Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-09-07 TGOODE PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 GARVIN & LAURA GOODE, TR A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (SPP 06-000031) was called to order at 10:55 a.m.in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones Andrew IwashitaBill Graham Jeffrey McCallRodney Watanabe Alvin Rho Allen Salavea Rene’ Siracusa Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 36 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANTS: GARVIN & LAURA GOODE, TR (SPP 06-000031) Special Permit to allow the construction of a 1,584+ square foot (44 feet x 36 feet) building for the sale of fruits/produce, including the preparation of cold foods (sandwiches, smoothies, and cold drinks), on 1 acre of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The area involved is located at the northwest corner of State Highway 19 and Kalaoa Camp Road, adjacent to and south of Aukuu Stream, Kalaoa, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-7-8: portion of 130. ALAMEDA:The County Planning Commission will now return to order. Welcome back, Fellow Commissioners. All right, moving right along, Agenda Item No. 5, Applicants, Garvin and Laura Goode, Trust, Special Management Permit 06-000031. Staff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission. If I can direct your attention to the location map, the area of this application is within the South Hilo District of Hawai`i, more specifically we’re looking at the Papaikou area identified in yellow. Just outside of Papaikou to the north, we have a red dot which illustrates the area of the application. This red line moving in a north-south direction is identified as the SMA line. This white line that also travels in the north-south direction is Hawai`i Belt Road, Highway 19. The area of the application is located at the intersection EXHIBIT C 1 of Kalaoa Camp Road. On the site plan, we have Hawai`i Belt Road running in a north- south direction here. We have Kalaoa Camp Road that runs through the property as an access easement for properties located mauka of this particular property. Identified in red is the proposed area for this particular request that the Applicant is requesting. The Applicant, Gavin and Laura Goode, Trust, are requesting a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a 1,584-square foot building in which to have a fruit and produce stand. They are proposing to sell items grown on the property such as bananas, papayas, pineapples, citrus, avocados and an assortment of vegetables. They are also proposing to sell produce, fruit and produce from other farmers. Additionally, they are also proposing to sell nursery stock. Along with the fruit and produce stand, there will be a certified kitchen located within, this is mainly for sandwiches, smoothies and cold drinks. The permit area is one acre in size, the property itself is 7.4 acres in size. And, again, this particular road runs through the property as an access easement. This also is a portion of the Applicant’s property. We also have a floor plan that has been submitted by the Applicants that identifies the open fruit stand area, the kitchen area, two baths and two storage rooms. The Planning Director is recommending denial of this application. If I can just read a small excerpt from the Recommendation in regards to the reasons. “The proposed use places a burden on public agencies to provide safe ingress and egress onto the Hawaii Belt Road. Additionally, the proposed request also fails to address the fundamental problems associated with the development of a commercial development in this particular area, which is the inability to establish an effective land use pattern. Effective land use requires a regional perspective for establishing a proper land use pattern within a given area. Commercial zoning has been established in Papaikou and Pepeekeo. Until such time regional infrastructure is able to accommodate widespread urban level of development in area, it would not be prudent to sanction the spread of such traffic generating uses in a manner which would frustrate the government’s efforts to control the amount of impacts such uses will create.” Again, the Planning Director is recommending that this request be denied by the Planning Commission. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes. I noticed that there were two bathrooms and that it looks from here like the doors are to the outside. Is that for the public’s use? Are they like a male and a female? DARROW:It’s my understanding this is the roof line. SIRACUSA:Oh, oh, oh. EXHIBIT C 2 DARROW:There is a lanai that goes around the actual building, so the entrance to the bathrooms would be from the lanai area. SIRACUSA:Okay, but it’s basically from the outside. It’s for the public’s use? DARROW:It appears so. It looks like the actual layout will be that these are sliding doors so there will be an open, large opening here, large opening here and a large opening here, and this would be an open area with the kitchen area. And then, again, somebody could just go right out of the open area around to the rear of the building. SIRACUSA:Okay, well, I was asking because of the, they’re talking about a proposed cesspool and they’re projecting 30 to 40 customers a day plus a certified kitchen. And if they’re allowing two bathrooms to be used by the public, that looks to me like they’re going to be generating the amount that would put them into the septic category, as far as the Department of Health and EPA’s rules are concerned. So that’s why I was asking, because two bathrooms open to public would generate much more water use. ALAMEDA:Commissioner McCall and then Commissioner Iwashita? MCCALL:Jeff, what is the, or maybe for Mr. Torigoe. What is the, if this was a produce stand selling farm produce just from the farm, what are the requirements? Would they need a use permit at that point or -? DARROW:This would be a permitted use in the Agricultural District if it was a small roadside stand that was specifically to sell items grown on the property. MCCALL:But what they’re talking about with certified kitchen, and nursery stock, and other things that are coming from elsewhere, it puts it beyond that? DARROW:Correct. