Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-09-30 THUALALAI LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIÒI HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of HUALLAI PARTNERS OF KONA, LLC (SLU 10-27/REZ 10-127) was called to order at 9:40 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona B Hotel, Ballroom I, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, HawaiÒi, with Chairman Frederic Housel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Frederic Housel, Brandi Beaudet, Geraldine Giffin, Wayne Iokepa, Richard Nelson and Lani Bowman (from 9:43 a.m.) 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: HUALLAI PARTNERS OF KONA, LLC (SLU 10-27/REZ 10-127) 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 10,000 square feet (RS-10) for approximately 14.968 acres of land. The property is located nd Kahului-Hienaloli Road and Huallai Road, north of the Sugar Cane Lane Subdivision, Kahului 2, North Kona, HawaiÒi, TMK: 7-5-17: 43. HOUSEL: The first item on the agenda is the applicant is Huallai Partners of Kona, LLC. This is an application for a State Land Use boundary amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a change of zone from Agricultural 5 acres, Ag-5a, to Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet, RS-10, for approximately 14.96 acres of land. And this land is located southwest of the intersection of Kahului-Hienaloli Road and Huallai Road. Staff, would you care to present? Oh, okay, IÓll make an amendment to that now. Not only are we g first agenda item, but we are also going to take public testimony at this time for Agenda Items 2 and 3. And I wonÓt read those at this time, but if you do want to testify on any of the 1, 2 or 3 items on this agenda, please plan to come forward very shortly. Thank you. It looks like we have a lot more attendees today than we usually do, that we are a little short on seating. So we will be opening up this other side here, and hopefully Î oh, we put in a request Î so we are going to try to open that up and provide seating for everybody to be able to be comfortable during the Planning Commission meeting today. (At this time, 9:42 a.m., the Commission took statements from the public on Agenda Items 1, 2 and 3 Î SEE EXHIBIT B) 1 EXHIBIT A RECESSED The Chair called a recess at 10:34 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 10:51 a.m. HOUSEL: The Leeward Planning Commission, please reconvene. And we are still on Item 1 on the agenda. Staff, would you like to present to the Commissioners on this item? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Planning Commission, good morning. WeÓre going to just wait for the lights to go out here, so that everybody can see. Thank you for everybodyÓs patience. We do have several items on the agenda prior to Item No. 5. It appears that a majority of you are here for Saint MichaelÓs Church, and if you could just be patient with us. Thank you. If I can direct your attention to the presentation on the wall. This morning our first application is from Huallai Partners of Kona, LLC. They are requesting a State Land Use boundary amendment, as well as a change of zone. The area of this application is within the North Kona District of HawaiÒi. More specifically, we are looking in the area of, with Queen KaÒahumanu running in a north-south direction, as well as Huallai Road running in a mauka-makai direction. The colors on the map represent the different zonings for the area. Just to point them out, the darker green is identified as Agricultural 1-acre zoning. The lighter green, which is also the zoning of the subject property, is identified as Agricultural 5 acres. The different shades of yellow and brown represent Single-Family Residential. You have Pualani Estates thatÓs madely of Residential 7,500- square foot lots. You have the Sugar Cane Lane subdivision Î I hope thatÓs correct Î made up of Single-Family 15,000-square foot lots, and then Huallai Heights made up of Single-Family Residential 20,000-square foot lots. This is a closer view of the area, so that you get an indication we are looking at here. If we need to refer to it in the future, we can look at this. The subject property is identified with a black outline. There may be references to other applications. Just to point those out, this one is identified as Huallai Partners, LLC, this one is identified as Brian Cook, and this one is represented as JKS Partners. This particular property, which has been referenced today, is already previously zoned in February of this year; the applicant was Hu-Ko-Pa, and it is currently zoned Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet. This is the State Land Use designations for the area; the green Agricultural, the red, or pink, is State Land Use Urban, and then youÓll see this yellow-type of zoning, which is State Land Use Rural. This is the General Plan LUPAG Map designation for the area; the