Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-15 DICKENS PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 15, 2005 DEBRA DICKENS (SPP 05-005) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 9:15 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Ekahi Ballroom, 75- 5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Vice Chairperson Hannah Springer presiding. PRESENT:Hannah SpringerABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones Jeffrey McCallC. Kimo Alameda Rene€ Siracusa Andrew Iwashita AllenSalavea William R. Graham Rodney H. Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Chris Yuen, Deputy Planning Director Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works And approximately 17 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: DEBRA DICKENS (SPP 05-005) Continued hearing on an application for a Special Permit to allow the re-establishment of a neighborhood store (former Morihara Store) on approximately 10,000 square feet of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located along the southeast (mauka) side of Highway 11 and across from the Highway 11 ƒ City of Refuge Road junction, Keokea, South Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 8-4- 15: portion of 10. SPRINGER:We€re now onto agenda item number 3. The applicant is Debra Dickens SPP 05-005. This is a continued hearing on an application for a Special Permit to allow the re- establishment of a neighborhood store, the former Morihara Store on approximately 10,000 square feet of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located along the southeast, mauka side of Highway 11 and across from the Highway 11 ƒ City of Refuge Road junction, Keokea, South Kona, Hawaii, Tax Map Key: 8-4-15:portion of 10. Mr. Darrow? DARROW:Thank you Madame Chair. If I may direct the Commissioners€ attention to the location map on the board. The area of this application is the South Kona District of Hawaii more specifically we€re looking in the area of Honaunau. This white line travelling in a north-south direction is the Hawaii Belt Road, Highway 11. The area of this application is identified in a red dot, which is the intersection of Keala O Keawe or the City of Refuge Road and Hawaii Belt Highway. The applicant in this case, Debra E. Dickens is requesting a special EXHIBIT A 1 permit for the re-establishment of a neighborhood store. This is the former Morihara Store. Looking at the site plan submitted by the applicants, the existing store is identified in red and again this is located directly across the intersection of Keala O Keawe Road. We have Hawaii Belt Road running in a north-south direction. This area identified in brown is the proposed parking area and the applicants had proposed access in this location here. We had received comments from the Department of Public Works and they were concerned regarding the sight distance to the south. In this particular area there€s an area that extends out makai and makes it difficult for people travelling in a northern direction to be able to see people coming out of the store area or for people coming out of the store area to see vehicles coming from the south. The Planning Director requested a sight analysis report be conducted by the applicant. At that time the first report was done by engineer Bruce Witcher, which confirmed the inadequate sight distance of the area in this location. The Planning Director requested that an additional sight analysis report be conducted but this time looking at an access point 100 feet to the north. After that was conducted it was seen that sight distance would be acceptable in this particular area. ThePlanningDirectorhasaddedacondition,conditionnumber7,whichhasbeenpassedoutto the Planning Commission. We€ve added the following sentence to condition number 7: The access point shall be moved approximately 100 feet to the north of the proposed access‚. So again proposed access was in the area of the parking lot. The new access will be located, in the pictures you€ll see a guardrail, it€ll be right before the guardrail to the south. Other conditions to mention: Condition number 4, which states that the square footage of the building will be limited to the present store size. Condition number 5 hours of operation shall be from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and again Condition number 7 not only speaking about the access point but also that the parking lot shall be constructed to the north of this store. The Planning Department has not received any letters from the general public on this application. The Planning Director is recommending that this be approved by the Planning Commission. Are there any questions? SPRINGER:Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I was looking at the background report page 2 where it describes the property and it says that there are 10,000 square feet of land for the store and parking area and the remainder of the property consists of 3 acres planted in macadamia nut trees and approximately 1 acre planted in coffee trees. 