Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-30 TCOOK LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BRIAN R. COOK DEVELOPMENT, INC. A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of (SLU 10-29/REZ 10-129) was called to order at 12:06 p.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Ballroom I, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Frederic Housel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Frederic Housel, Brandi Beaudet, Lani Bowman, Geraldine Giffin, Wayne Iokepa and Richard Nelson ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Thomas Hickcox STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Deanne Bugado (Planner, West Hawai‘i Division) and Kiran Emler (Department of Public Works) And approximately 200 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: BRIAN R. COOK DEVELOPMENT, INC. (SLU 10-29/REZ 10-129) Applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a Change of Zone from Agricultural 5-acres (A-5a) to Single-Family Residential 7,500 square feet (RS-7.5) for approximately 14.707 acres of land. The property is located adjacent to and north of Pualani nd Estates Subdivision and mauka sincere condolences of Hawai‘i Belt Road, Kahului 2, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 7-5-17: 41. HOUSEL: Moving to Item 2 on our agenda. We have an application for State Land Use boundary amendment from Ag to Urban and a change of zone from Agricultural 5 acres to Single-Family Residential 7,500 square feet. Is there any public testimony on this item? I don’t see any. Mr. Darrow, would you like to proceed? DARROW: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could direct your attention to our presentation. Our next applicant is Brian R. Cook Development, Inc. They are requesting a State Land Use boundary amendment and a change of zone. The area of this application is in a similar location as our first application within the North Kona District. I’m going to, if it’s okay with you folks, to speed up things, not going to as greater detail. Basically, the subject property is identified with a black outline. Previously, this was the first application and, again, as earlier stated, this would be the third application; so they are all in that general location. This is a closer view of the subject property. We have Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway running in a north-south direction, as well as Huallai. As you can see, the actual parcel has an access off Huallai Road. This is the State Land Use designation map identifying the property as Agricultural, and within the Urban Expansion Area for the General Plan LUPAG designation. And the subject property, this is the Kona Community Development Plan identification of the nearest Transit- Oriented Development, which the subject property is identified as being within this TOD. This is 1 EXHIBIT C the Kahului-Puapua‘a Traditional Neighborhood Development, I mean, excuse me, Neighborhood Village Transit-Oriented Development. Again, we have an aerial, and this is the general area. This, more specifically, is the general area of this particular application. The applicant is requesting a State Land Use boundary amendment from Agricultural to Urban, and a change of zone from Agricultural 5 acres to Single-Family Residential 7,500 square feet for approximately 14.707 acres of land. The reason for the request: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 46 lots that are approximately 7,500 square feet in size. This is the proposed layout for the particular subdivision. Just for reference, the left side of the map would be north, the right side would be south, this is the existing Pualani Estates subdivision. As you can see, we have a proposed access connecting to the existing Pualani Estates and that’s through Paulehia Street, and then again, we have a proposed connection to the mauka property, which was identified earlier as the property owned by Hu-Ko-Pa. And they will work in conjunction with not only the mauka property, but as well as the makai property for access. Also identified is a drainage channel. And these areas here are identified as park sites on the particular layout. The Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use boundary amendment, but they are recommending, we have submitted to the Commission an unfavorable recommendation for the change of zone request. The reasons for the unfavorable recommendation is at this time, as we had mentioned earlier about the particular property being located within the identified TOD area, in looking at the Kona CDP, we feel it’s appropriate for the applicant to come in with a master plan for this particular area to identify where the TOD for this area is located. If the applicant has options, those options would include amending the plan or again working with the Design Center to come up with a master plan for this area. Planning Director? LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, just wanted to comment. The TOD’s are intended to be kind of like floating zones; they are not permanently fixed to where the circle is. They may not even look like a circle once you do a master plan. A TOD could end up looking like some kind