crosshatched area is identified as Urban Expansion Area, the lighter green is identified as Important Ag Lands, and again, we have Rural, as well as different other Medium-Density Urban and Low-Density Urban identified in yellow. The applicant had requested earlier this year from the Planning Director what the designation of the property is in regards to the General Plan LUPAG Map, as well as the Kona CDP. The Planning Director had determined that this property is within the Urban Expansion Area, as well as located within the Kona Urban Area. This is from the Kona Community Development Plan. This identifies the Transit-Oriented Development. This is identified as the Kahului-PuapuaÒa Village Neighborhood TOD. What IÓve done is identify the subject property on this map; itÓs outlined in black in this area. The red line that 2 EXHIBIT A you see both on the right and left portions of the map, indicate the actual boundaries of the Kona Urban Area. So you can see that the Kona Urban Area comes through this property, as well as the fact that this property is outside of the identified TOD for this particular area. This is an aerial photo. Again, we are showing the property identified with a red outline. We hav Huallai Road running in a mauka-makai direction. We have Queen KaÒahumanu running in a north-south direction, as well as the subdivisions in the particular area. 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 10,000 square feet for approximately 14.968 acres of land. The reason for the request is that the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 45 lots that will be approximately 10,000 square feet in size. The applicant is also proposing to submit a Planned Unit Development application which, if approved, will allow for flexibility in lot and roadway design that includes smaller lot sizes, approximately 7,000 square feet, to be accessed by non-dedicable roadways. This is a proposed layout of the subdivision submitted within the applicantÓs application. We have Pualena Street, which is identified on the south portion of the map Î I just want to make sure I had said that roadway correct, I believe thatÓs correct Î as well as the proposed access that will be meeting up with Parcel 42 on the left side on the map; this is the access that will bring it out to Huallai Road. Huallai Road runs on the right side of the property in this general area. The Planning DepartmentÓs recommendation for the applications is a favorable recommendation for both the State Land Use boundary amendment, as well as the change of zone request for this particular application. Are there any questions? IÓm sorry, before I go onto that, let me take care of some housekeeping business. If I could bring to your attention that, No. 1, there was a revised recommendation that was passed out Î itÓs the yellow copy that you have. There are also some recent submittals that were submitted that I just want to bring to your attention. One is the comment letter from the State Land Use Commission. Just to make sure that you folks have everything that has come in. We also received a letter from the applicant requesting for several revisions to some conditions, and weÓll deal with that after, as well as a letter from the applicant in regards to responding to a letter from Mark Van Pernis. This morning we received a letter from Joel Cooperson, and it was stated on the record earlier that Mr. Van PernisÓ letter, his second letter, is part of that letter in response to the applicantÓs response to his letter. And lastly, we have received a letter from Michael Matsukawa regarding this and the other two applications as well. In regards to the applicantÓs request to revise the several conditions, the Planning Director Î if you folks have that letter, itÓs dated September 23, 2010, the applicant is requesting for a minor change on Condition F to just include the word ÐandÑ Î and the Planning Director is okay with that recommendation. And then also a change to Condition S, which is the fair-share condition, he is asking two changes. One is to change the word ÐmayÑ to Ðshall,Ñ and the Planning Director feels that thatÓs not necessary, that sheÓd rather keep the language ÐmayÑ within the condition, and then lastly to add the words Ðand the portion of the north-south connector road within the project asÑ and then goes on, and then add Condition E to the conditions that were referenced at the end. And we can go ahead and make those changes, if you folks agree with that. Other than that, I think that concludes our presentation. Are there any questions? 