3 acres plus 1 acre plus 10,000 square feet does not equal 6.16 acres which is what we€re told this parcel is and I was wondering if you could clarify that discrepancy? DARROW:Well the remainder of the- you want to know what the remainder of the property? SIRACUSA:Yeah, yeah. DARROW:Okay, if we could defer that to the applicant I believe its unimproved land. In the application they informed us that 4 acres are planted in particular types of agricultural activity and they€re requesting 10,000 square feet of area for this. So, I would, if I could defer that question to the applicant€s representative to confirm what the remainder is. EXHIBIT A 2 SIRACUSA:I would be happy to do that. Thank you. I€m just curious it€s, you know where€s the missing acreage right? SPRINGER:Thank you Commissioner Siracusa. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Jeff just a question on the 10,000 square foot area for the permit. With the change in the entryway to the highway does that need to be included in the permit and make us need to adjust the 10,000 square feet in any way or? DARROW:That€s a good question. GRAHAM:I don€t need that answer now but we can work on that. DARROW:Yeah. We- condition number 2 is requiring a meets and bounds from the applicantandifIcouldalsoasktheapplicantwhentheycomeforwardI€mnotsureifthat 10,000 square feet is going to include this area. It is located on the site plan so Iwould just believe that this particular area is identified as part of the Special Permit Application but I could be wrong. If that€s the case we may have to expand the requested area to include the access point as well. Thank you. SPRINGER:Thank you both. Commissioners any other questions forthe staff? Seeing none, will the applicant or their representative please come forward? Good morning. FUKE:Good morning. SPRINGER:Will the applicant or their representative and all those who signed up to testify or wishing to testify on this matter please raise your right hand so that I may swear you in at this time. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? FUKE:I do. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Fuke. FUKE:Sure. Good morning Madame Chair, members of this Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I€m the Planning Consultant representing the applicant today, Debra Dickens who is seated in the audience. Also today we have Mr. Bruce Witcher in the event that there are questions you know relating to the sight distance issue. Just you know your staff€s background report and the presentation this morning are accurate. I would just like to clarify, not clarify but just add a little bit more on that on the sight distance question. Mr. Witcher did prepare a engineer plan you know for the proposed access and the parking area and that plan was submitted to the State for its review and approval and the State did grant the access. However during the course of the Department€s review of this application you know the Director understandably had some concerns relative to the site distance issue. And I think, and that was the basis for the 2, possibly 3 postponements or continuation you know, of this application. And I think in the end as a result of this delay and the Department€s concern I think the proposed EXHIBIT A 3 access right now is much better as a result of this continuation. So the applicant is prepared, not prepared but happy with that. I would also like to note that they reviewed the proposed conditions and found the conditions to be generally acceptable. And I would like to partially respond to Commissioner Graham€s question and (inaudible) through a condition and that€s condition number 2, which requires the submittal of a metes and bounds description. What you see on the plan there is the 10,000 square feet was generally reflective of what you see right now. However because of the change in the location of the access there is a potential that the parking area may actually shift further north and in that event then it may exceed the 10,000 square feet area. In which case then if the parking lot shifts further north then what happens is that between the parking area and the existing store what the applicant may want to do is like provide landscaping and things like that rather than having the parking lot you know adjacent to the store. So if the submittal of a metes and bounds description is fine you know if, with the understanding that the 10,000 square feet would include like the existing store and maybe if we need to create a separate one for the parking area. But generally limiting the whole activity to 10,000squarefeetImeanit€sabsolutelynotanissue.Sowiththatunderstandingyouknowthat condition would be acceptable. Also on condition number 4 you know limiting to the, the use to the existing, the store I mean that€s again you know in concept it€s not an issue. However because of the need to comply with ADA requirements you know and putting in a ramp and possibly putting in a restroom facility they may need to expand you know to accommodate those kinds of needs. And if any expansion however would occur mauka of the building you know and not on the makai side. And so if the Commission or the Department would consider like this proposed amendment and that is like it would read, Condition number 4 would read, The retail use shall be limited to the square