of a parallelogram, it could look like a half circle because it might be constrained by particular issues. But until you do the master plan, you don’t really know what it’s going to look like.This particular TOD has several constraints on it because it is bisected by Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway. But as we looked at the CDP, we became -. And we argued back and forth in the Department, and I had conflicting input from, you know, I talked to some people who had been involved in adopting and preparing the CDP, and I had conflicting advice from different people in terms of what the intent was. But the bottom line, I ended up going with what was adopted as opposed to what somebody’s vision of what the intent might have been. And we felt that without the master plan, it becomes very difficult to approve anything within these circled areas, even if ultimately it might not be within the TOD, as it eventually gets planned, because of Queen K running through there. You’ll note that the transit corridor has already been identified makai of Queen K, because it has that little tram thing on it. And that area, some of it has already been rezoned for multiple families in my recollection and -. Yeah, right, that darker brown, that’s a higher density. And so that’s supposed to be the urban core, and then you get into more just residential outside. But we don’t have a master plan yet. And obviously, you know, I think the applicant and the applicant’s representative disagrees with my recommendation, but we felt that at this point that this was the best way to go. DARROW: Lastly, Mr. Chairman -. HOUSEL: Any questions, Commissioners? 2 EXHIBIT C DARROW: If I could just also mention -. HOUSEL: Sure. DARROW: The applicant did submit this this morning, and I’m sure he’ll be referring to it in his presentation. I’m sorry. Thank you. BOWMAN: Can you just clarify? You said 76 lots, but on our background it says 46. Are we Cook? Or maybe I’m the wrong one. HOUSEL: Mr. Darrow, could you go back to the larger slide of the zoning? Yes. What are the adjacent zonings? DARROW: The adjacent zonings are, they are actually identified, so these are Agricultural 1-acre, Agricultural 5-acre, Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet, Single-Family Residential 7,500 square feet. HOUSEL: And this one is requesting RS-7.5, right? DARROW: Correct. BOWMAN: I’m sorry. Did you answer my question? You said 76, but it is 46 lots, right? GIFFIN: As the background report says. BOWMAN: Okay, but he mentioned 76. That’s all I’m asking. DARROW: Forty-six. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. HOUSEL: Any other questions of the staff? We do have one late testifier. Oh, since it’s not a new one, we will not -. Go ahead -. FUKE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -. HOUSEL: Go head, Mr. Fuke, sorry. FUKE: Just for the benefit of the audience, I’ll be very, very brief, and then the presentation that I’d like to give would also apply for the subsequent item. So hopefully, whatever the disposition on this is, that you will quickly dispose of the other one without added testimony, so that you can accommodate the next application after that. HOUSEL: Thank you. Let me -. FUKE: For the record my name is Sidney Fuke. I’m a planning consultant -. HOUSEL: I need to swear you in. 3 EXHIBIT C FUKE: Okay. HOUSEL: Do you swear to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today on this matter? FUKE: Yes, I do. HOUSEL: Thank you. FUKE: Again, my name is Sidney Fuke. My business is 100 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i. COOK: Brian Cook. My address is 78-7021 Kewalo Street in Kona. HOUSEL: Thank you. FUKE: Very briefly. As I mentioned earlier, the discussion will focus on both this and the subsequent application inasmuch as they are kind of like next to each other. If you see, this is Brian Cook’s property; the other property is right below over here. And what I’d like to do, however, is kind of run you through the handout that I provided to all of the Commissioners just to give you a cognizance, because if you look at the Planning Director’s initial recommendation, it was recommendation for approval, and we hope that at the end of the day, or at the end of this meeting, that the Commission will conclude that the Planning Director’s initial recommendation was really, like, the correct one because that’s the position we’d like to assume. But nevertheless, when Mr. Cook bought the property after the land was subdivided, he worked together with the property owner on the makai side, which is JKS Partners, and in addition to that, worked with the owners, or developers, of this particular area. And the reason being is that after the acquisition of the property and before the planning process began, what was already known were two things: One was that the General Plan designation, which was Urban Expansion; two was the nearing adoption of the Kona Community Development Plan. And the Kona Community Development Plan again – now I refer you to the first sheet – was, basically the redline kind of suggests your Kona Urban Area; so the whole idea is to have as much as possible your developments focus within the Urban Area