3 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Yeah, could you go back to the LUPAG Map? Now, that seems like to me that the green is defined as Important Agricultural, is that correct? DARROW: Correct. HOUSEL: And that basically divides this property? DARROW: The General Plan LUPAG designation is meant to be broad brush, so itÓs not site specific as this map is. But for reference purposes, so that the planners can have a general idea or more specific idea where these are, it has been brought onto a specific location on the map. The General Plan does have a broad brush indication, so it can be moved, I mean it can be expanded as far as the line. In response to the applicantÓs request as to whether or not this particular parcel is Urban Expansion or Important Ag Lands, the Planning Director has determined that this property is Urban Expansion Area. HOUSEL: Okay. Could you go back to the County, the one with pink on it? It must be the State, okay, yeah, so this currently is in Agriculture but the master plan contends this ultimately to be Urban, is that correct? DARROW: ThatÓs the intention that this would be, its long-range plan for this particular area is that it would include the Urban Expansion Area, as well as within the Community Development Plan, it shows it as within the Kona Urban Area. LEITHEAD TODD: Jeff, can you go back to the map with the State Land Use? IÓd like to explain. When I got asked to interpret where the line is, part of the problem is is that when we draw these original maps that are fairly small and then we try to do it with an overlay on a GIS later on, and it hasnÓt translated very well on parcel specific. So when I was looking at this, what I looked at is t fact that you have Hienaloli Road, and that if you look at that, that seems to be where that kind of boundary is in terms of other applications that -. BOWMAN: Could you show the road please? GIFFIN: Jeff, yeah, can you show us where that road is? LEITHEAD TODD: This road up there. GIFFIN: Oh okay. LEITHEAD TODD: And you see that the other Urban classifications that have been done in the past have basically gone up to around that line as the demarcation. So I thought that that was a more consistent interpretation of what the intent was of our maps. And also because it, in terms of trying to decide if a particular parcel is one or the other, we tend to want to try and fit them into one classification rather than having it cut in half, and it made sense that you have that road at the t that that would become the demarcation Î a clear line between Agriculture mauka and then more urban uses makai. PUBLIC: Can I ask a question? DARROW: Not at this time, sir. 4 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Yeah, could you hold your question, please? Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman. Jeff, in the testimony we heard this morning there were references to three different existing subdivisions Î Kona Orchards, Pualani Estates and Heights at Huallai. On that other map, could you show me where those subdivisions are in relationship to the subject property? DARROW: Okay, we have Pualani Estates -. GIFFIN: The yellow. DARROW: Which is mainly the yellow, correct. And we have Huallai Heights identified with the lighter yellow, or tan. And then we have, I believe this is called Sugar Cane Lane Subdivision. And then additionally, I believe this was the area that the other testifiers testified, mauka of the project, which is called Kona Orchards, I believe. GIFFIN: Okay. There was also reference during their testimony that there was going to be use of some private roads for the subject agenda items. Where are thos DARROW: The private road that they were referring to is Pualena Street, which is this road. This would be PuapuaÒanui Street, and that is the main mauka-makai connector. And then you have these, this is actually a stub-out on this particular road that appears to be there to create connectivity to the parcels to the north, and so thatÓs the road that they were referring to there. Now, additionally, they were also referring to a proposed road thatÓs required from this applicant to provide connectivity to these particular parcels to allow connection to Huallai Street. GIFFIN: And those roads that you just pointed out, the testifiers said that those were in fact private roads. Is that true, Jeff? DARROW: At this time they are not dedicated to the County, so they are considered private. LEITHEAD TODD: Jeff, is there a requirement in the future that the roads be dedicated to the County? DARROW: IÓm not sure about this particular road, but we would need to make sure of that. Ki, are you familiar whether or not thatÓs -. HOUSEL: Ki, would you come forward, please? LEITHEAD TODD: The other thing that I wanted to point out is, if you look at the alignment of Huallai Road, you can see that it curves a lot. But that one portion below the subject property, on the property thatÓs already been rezoned, thatÓs the one area where itÓs fairly straight. And when we were looking at this, we felt that that was the best place to have a road access Huallai for sight distance purposes, as oppose to trying to bring a road in on another section, because the sight distance along that area is very good, whereas if you try to do it further mauka with the curves closer to Hienaloli, then you donÓt have good sight distance because of those curves. And that was one of the decisions made that the connection should be there. If you do a connection further up, then you really have to re-engineer Huallai. And that might be something that Ki could address. 