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question about the comment in the Recommendation about this proposal taxing the, or taxing public facilities. When I went through the application, you know, the Police Department, Department of Transportation and Public Works, none of them opposed the project. They all, Police Department says they don’t anticipate any significant impact to traffic or public safety concerns. Transportation says we just want to look at the plans and make sure that they have an opportunity to review it, make recommendations and place conditions; basically the same thing for Public Works. So is there something I didn’t see in the material that the Director’s comments were based on? ALAMEDA:Mr. Darrow? Is that a -? EXHIBIT C 3 IWASHITA:Yeah, staff, if you can. I know the Director is not here but -. DARROW:Unfortunately, the comment that we received from the Department of Transportation was very minimal. Usually they come back with pretty heavy hitting comments. Just to bring your attention back to the Onoloa application that was up in Mountain View for the similar type use, they had requested left-turn lanes, acceleration lanes, deceleration lanes; and then later they were able to, after discussion they were able to minimize their application. But we depend on those comments. At this point, they’re just saying that at the time of construction drawings they’ll review what needs to be done. So we basically have to look at it from what information we have, considering the worst case scenario, unfortunately, ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any questions for staff before I call up the Applicant, or his representative? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Darrow. Will the Applicant or his representative, please come forward. Hello, ma’am. Will you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? MORRISON:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. I’m going to ask you to speak into the mike for our minutes purposes. Could you please state your name and address for the record? MORRISON:My name is Stephanie Morrison; and my work address is 94 Kamehameha Avenue, Suite 1. ALAMEDA:Thank you. I’m aware that, I’m sure you got a chance to review the Department’s denial and reasons for it. You have any comments or reactions to that? MORRISON:Obviously, I have several comments. I’ll try to make it brief and then we can go with questions. ALAMEDA:All right. MORRISON:I can understand the Director’s concern about public safety and transportation; and I would just like to refer to the Police Department’s comments and also the Department of Transportation’s. The Department of Transportation was contacted prior to the application being submitted for comments that they may offer, and they would rather hold their comments until they received the application from the Planning Department. At that point, they only made the comments that you see here. This is just a preliminary concept as if anything. The Special Use Permit is the beginning part for permitting an application; and any conditions that might be set forth may change, it may change the driveway location or the proposed floor plan, also. EXHIBIT C 4 ALAMEDA:All right. Fellow Commissioners, do you have any questions for the Applicant’s representative? SIRACUSA:Yes. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Thank you. You heard my question before to Jeff about the bathrooms. MORRISON:Yes. SIRACUSA:Could you corroborate or deny our assumption that those two bathrooms are for public use? MORRISON:Those are for public use; and, again, the proposed cesspool is just in the proposal stage at this point. After we would receive any approval, it would go onto a Final Plan Approval with the Planning Department and then be routed to the various agencies for a building permit. At that point, the Department of Health would be able to offer comments as to if the cesspool is large enough or if they would need a septic tank. SIRACUSA:It’s my understanding that we’re looking at 20, use of 20 people or 100 gallons a day; and with two bathrooms, assuming 30 to 40 customers, and a kitchen -. Also my concern there is that you’re putting the proposed cesspool within, you’re putting the proposed cesspool much closer to the stream than the existing one. And, so, I’m especially concerned, because cesspools leach and septics don’t, about contamination of the stream. MORRISON:I understand your concern and, again, this is just a preliminary concept. The proposed cesspool would also be depending upon the Final Approval of the floor plan and could be placed, according to the civil engineer’s design, accordingly. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Siracusa, follow-up? SIRACUSA:One more question. It says here, “proposing to offer produce from other farms and, additionally, the Applicant is proposing to sell nursery stock.” It does not say here if that would be from the Applicant’s farm or from other farms. Could you clarify that, please? MORRISON:Sure. That would be from both the Applicant’s parcel and other local farmers in the area. One of the reasons for this application being submitted early in this process, the owners have only started growing part of their crops for this use. And, so, until their crops are fully producing, they would have to supplement with other local farmers’ crops, and that goes for nursery stock as well. EXHIBIT C 5 ALAMEDA:All right. Any other questions for the Applicant? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:If you guys do the plant stock, and in part because we have Representative Tsuji here tonight as a, or today, a main advocate for getting rid of our coqui frog problem, does the Applicant have a position about, you know, certifying this business to be coqui frog-free? MORRISON:I don’t think that the Applicant has any stand on that. IWASHITA:The Applicant objects to the Commission requiring that the business be coqui frog-free? MORRISON:No, I don’t think that would be a problem. IWASHITA:Okay. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Any other comments or questions for the Applicant before I entertain testimony at this time? Commissioner Rho? RHO:On Page 3 of the application, No. K, or Item K, or Paragraph K, it talks about traffic, and says “The speed limits at the Kalaoa Camp Road turn are set at 45 m.p.h.” MORRISON:This is correct. RHO:Is that the speed limit of -? MORRISON:Of the highway traffic. RHO:Maybe I need clarification on the Hawai`i Belt Road. ALAMEDA:Mr. Darrow, clarification? DARROW:The speed limit for this particular area on the Hawai`i Belt Road is 45 miles per hour in both directions. ALAMEDA:Mr. Rho, follow-up? RHO:No, not at this time. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Siracusa, again, any questions for our Applicant or staff? EXHIBIT C 6 SIRACUSA:Staff. You were referring to the letter from the Department of Transportation. Neither Commissioner Salavea nor myself have this in our folder. DARROW:When we received comments that are short in size, like one paragraph, then we’ll actually type them out on the Background. So you’ll find it as No. 29 on the Background Report. SIRACUSA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question for the Applicant. Regarding the written description of the proposed use, Page 1, it says that you predict or you project 30 to 40 people per day visiting your establishment. How did you come about with that projection? MORRISON:The Applicants have visited similar uses, similar fruit stands and, also, the amount of people traveling on our road is different a little bit from, for example, the South Kona fruit stand, which is located in Honaunau. It’s a little bit different. So it was just an estimation. SALAVEA:All right. And regarding the traffic in that area, there are no estimations as to what the current -? MORRISON:Traffic flow. SALAVEA:Yeah, the flow during different hours of the bay? MORRISON:We contacted several different civil engineers involved in doing a traffic impact analysis report; and it was determined that financially it wasn’t feasible at this point in time, however, the Department of Transportation may require that once the construction plans are submitted to them. SALAVEA:Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Salavea. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I’m looking at the application, Page 3, Item G, Floral and Faunal Resources, “Faunal resources include many tropical birds, such as the wandering tattler, golden plover, and the Pueo to name a few.” Are you aware that the Pueo is a listed species? MORRISON:This list was pulled from a travel guide and was not a study done directly at the site. I’m aware of the Pueo. SIRACUSA:That’s sort of iffy, then. EXHIBIT C 7 ALAMEDA:Any other questions for our Applicant’s representative? How about for staff? Seeing none, thank you. Seeing that there are no testimony, ma’am, you may remain there; but you have to be quiet. So I’ll save you the walk back. I wanted to possibly have a discussion on this projection by the Department and how, I don’t know where my fellow Commissioners are in terms of their thinking. Anybody would like to give an opinion on where you might be at with this? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Again, I would, for the record, repeat my comments about the Community Development Plan. But in these situations, you know, where we have considered matters like these Special Permit applications in these ag areas, I think to be consistent with what the Commission has done in the past -. This application appears to be very similar if not identical to others which we’ve approved. So, subject to my reservations about the process and Community Development Plans, I do support the application. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Any other commentary -? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Just for discussion purposes, I have some strong reservations about this project. And when I think back to other applications we have made, say, the World Botanical Garden, which is just up the road from here, we did require them to do a Traffic Impact Study, I believe, if I recall. And I’m trying to remember, but I don’t really think they were, I think they were, we’re not talking about a whole lot more people visiting the site than this one is. If this was just a fruit stand, just for product, you know, I don’t think I’d have a problem. But this does seem to be more, to me, more of a retail establishment. I have some real concerns about this and about the, just the general, you know, this spread; and I think I tend to concur with the Planning Director and his recommendation. ALAMEDA:Okay. Other Commissioners? How about Commissioner Salavea, and then Commissioner Siracusa? SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m inclined to follow the Planning