to minimize extra movements so on and so forth, vehicular movements. And then what they did was then created this so-called Regional Core, which will be identified as in red, and so these are, as the Director had indicated, just kind of like general blobs to suggest that generally this is the area they would want to have it. And then they have those Neighborhoods, which was identified all in blue.And so it’s basically captured on the first sheet. Now, if you look at the second sheet, the second sheet – these are all taken directly, by the way, from the Kona Community Development Plan, I made colored copies this morning at OfficeMax – but anyway, so what it talks about, when you have your TOD, the Transit-Oriented Development, what this is talking about is initially you have to have a core, look at the map over here, you have to have a core, and then surrounding that core is secondary uses, and outside of that core would then be like what they call it a greenbelt. So that’s the idea behind all of these small little blue and red dots; they want to have a core, secondary area and then your so-called green- space area. Then the third handout is what you see up over there, which talks about, like, this particular area being all within the Kahului-Puapua‘a Neighborhood TOD area. And there is no question Mr. Cook and JKS Partners, they conceded that the property falls within this area, so they wanted to work with that. So what they did, you know, from a comprehensive master planning standpoint, then they did the last sheet. The last sheet then takes from the assumption that what you see over there, you know, with that small little bus-looking thing over there, that is your core, that is 4 EXHIBIT C your core. And so if this is your core, and looking at this last master plan that’s already there by virtual zoning and already been preliminarily negotiated by different users, you already have that red area is identified as your Commercial Neighborhood Center – that’s already zoned. The other area is referred to rental, affordable and just affordable homes in that area. Again, those properties are already zoned. If you look at the property adjacent to the Kuakini Highway, and that’s on the lower section, they already have preliminary arrangements to work with Innovations to have the school over there, and that was also part of the zone change condition that the landowners had, as they went through the zoning process for the creation of the commercial area. Then if you look on the right side of that, basically the right side of that road would be generally over here, they are right now working with the YMCA to get the YMCA situated over there first as having their existing planned location along Ali‘i Drive. So what you see essentially right over here is the beginning of a real hub; you have commercial areas zoned, you have planned residential areas, you have a school coming up over here, you have possibly the YMCA over here. So then, if this is your core, the surrounding area then becomes your secondary area, which includes Mr. Cook’s property, as well as JKS. So then the question becomes what is the most appropriate use in the secondary area. To me, I think that this plan here is the bull’s eye. It’s right here in the center. So you go back again to what was presented – the core, secondary area and the other area. So we would maintain that you already have the beginnings of well thought-out Neighborhood TOD concept over here – core, secondary area which includes Mr. Cook’s and JKS property, and then the balance of the properties. So now, we get to aside from the map portion and looking at the function, look at what the Planning Director’s first recommendation called for in terms of concurrency, all the improvements that’s required; if you go with the Director’s first recommendation, which you already have, one of the requirements is that neither this project or this project here can get final subdivision approval until this road here, which is nonexistent, is constructed – that fulfills the concept of concurrency because they want to be able to facilitate the development of this core and have everybody kind of filling in, notwithstanding the fact that you do have the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway extension bisecting a portion of it, but nevertheless, this is the identified core, call it flexible or floating or whatever have you. They only proceeded on the basis that this is the core and let’s work with it. So in terms of from a land use standpoint, how do you address concurrency, specifically with the roadway situation, is already embodied in the Planning Director’s initial recommendation. Connectivity, connectivity is that this property here is not, these two properties here are not relying on like the other subdivision before us, or another project before us, is not relying on any other private development; it results in the extension of Ho‘omama Street, which already ends right over here, and so they have direct access. But Ho‘omama Street up until here is only a 50-foot right-of-way. But the intent on the Kona Community Development Plan calls for Ho‘omama Street to be extended all the way through here and eventually