footage of the existing building‚. And so, this would then allow for the applicant to make the ADA accommodation maybe put in a storage shed on the, adjacent to the existing structure for different type of use but none the less the retail activity would still be no more than what presently exists today. SPRINGER:Thank you Mr. Fuke. Mr. Yuen do you have any comments with regard to Mr. Fuke€s testimony on conditions 2 and 4? YUEN:On 2 just so I€m clear what you€re talking about is changing the site plan of what€s covered by the permit from what we see up there. But you would still be able to fit it in 10,000 sq. ft. You don€t see a problem with making it fit 10,000-sq. ft.? FUKE:Yeah. Correct yeah but it may not necessarily be 10,000 contiguous feet that€s what I was trying to point out. YUEN:Hmm. Um, hm. FUKE:Because the parking lot may you know shift further north and in which case then it would encompass if you were just going to take the perimeter of the entire area then it€ll probably exceed 10,000 sq. ft. If only the driveway access is relocated then it€s not an issue but I think that there may be a potential for the parking area to also be shifted further north. YUEN:I don€t have a problem with doing that I just gotta think of the best way to do this. Because I think the application came in as a 10,000-sq. ft. area. EXHIBIT A 4 FUKE:Correct. DARROW:Approximately. YUEN:It says approximately. Why don€t we word number 2 as follows, a description of the, and we€ll eliminate 10,000 sq. ft. and we€ll put in, a description of the permit area in- and then the rest of the sentence remains the same. And then we say that the area covered by the store and parking lot shall not exceed 10,000 sq. ft. So the driveway and landscaping could be included but- in the permit area but thestore and the parking lot would not exceed 10,000 sq. ft. I think that€s keeping with the spirit of the application. But, it avoids this question of whether the landscaping should becounted, I would say we shouldn€t count the landscaping against the special permit area but because the application did come in at 10,000 sq. ft. we want to hold, we want to make some reference to that figure in the condition. So I€d be finewiththat.Onthepresentstoresizecanyougivemeanupperlimittoanyaccessory structures? You€re talking about constructing a new bathroom? FUKE:Ramp. There may be like an additional, you know like a lean-to storage you know to accommodate the storage needs for the retail operation. And that€s why I was thinking about like just limiting you know just to say that the retail use shall be limited to the square footage of the existing building which is 1,080 sq. ft. YUEN:I don€t want to get into a issue later about what is the retail use versus a coffee shop versus a- you know I€d like to have some upper limit to the ultimate size. FUKE:Well like a bathroom you know would probably be like about 400 square feet and you know we have to have like the ramp. You may have to have like a lean to storage. I would say probably no more than a thousand sq. ft. YUEN:Now you€re talking about doubling the size of the building then. FUKE:Well, not- YUEN:The building is-. Yeah and part of this is that the building is non- conforming and you€re going to have limitations on how much you can do with the building simply on the non-conforming building side. You know that, the rules on that off the top of your head? DARROW:I€d have to pull it out but you€re limited to the amount you can build per year but you can extend I believe it€s 25% per year. YUEN:Can you build 25% a year for 10 years and triple the size of your building? And triple the size of a non-conforming building? DARROW:Let me- let me pull out the section. I€ll get that. EXHIBIT A 5 FUKE:I think you can do a repair of a non-conforming structure not exceeding 25% per year but any expansion would have to beconsistent with the prevailing code you know whether its setback or height. So you know obviously like the structure cannot be expanded maybe on the makai side or anyplace that would violate the current setback requirements. So, the only expansion that could legally occur, as I understand it would be on the mauka side. YUEN:But can you expand an unlimited amount on the mauka side? Putting aside the special permit issue? FUKE: If you had no square footage cap? I would imagine you could. YUEN:I€m not sure that€s right. That you can keep - if you have a building that€s non-conforming on, say on one side.What€s the problem with this building is that it€s non- conforming to setback on one side that you can indefinitely expand it as long as you don€t make thesetbackworse. DARROW:Okayitsaysthat,anynon-conformingbuilding,thisis25-4-60,Non- conforming buildings maintenance and repair. Any non-conforming building except as otherwise regulated may be repaired maintained or enlarged provided that any enlargement or addition shall conform in every respect to the regulations for the district in which it is located‚. If the portion of the building that is‚, oh that wouldn€t apply. So we€re speaking of the building itself not the use? YUEN:Right. Right. It does sound like you can enlarge the building indefinitely under the zoning code unless you put some kind of cap under the special permit process. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes while we€re waiting for the Director, I was wondering if the parking lot gets moved or even if it doesn€t then you put in- move the access 100 feet to the north and then have to run a road to the parking area where it exists now. In either event would that effect any of the macadamia trees or coffee trees? Because we don€t have any indication on the map here where they€re located on the project site and part of the rationale given in the application for this being okay for an agricultural use was that none of those trees would be disturbed and would continue to be producing agriculturally. So, if Mr. Fuke could answer that for me please. FUKE:That€s a very good question and that also relates to like the mathematical apparent discrepancy. The agricultural, the macadamia nut and the coffee trees are all planted mauka of the area and so they have like about, at this point in time approximately 4 acres in cultivation. The remaining area is, as the staff pointed out, undeveloped. SIRACUSA:So then moving the parking lot or putting the access road from the new location to the existing parking lot would not infringe on that area, on that agriculturally planted area? FUKE:Correct. That is correct. EXHIBIT A 6 SIRACUSA:Okay, thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioner Graham? Thank you. Director Yuen? YUEN:We had to look at this application as a re-establishment of a store that existed for a long time and we€re a little dicey over the safety aspects of it because of the sight distance. So, we want to keep it as a fairly small scale use. I€d be, given your explanation, I€d be happy to amend number 4 to say, The square footage of the building is limited to the present store size for retail use‚. And adding for retail use comma, and then comma, with a potential expansion of up to an additional 50% for ramps, restrooms, storage and other accessory uses‚. FUKE:That would be fine thank you. SPRINGER:ThankyouMr.Fuke. WATANABE:Thatwas-excusemethatwas- YUEN:5-0%. WATANABE:5-0,okay,okay,okay. SPRINGER:Thank you Commissioner Watanabe. Commissioners any further questions of the staff or the applicant€s representative? This is a public hearing. We have 1 member of the public who has signed up to testify and that€s M.J. Schneider. If he is present, or she? FUKE:Actually Mr. Schneider is a silent co-partner so he€s one of the silent applicants. SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you just in case there was anything to testify on. Thank you for that. Commissioners is there any further discussion? Seeing none we€re ready for a motion on this Special Permit 04-005. SALAVEA:I€m sorry Madame Chair? SPRINGER:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:I had a question regarding #7 the requirement by the Planning Director. It states that the parking lot shall be constructed to the north of the existing store and I was just wondering if the 100 foot requirement should be placed into the recommendation or is that still up in the air according to? Or trying to accommodate or comply to what the Department of Transportation requirements are. YUEN:We€re asking for that amendment about the 100 feet move to the driveway that we gave you this morning a little earlier. The parking lot should still be north of the existing EXHIBIT A 7 store. And it€s, we don€t care really whether the parking lot is immediately adjacent to the store or there€s some space between the store and the parking lot and the driveway is then- and the parking lot moves closer to where the driveway exits out to the road. Both, the police department wanted to make sure the parking lot was at least north of the store because south of the store is worse. And so, but as far as the exact location of the parking lot that€s up to the applicant in their site planning. We were mostly concerned with the location of the driveway access out to the highway. SALAVEA:Thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I€m ready to make a motion if everyone else is. SPRINGER:Thankyouma€am.Proceed. SIRACUSA:ImovethattheapplicationforaspecialpermitSPP05-005beapproved based on the Planning Director€s recommendation and proposed conditions including the changes to conditions number 4 and 7 as discussed. SPRINGER:And also 2 Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:And 2 excuse me. SPRINGER:Thank you. Is there a second? GRAHAM:Second. SPRINGER:Moved by Commissioner Siracusa and seconded by Commissioner Graham to approve Debra Dickens Special Permit 05-005 with amendments to conditions 2, 4 and 7. Is there any discussion? Mr. Darrow we€re ready for the roll call vote. DARROW:Thank you Madame Chair. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner McCall? EXHIBIT A 8 MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:And Madame Chair? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:Themotionpasses7to0. SPRINGER:Thankyou.You€llbeinformedinwritingoftoday€sdecision. FUKE:Thankyouverymuch. Thisdiscussionendedat9:42a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynette Sanemitsu, West Hawai i Secretary EXHIBIT A 9