Director’s Recommendation. In the past, any commercial business, commercial activity that impacted, directly impacted, the main highway, we were pretty stringent. And the DOT was pretty stringent about requiring at least a TIAR, and traffic flow mitigation requirements would also follow the TIAR. So, in this case, it just seems more commercial and not enough groundwork done, preliminary groundwork done; and I’d hate to pass it along before any of that is done for the project. ALAMEDA:All right. Thank you, Commissioner Salavea. Commissioner Siracusa? EXHIBIT C 8 SIRACUSA:I see the potential of this to be, you know, the first step in a strip mall. And then the next-door neighbor would apply for something saying, “Oh, well, look what’s right next door,” and the neighbor next to them would apply for something. And pretty soon you’ve it got creeping down the highway, and that highway has some hellacious traffic; and I think this would be a real detriment there. There’s another issue. They would be taking nursery stock and produce from other farmers because their farm isn’t producing enough yet. If their farm isn’t producing enough yet, it seems to me that this whole proposal is premature. They should wait until they have something to sell and then they wouldn’t need a Special Permit from us. They could just go ahead and be selling everything that they’re growing themselves. I think the thing that we’re missing here is where they’re talking about how big a product display area; and this is something that did come up with the Hawai`i Botanical Gardens. What kind of items are they going to be selling in this product-display area? Is it going to be key chains, is it going to be post cards, is it going to be all that, you know, little do-dads kind of stuff that they sell in these tourist traps? We’re not, we’re looking at something that is definitely commercial. If you’re talking about a product display area, you’re talking a commercial enterprise; and I don’t feel comfortable with that at this location. So I’ll be voting against this. ALAMEDA:All right. We have various opinions on the table, as you can see. Commissioner Rho, would you like to put your input? Or you may pass. RHO:I’ll pass. ALAMEDA:Okay. Well, fellow Commissioners, hearing the discussion, anyone would like to entertain a motion? SALAVEA:Mr. Chair, if I may? ALAMEDA:Sure, Commissioner Salavea. SALAVEA:In the matter of Garvin and Laura Goode, Trust (Special Permit Application SP 06-000031), I move that an unfavorable, I move that the Special Permit Application be denied per the Planning Director’s Recommendation citing his reasons in Paragraph 3 of Page 1. ALAMEDA:Is there a second? RHO:Second. ALAMEDA:Motion made by Commissioner Salavea and seconded by Commissioner Rho. Discussion? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Just so I’m clear, the basis is this language, “The denial recommendation is based on several negative factors, which are 1) that the request is not EXHIBIT C 9 consistent with the long-range plan for commercial development in this area and 2) that the establishment of a commercial facility along Hawaii Belt Road will create unnecessary traffic impact and safety concerns,” is that correct? SALAVEA:That’s correct. IWASHITA:Okay. Just for the record, obviously, the first concern expressed by the Director is one that I share; and I think that we should all use as far as all matters that come before this body, especially zoning changes. If we’re going to look at it and if we’re going to apply this rationale, you know, for a Special Permit application in an ag area, to me, you know, it really becomes more important in all our other matters. And I appreciate the concerns expressed by my Fellow Commissioners about not wanting to start a strip mall on the Hawai`i Belt Road; and, obviously, no one would support that. However, again, I really look at this as an application essentially identical to the one which we approved up in Mountain View. Two, three months ago, it was? There really isn’t any difference as I see it. It’s on the main highway. Actually that one is worse because it doesn’t have a side road access. The access to that is directly into the fruit stand; and there were requirements for setbacks, and where the gate had to be, and the turning radius, and all of that. But we haven’t established access on this road, on this property for this fruit stand, which is not going to be accessible directly from the highway, as I see it. It’s off of the side road. So, to me, in order for us to be consistent, I think that what we should do is approve it with the same conditions or similar conditions as we did that Mountain View fruit stand. And the reality is that in that area, on the old scenic road, there is an existing facility like this that, you know, provides service to the people who drive on the road; and there are, you know, other establishments like this in our community around the island. And I don’t really see that this establishment would, you know, with proper conditions would be any different. We could make it identical to these others and be consistent; and, so, for that reason, I’m going to be opposing the motion. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Fellow Commissioners, just to remind you, we do need five votes, either way. If we don’t reach five votes, we’ll be revisiting this agenda item again. So seeing no further discussion, roll call? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:No. EXHIBIT C 10 DARROW:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes five to one. ALAMEDA:You’ll be informed of this in writing. Thank you. The discussion ended at 11:25 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT C 11