connected to Kakalina Street, and this would be like one of your mid-level, and this is your Huallai Road, so it would be kind of like, that kind of situation. So once it hits Mr. Cook and JKS Partners’ property, the right-of-way within that area is not 50 feet; they go 60 feet wide to accommodate more reasonably this north-south kind of connection. And then again, they also have, like, this mauka-makai connection connecting also to this property here, which is already previously zoned and it’s called Hu-Ko-Pa. So what you see on that last sheet, that last sheet here, it shows you the core area, it shows where JKS Partners’ property is, it shows you where Brian Cook’s property is, and it also shows you if and when Hu-Ko-Pa is developed, and the property mauka of that area, how your roadway network would all, kind of like, intertwine. And one of the things that’s very, it has been made painfully clear, too, is that this is not going to be a gated community; because if it were a gated community, then it would frustrate the objectives of the CDP in terms of achieving connectivity. The bottom line is multiple interpretations of the CDP and Neighborhoods, you know, and by virtue of, like, Mr. Matsukawa coming in, Planning Director 5 EXHIBIT C saying one thing yesterday and something today, and then we are hoping that you agree with her initial recommendation and our position today. And one final comment that one way or the other, ultimately – the CDP is something that we have to live with – and ultimately the one that really provides, that needs to provide guidance one way or the other, as in the previous application, is the entity that approved the Plan, and that is the County Council. So whether this body recommends favorably or unfavorably, we strongly recommend, take a position one way or the other, and let the County Council be saddled with this task in trying to clarify this. And hopefully, they will conclude, as I’ve tried to indicate, that this is your core, and that the request then fulfills the spirit and the concept of a Neighborhood TOD. Thank you. HOUSEL: Any questions of the applicant, Commissioners? Mr. Fuke, I had one question. On the mauka property, is there any open space planned? FUKE: The open space planned right now is, like, along this area because there’s a drainage system that comes along this way and – I forgot to mention that – see, right now, it’s like a major drainage system that goes this way and the balance of it kind of like sheet-flows over here. And so what they want to do between these two property owners at their expense – they are spending more than $6,000,000 for a drainage improvement – is to kind of like intercept the water so that it eliminates, you know, the sheet-flow coming into the Pualani area and put it down along this road and into a confined area. So the open space area is pretty much along the edge and also running this way. The natural boundary, however, for – I would rationalize in terms of, like, the green space area – your physical boundary would be the existing stream that goes this way, mauka-makai. Notwithstanding that, between these two property owners, to accommodate the drainage system, what they’ve had to do is set aside considerable land, and they are going to have, like, a walking path adjacent to the floodway; the walking path will probably approximate about two, two and half acres. HOUSEL: Will the floodway be improved, or will it be left in the natural state? COOK: Yes. When we acquired the property, we had a flood study done because it falls within the FEMA’s map of 100-year storm. The FEMA map showed the 100-year storm, which was referenced as Splitflow 2, coming to my property for the most part and then at the very southern makai corner going into JKS property, and at that point it would flow right into the gunite-lined channel that’s there. When we did the flood study and cut the 2-foot contour, we found, as many times it does, the floodplain doesn’t run where it was shown on the FEMA map. Those maps were done a lot of times on aerial photos and the 5-foot contour. So when we did the final study, we found that the floodplain as it comes through the property, just barely starts at the bottom edge to my property and then it goes over through, and at the very corner there at the south corner in the highway is where it’ll actually flow into the highway and won’t even get into the channel to go through the multi-celled box culvert for the roadway. So what we’ve designed by working together is catching the – there is a CLOMR on Bolton’s property next door to us, because Splitflow 1 which goes under a culvert over here, they’ve got a CLOMR for the development of that, and we have Splitflow 2 that comes through our property – so we’ve designed this channel to catch it to get it into that gunite channel, then it would go under the multi-celled box culvert into the area just below the park. And there, there’s the State highway with the project we have on the lower side, Pualani Makai, and when we did the flood study, it determined that a 100-year flood would reach over that highway some 400 feet and possibly wash out the highway. We had to go in and design to correct the problem