Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-30 TTINGUELY PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 PHIL TINGUELY (SMA 05-004) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 10:04 a.m. in the Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel, Hau/Lehua Room, 62-100 Kaunaoa Drive, Kohala Coast, Hawaii, with Vice-Chairperson Hannah Springer presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones Hannah SpringerRene€ Siracusa Rodney H. WatanabeJeffrey McCall Allen SalaveaAndrew Iwashita WilliamR.Graham ChrisYuen,DeputyPlanningDirector Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PHIL TINGUELY (SMA 05-004) Contested case hearing on the application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the construction of two three-story mixed use buildings, which include eight residential suites, and a two-story commercial office building on a 3-acre property. The property is located between Kuakini Highway and Walua Road, approximately 1,500 feet northwest of st the Kuakini Highway and Walua Road junction, Waiaha 1 , North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-18:95. SPRINGER:We are now on agenda item number 2. The Applicant is Phil Tinguely SMA 05-004. This is a contested case hearing on the application for a special management area use permit to allow the construction of 2, 3-story mixed use buildings which include 8 residential suites and a 2-story commercial office building on a 3-acre property. The property is located between Kuakini Highway and Walua Road, approximately 1,500 feet northwest of st the Kuakini Highway and Walua Road junction, Waiaha 1, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5- 18:95. Mr. Darrow? DARROW:ThankyouMadamChair.GoodmorningmembersofthePlanning Commission, Planning Director and Deputy Corporation Counsel. At our last hearing Kona PacificApartmentofAssociationOwnershadbeengrantedstandinginaContestedCasefor this hearing. We recently received a letter from the President Patty Hattenburg of Kona Pacificstatingthattheyarewishingtowithdrawtheirpetitionforstandinginacontestedcase. If I could give a short presentation to be able to bring to remembrance the Commissioners€ EXHIBIT B 1 memory regarding the application. If I could direct your attention to the location map. The area of this application is within the North Kona District of Hawaii. More specifically we€re looking at Kuakini Highway identified by this red line, red and white line running in a north- south direction. The red line symbolizes the Special Management Area from this down makai. The red dot more specifically identifies the area of this application, which is between Walua Road and Kuakini Highway. In the past we€ve had several Special Management Area Use Permits that were granted in this area they are identified under background information in the background report. The Applicant in this case Phil Tinguely is requesting a Special Management Area Use Permit for 2, 3-story residential commercial structures and 1, 2-story commercial structure. Just to summarize buildings A and B will consist of 4 commercial rd suites and 4 residential suites. On the 3 story will be 2 lofts for 2 of the residential suites. Building C will be 2 stories with each story having 4 commercial suites on each level. Underneath buildings A & B is a underground parking level, basement area. This is a proposed layout submitted by the applicants. You see the driveway off of Walua Road in this particular area and we do have elevations that were submitted by the applicant. The Planning Director is recommending that this application be approved by the Planning Commission. There is a matter of conditions that I need to address if I could direct your attention to the submitted recommendation and more specifically to the conditions. We have about 4 or 5 st minor changes that we need to address. On condition number 2, on the 1 line it states, The applicant, its successors or assigned shall comply with-‚. We€re going to delete comply with‚ and include fulfill their portion of‚ and so it would state, The applicant, its successors or assigned shall fulfill their portion of all applicable conditions of change of zone ordinance 03 18. Condition number 4, by request of Department of Public Works they€re asking that a small addition be made on line number 5. I€ll read from, beginning with line 4. Plans shall identify all existing and proposed structures, landscaping, paved driveway access, and‚ I€m sorry adequate sight distance and parking stalls‚. So we€re adding in adequate sight distance. Condition number 9. We are deleting the sentence that begins which is the second sentence. Proposed mitigation treatment for the burial sites within the subject property shall beapprovedbySHPD€sHawaiiIslandBurialCouncilbeforedetailedmitigationplansare finalized for the sites‚. That will be deleted and there will be 2 additions to this condition. Where the sentence begins, A copy of the approved final archaeological preservation, final data recovery report and burial treatment plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director‚. So we€re including in that sentence data recovery report‚. And lastly on this condition at the end of the last sentence we€re going to be adding, Implement conditions in burial mitigation plan before ground alteration occurs‚. Lastly condition number 14. This condition only has 3 of the criteria for the initial extension. Our standardized condition includes 5 criteria so we will be adding in the additional 2 criteria that are usually put within there. That would be condition-, these would be re-alphabetized accordingly. B would be Granting the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code‚ and then Condition E would state, If the applicant should require an additional extension of time the Planning Department shall submit the applicant€s request to the Planning Commission for appropriate action‚. And that takes care of housework. Do we have any questions? SPRINGER:Commissioners? Commissioner Graham then Commissioner Watanabe. EXHIBIT B 2 GRAHAM:Jeff, one of the ones where you changed the conditions were where the conditions are proposed conditions are being modified with