I don€t want to get into a situation where each- whereas each application for rezone comes in we say, what community benefits can you provide and at some point we€re satisfied and we say we€ll support you and if we€re not satisfied then we won€t. Then you just, you get intoadhocdealmakingthatjust-it€sveryhardtoapplyfairly,uniformlytoeverybodyinvolved. So that€s you know, I€m trying to give you my stand on this concept of community benefits. The site, you know this site happens to be where the logical, this logical connector road would be in so we€ve put that in as a condition of approval of the rezoning. But the idea that we should have some kind of free floating community benefit and negotiate that to the point where we€re satisfied on a project by project basis I don€t want to do that. GALDONES:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Mr. Chair I think. I think maybe we kind of got off path now so if everybody, if it€s okay with the rest of the Commissioners I€m ready to make a motion. GALDONES:Motion is in order. WATANABE:In the matter of KPC Villages LLC, Change of Zone Application, REZ 04- 033 I move to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council based on the recommendations of the Planning Director. GALDONES:Do I hear a second? IWASHITA:Second. GALDONES:It was moved by Commissioner Watanabe and seconded by Commissioner Iwashita. KPC Villages, LLC, Change of Zone Application, REZ 04-033 be given a favorable recommendation and then forwarded to the County Council along with the background report and the recommendation. Further discussion? Hearing none, Norman? HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? EXHIBIT E 19 IWASHITA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Nay. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:No. HAYASHI:Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chairman, motion carries 5 ƒ 2. GALDONES:Thank you Norman. On the Special Management Area Use Permit SMA 04-009. Is that what we just- yeah. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:In the matter of KPC Villages, LLC. Special Management Area Use Permit SMA 04-009 I move that we approve the Special Management Permit based on the Recommendations of the Planning Director. IWASHITA:Second. GALDONES:For clarification Commissioner Watanabe the motion comes with the- WATANABE:With deletion of number 4 exactly. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Watanabe and seconded by Commissioner Iwashita, KPC Villages LLC, Special Management Area Use Permit, SMA 04- 009 be approved by the Planning Commission with the amendments to the revised recommendation along with the Background Report. Further discussion? Hearing none, Norman? HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? EXHIBIT E 20 WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:CommissionerSiracusa? SIRACUSA:Nay. HAYASHI:CommissionerGraham? GRAHAM:No. HAYASHI:Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chairman, motion carries 5 ƒ 2. GALDONES:Thank you Norman. Ms. Song the parties will be informed in writing of today€s actions. SONG:Thank you Mr. Chairman. This discussion ended at 3:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynette Sanemitsu, West Hawai i Secretary EXHIBIT E 21