for the State highway. Our engineer, we just got the plans approved in February of this year, I think, to put in a new aluminum multi-plate culvert; it’ll be 20-foot wide, 14 feet high and 6 EXHIBIT C 135 feet long, which will allow for future four-lane widening of the highway. It goes into our Pualani Makai property, and we have a 40-foot wide channel to go through that property, and at the makai end above Kuakini, we have a large retention basin. So that, it’s important to put those projects together to take care of the flood problems; if we can handle it from the very upper portion and bring it all the way through down to Kuakini with a large retention basin, when you get a 10- year storm or 20-year or 50-year storm, it will handle it and it’ll protect the waterways down below Kuakini. FUKE: So the short answer to your question, these -. COOK: And Sidney has to catch a plane in a little while, so that’s why we are hurrying. FUKE: Yeah. These relate to the two property owners. And this is the extension, the proposed extension of Ho‘omama Street; there is a 50-foot wide right-of-way, this then becomes like 60-foot wide. The drainage system that Brian was referring to is pretty much like over here, and then it would be all captured and then taken down over here. Right now, it’s just kind of like sheet-flow in all this area. But this would not be in, you know, these improvements would not be possible without approval of this project, because those would be done all in conjunction with the development of this project, let alone the roadway I was telling you that connects from Kuakini up to the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway through the Puapua‘a, that project, and servicing the commercial area and all that stuff – those would be all subject to conditions of approval on this zoning. So this doesn’t get, no lots can be sold over here until these improvements are made and the improvements to that commercial area, that roadway network is made. It’s a substantial investment. So we represent that there is a lot of public good associated, infrastructure good associated with the project. And again, when you look at it from a holistic standpoint, notwithstanding the technical language of what the CDP may say, if you look at from a holistic standpoint, does this fit in the so-called the ring – the core, the secondary and the green area – and we maintain it does. HOUSEL: Any questions from the Commissioners? BOWMAN: Can I just see the zoning map again, please? Thank you. I’m a visual -. FUKE: So the property, this is the RS-7.5 area, we are proposing similar RS-7.5 zone in this area. BOWMAN: That’s all. Thank you. HOUSEL: Mr. Fuke, question. Since the adjacent zonings are all RS-10 or larger, why did you consider RS-7.5? FUKE: No, the property to this side is an existing RS-7.5, right here, this is the existing Pualani subdivision -. HOUSEL: Oh, that is 7.5, okay. FUKE: Yes. So this one here is the other one called Hu-Ko-Pa, and the other property you were referring, the first application, was over here. HOUSEL: Right, okay. 7 EXHIBIT C FUKE: So none of these properties take access off of Huallai. But at some point in time when this Ho‘omama Street is extended through this property – there are tentative plans to have, like, another school over here – when this gets extended, it will eventually connect to, I think it’s called Kakalina Street, and that is the concept as espoused in the Kona CDP. HOUSEL: Thank you, thank you for the clarification. Are there any other questions?Would -? GIFFIN: I don’t have a question. I’d like to make a motion. HOUSEL: Would you please make a motion? GIFFIN: Okay. I move that a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use boundary amendment, application No. SLU 10-29, be forwarded to the County Council. BOWMAN: Second. HOUSEL: Motion made by Commissioner Giffin and seconded by Commissioner Bowman. Any discussion? Okay, no discussion. Mr. Darrow, would you like to take a roll? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use boundary amendment request to the Hawai‘i County Council. With that, I’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? HOUSEL: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, six to zero. HOUSEL: Would you like to make a motion, Commissioner Giffin? 8 EXHIBIT C GIFFIN: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that an unfavorable recommendation for the change of zone application, REZ 10-129, be forwarded to the County Council, along with the reasons as stated by the Director. HOUSEL: Do we have a second for the motion? IOKEPA: Second. HOUSEL: Seconded by Commissioner Iokepa. Any discussion? Mr. Darrow, would you read the motion just so we are clear? DARROW: The motion before us is to send an unfavorable recommendation for the change of zone request to the Hawai‘i County Council. With that, I’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: No. DARROW: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? HOUSEL: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, five to one. FUKE: Thank you very much. Half a loaf is better than nothing. The discussion ended at 12:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 9 EXHIBIT C