a number 9 on the archaeological? DARROW:Okay. GRAHAM:Could you just give kind of like a common sense explanation of what-? DARROW:Why they would delete that? GRAHAM:Yeah, you know what the- what the old conditions would have required and what the new conditions are requiring as far as you know what, in common sense terms what€s going to happen. DARROW:In regards to condition 9? GRAHAM:Yes. DARROW:Okay we had received a-. Since our last and this brings up a good point,thankyou.Sinceourlasthearingwehavereceivedacommentletterfromthe Department of Land and Natural Resources updating us on the plans that have been submitted and the processes that they€re in. And so some of the plans have already been submitted and other plans are still needed and so we€re trying to bring this condition. This is basically a standardized condition but we€re trying to detail it more for this specific application. SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I€m sorry I had no questions. SPRINGER:I have a question. Curtis Tyler I believe made reference to a mauka- makai access and also had some concerns about-, I guess it was this access be like at Alii Cove, is that addressed? DARROW:I don€t believe that we were able to address that. We were-. If I was, remember correctly we were talking about possibly implementing a mauka-makai along the north boundary of this property but I don€t remember if-. It doesn€t look like we actually addressed that, thank you for bringing that up. SPRINGER:Okay. DARROW:This was brought up by Curtis Tyler. Maybe the Applicant can actually speak to that. SPRINGER:Commissioners any further questions of Mr. Darrow? Good morning Mr. Mooers. MOOERS:Good morning. EXHIBIT B 3 SPRINGER:May I swear you in at this time? MOOERS:Certainly. SPRINGER:Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? MOOERS:Yes I do. SPRINGER:Mr. Mooers if you could please give us your name and address and then proceed with your testimony. MOOERS:My name is Greg Mooers. My address is P.O. Box 1101, Kamuela, Hawaii 96743. SPRINGER:Thank you sir, proceed. MOOERS:Yeah I would like to respond and maybe clarify some things for Commissioner Graham. On number 9 the portion that was omitted, that mitigation plan has already been done and prepared and approved by the Burial Council. The Department has not adopted the plan as yet and that€s why I think the addition of the last sentence about making sure that we implement any conditions that may be set forth in the plan before ground disruption. And the data recovery report that€s referred to that was added in is in reference to the previous owners indiscretions on the property that resulted in historic preservation division€s recommending that there be a couple of additional carbon datings done in the data recovery plan so by putting that in this insures that that data recovery report will be completed. In regards to the other recommended amendments to the conditions the applicant has no problem with those and does accept them. In regard to the contested case just as a matter of history. At the last hearing Mr. Greene appeared before here representing the AOAO of Kona Pacific. We did subsequently meet with him and he felt very comfortable and gave us a verbal that he was going to withdraw his contested case. Unfortunately he traveled to the mainland and passed the ball to a second member of the Board, a Mr. Archibald. We worked with Mr. Archibald. He agreed also that the contested case would be dropped and unfortunately his wife had some health problems and he had to go to Oahu with her and so then the ball was passed to Ms. Hattenburg. And we were able to work with Ms. Hattenburg and there was some confusion. She seemed to believe that our property was actually below the Kona Pacific AOAO on the way to town and that there was no paved sidewalk. So if you look in the record you may wonder why Mr. Tinguely has written a letter saying that there€s curb-gutter and sidewalk in front of the project an then if it€s disturbed during construction it would be reconstructed. And that was to address their concerns about pedestrian safety. Unfortunately Mrs. Hattenburg thought that our property was below there and therefore did not believe that we had curb-gutter and sidewalk. So I think as soon as we clarified where the property was then she was willing to withdraw and did write the letter of withdrawal on the contested case. EXHIBIT B 4 SPRINGER:Thank you. Is there anything else that you€d like us to hear at this time? MOOERS:No. I€m just prepared to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. SPRINGER:Good. Commissioners any questions? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I wonder if you could expand on that mauka-makai-? MOOERS:Oh. Yeah very good. Yeah we have had conversations with Mr. Tyler about that. The concern we had was that if you€ll notice on the map that is where the archaeological buffer site is where the burials are. And our concern was is that if we committed to a mauka-makai pedestrian path along that boundary and then the buffer was greaterthanthatthe2conditionswouldbeinoppositionwecouldn€tacceptit.Sowehave given Mr. Tyler a verbal saying that if there€s room along that boundary we would certainly participate in constructing that mauka-makai pedestrian access. And, but we felt a little uncomfortable in doing that prior to getting an approval by Historic Preservation Division because we don€t know if they would extend that buffer you know all the way to the property line. And, that was the only concern we had and he seemed to be pretty comfortable with that. I know he wants that to occur because he€s concerned about the number of units above Kuakini Highway and would like those people to have pedestrian access from there down to Honl€s. And we agree with that. It€s just we€re a little nervous about agreeing to a condition to put it there if we don€t know we can or not. Because if we move it off of that then we start running it through the middle of the project we would have more problems with it. But I€m confident that we€re going to be able to do that. The recommendation does not require a buffer all the way to the property line but that recommendation that was approved by the Burial Council has not been approved yet by the Department. So, that€s kind of where we€re at. SPRINGER:Thank you Mr. Mooers. Any other questions for Mr. Mooers? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Just a follow-up on Commissioner Watanabe€s question. Is anybody carrying the ball on that in the sense of finding out whether the Historical Preservation People are okay with that buffer or is that something that Mr. Tyler is going to just kind of do his own project? MOOERS:No the archaeologist Dr. Han is getting the-, is you know responsible for having the plan approved by Historic Preservation Division. And if that trail as a pedestrian trail is something that the Commission would like the only thing I would like to do is say you know we€ll put in the mauka-makai connector trail on the northern property provided it does not encroach into the buffer so that we leave ourselves an out. I would hate to have to come back to you in 6-months and say gee we can€t do this because of that. I would rather you, if you want it as a condition that you write the condition in a way that it would require Historic Preservation approval or the Planning Director in consultation, you EXHIBIT B 5 know something of that sort. So I guess what we€re saying is conceptually we have no problem with it we just don€t want to make a commitment that we can€t you know unilaterally comply with. GRAHAM:Sure I understand that and I don€t have any problems I€m just wondering like when the plan is being put forward right now to Historic Preservation is it being presented that if possible we would like a corridor for public access or is that just being left out so it€s-? MOOERS:No. When the plan was produced it was produced just to address what are the adequate buffers for the burials and the features that are there. It was not put forth that there be a pedestrian path at that time. GRAHAM:So somebody other than you folks would have to initiate something if theyweregoingtogetHistoricPreservation-? MOOERS:Iwouldthinkthatiftherewereaconditionplacedthentheywould have to respond to it. The problem right now and I€m not trying to make excuses for the Historic Preservation Division but they€re very under staffed and it€s very, very difficult to get any approvals through. And, but that€s the responsibility of the archaeologist to get that approval letter from them. GRAHAM:I understand. Thank you. SPRINGER:Commissioners any questions further questions? No one has signed up to testify on this matter. So if there are no further questions we may go into deliberation and decision making. I€d like to begin though with a motion to accept the withdrawal of the Intervenors in the Contested Case. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:I move that we- in the matter of, I€m sorry hold on one sec.- in the matter of Phil Tinguely, Special Management Area Use Permit SMA 05-004 that we accept the Contested Hearing withdrawal submitted by Patty Hattenburg acting member for the Association Kona Pacific AOAO. SPRINGER:Thank you is there a second? WATANABE:Second. SPRINGER:Commissioner Watanabe seconded the motion. Is there any discussion on the motion? Mr. Darrow we can take the roll call on this. DARROW:Thank you Madam Chair. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Watanabe? EXHIBIT B 6 WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Yes. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:And Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:The motion carries 5 to 0. SPRINGER:Thank you Commissioners. And now on the matter of the Application for the Special Management Area Use Permit. Is there a motion? SALAVEA:Yes I-? SPRINGER:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Thank you Madam Chair. I move that application for Special Management Area Use Permit Docket number SMA 05-004 be approved based on the PlanningDirector€srecommendationandrevisedconditionsassubmittedbyMr.Darrow. And I also, would this be the time to also make a additional condition regarding the condition about putting in the pedestrian access? SPRINGER:If you desire to include a provision for that-, as I understood from the discussion we were not-, the Planning Department was not recommending an additional amendment on the mauka-makai access. Mr. Yuen? YUEN:No we€re okay with the condition. It should say that the applicant shall create a mauka-makai pedestrian access along the northern boundary of the property as long as it is consistent with Historic Preservation requirements. SPRINGER:Okay what, will that be a new conditions and they€ll be numbered accordingly? YUEN:Yes. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Salavea it is time for that. SALAVEA:All right. So shall I repeat my motion? EXHIBIT B 7 SPRINGER:I think we€re clear on it. Is there a second? WATANABE:Second. SPRINGER:Second by Commissioner Watanabe. Is there any discussion on the motion to approve with the amendments that were given to us for conditions 2, 4, 9 and 14 and the understanding that a new condition will be inserted to address the mauka-makai access if it is appropriate to do so. Seeing no discussion Mr. Darrow? DARROW:If I could ask a quick question? Is there going to be any type of width on the mauka-makai or is that-? It appears on the map that there, in this place, there€s a sewer easement in place where I believe this mauka-makai would be. And it appears that it€s possibly 15-feet but is our standard 10-feet wide? Would it be a 10-foot wide? YUEN:Usually we have a 10-foot wide minimum. MOOERS:I believe that the Alii Cove is a 10-foot wide. YUEN:10-feet. SPRINGER:And Mr. Mooers is this acceptable to you? MOOERS:Yes it is. SPRINGER:Thank you. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Darrow. DARROW:Thank you Madam Chair. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Yes. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:And Madam Chair? SPRINGER:Yes. EXHIBIT B 8 DARROW:The motion passes 5 to 0. MOOERS:Thank you very much. SPRINGER:You€re welcome. You€ll be informed in writing of today€s action. This discussion ended at 10:25 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynette Marushige, West HawaiŸi Secretary EXHIBIT B 9