5 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: And then while heÓs doing that, I have one more question. In that existing, the new existing subdivision, which is just below the subject property, Jeff, you just said something about there is some sort of stipulation for a connecting road in that subdivision for the subject property, as well as the property that we are going to be covering later on today, is that correct? DARROW: Correct. This would be Condition H under Ordinance 10 2, which states, ÐRoadway connections to adjoining parcels, TMK: 5-17:41, 44 and 43, shall be provided.Ñ GIFFIN: Okay, so those were conditions of the subdivision approval for that yellow RS-10 parcel. DARROW: For the ordinance approval. Additionally, my co-worker reminded me that we did look into the conditions for this particular roadway. This portion of the roadway through Huallai Heights was not required to dedicate, although this portion within Sugar Cane Lane Subdivision was required to dedicate. GIFFIN: Okay, so, then eventually that road will be a County road, that portion. DARROW: Well, thatÓs the question. HOUSEL: Could we ask Mr. Emler to give us his input? Ki, I need to swear you in to help us. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth? EMLER: Swear to tell the truth, yes. HOUSEL: Thank you. Could you state your name, please? EMLER: My name is Kiran Emler. IÓm with the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division Kona. HOUSEL: Could you help us a little bit to clarify the status of that road that will connect eventually to this subject property. EMLER: Speaking of Pualena Street -. HOUSEL: ThatÓs correct. EMLER: Through Sugar Cane Lane? HOUSEL: Right. EMLER: The status of it is itÓs been completed, construction is completed, itÓs gotten final approval Î thatÓs the status right now. ItÓs still private. HOUSEL: Does that meet the Department of Public Works standards currently? EMLER: Yes. HOUSEL: So it could be dedicated -. 6 EXHIBIT A EMLER: Correct. HOUSEL: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Emler? Thank you. EMLER: Can I bring up an issue that I noticed in the conditions for rezoning? And that is, there is no requirement for them to provide the stub-out to Pualena Street, I noticed, in the conditions. IÓm just pointing that out. DARROW: I believe there, if I can just look at that, we talked about that on the way out this morning -. EMLER: I guess I was just looking at Condition E. It wasnÓt included in that one; maybe itÓs in another one. BOWMAN: ItÓs Condition G. DARROW: Correct. Condition G. EMLER: Okay, I stand corrected. Thank you. HOUSEL: Jeff, can you, the outline of the, the upper outline of the subject property doesnÓt go all the way to Huallai Road. Who owns that little triangle, there, of land? DARROW: Are we talking about this? HOUSEL: ThatÓs right. DARROW: Those are identified as Parcels 40 Î let me just confirm there Î Parcels 30 and, yeah, I believe thatÓs Parcel 30. Those portions, even though the Department of Public Works requested that improvements be done along those, they are not owned by the applicant, and so in all legality we canÓt ask them to do the improvements in there. These portions here are fronting Huallai Road via the applicantÓs property. HOUSEL: Right. That was my concern that Huallai Road is a substandard road, and although the applicant is agreeing to make improvements along their boundary, just making improvements the short ways will not benefit the road. DARROW: IÓm not sure I would be the one to answer that question, but it appears that the intention is to be able to realign this and be able to help out this particular area; they may not be able to do anything in this general location, but it looks like quite a bit of an improvement can be done in this general area. GIFFIN: So what was your question again, Mr. Chairman? HOUSEL: My question is that the entire length of Huallai Road is vastly unimproved, itÓs very narrow, itÓs a major collector, there is a lot of traffic there, and itÓs a dangerous road, and so even improving just part of that will not significantly improve the entire road. 7 EXHIBIT A DARROW: ItÓs been brought to my attention that the County does have the option of making those improvements, but itÓs not something that we can place on the applicant, being that, again, he is not the owner of that particular parcel. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any other questions? BOWMAN: Could you please show us the Î what do you call the map where you can actually see it Î the -? HOUSEL: Aerial view? BOWMAN: The aerial view, thank you, sorry. Do you know -? I mean I donÓt know if this is a question, but it doesnÓt seem like a majority of the subdivisions are built out. Do we have any idea of how many are not even sold, the lots? DARROW: No idea, but this picture was taken probably in 2006, so itÓs quite outdated. BOWMAN: Okay, thatÓs what I figured. And there was mention that there are, I think it was 25,000, vacant urban lots in Kona. Is that -? GIFFIN: Yeah, one of the testifiers -. BOWMAN: One of the, the first testifier I think it was Î IÓm sorry I didnÓt write it down. Okay, thank you. HOUSEL: Thank you, Jeff. Any other questions, Commissioners? No? DARROW: Thank you. HOUSEL: Thank you. LetÓs call the applicant to the table here, if we can. Could you please raise your right hand, and please use the microphone? Do you swear to tell the whole truth before the Planning Commission today on this matter? APPLICANTS: I do. HOUSEL: Thank you. Mr. Lim, would you like to lead? LIM: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good morning. COMMISSIONERS: Good morning. LIM: IÓm here representing Huallai Partners of Kona, LLC, and sitting next to me is Mr. Frederick Ted Barrett, who is the manager. HOUSEL: If you could, please state your name and address, please. BARRETT: My name is Ted Barrett, 1759 Esteban Avenue, Laughlin, Nevada. HOUSEL: Thank you. 8 EXHIBIT A LIM: Thank you very much. WeÓve received the background and recommendation, and have no comments. We note that the Planning Director has incorporated most of our proposed amendments to the conditions that we proposed to the Commission. We agree with those changes. I think part of the issues that youÓve been hearing, and as you can see from the mapping, I donÓt know if there is a misconception from the Heights at Huallai subdivision, but we will not be able to connect up to them until such time as the parcel to the immediate south, which is Parcel 22, is developed. The roadway layout within this particular project was worked on with the Department of Public Works over the last year. And I think you probably know that if the developer had his choice, he wouldnÓt put a more expensive north-south road through the project, but thatÓs part of the connectivity issue, thatÓs what the Kona CDP requires. And so thatÓs why youÓve got an extension down into heading towards the Sugar Cane Lane project and the Heights at Huallai, which is the Pualena Street extension. So essentially, what we are doing is we are doing our part to implement the Kona CDP to run the road through our project out to Huallai Road. Part of the other benefit of the project, and something that I t because we are just working with the Department of Public Works on, is there is a significant drainage way located further north of the property that comes do highway, more makai of the project; however, the drainage in the area has been diverse, and some of the Kona Orchards residents indicated that the water is coming through their project out onto Huallai Road. What the project is proposing to do is to install a series of drywells and drainage basins through the project, and essentially what we are going to do is, although itÓs not our legal duty to do so, we are going to try to pick up as much of that sheet flow coming down from the mauka off Huallai Road as possible within our project. So we are going to be, I think, contributing substantially to the potential drainage issues in that area. I think that weÓd like to ask for your support. We think itÓs in compliance with the Kona CDP and the General Plan for the area. And we think itÓll provide needed residential lots, because not everybody can afford, you know, a $500,000 half-acre lot or one-acre lot or higher, I guess. So we are trying to provide a little bit of a lower-end product, and Mr. Barrett has full intentions of developing this project as shown. The concern, the last concern, I guess, was kind of, you know, this is too dense of a project, the RS 10,000-square foot lots are too dense. One thing that will ameliorate that concern to some degree, I think, is when you look at the Î Jeff, give that project concept plan, please Î when you look at the lots that are going to be on the mauka side of the project, which is the area fronting Huallai Road and the area thatÓs to the south thatÓs going to be closest to the Sugar Cane Lane and the Heights at Huallai project, thatÓs all this area to the right of your screen and to the south there, those lots range from, up to 15,500 square feet. We are going to be doing the Planned Unit Development. As you can see, thereÓs lots of smaller lots down closer to the interior portion of the project, thatÓs partly due to the topography where you have to reduce your cut and fill; so the actual vision that you would see as you drive along Huallai Road is, those lots on top there are averaging about 13,156 square feet in size anyway, and those lots you see are up to 15,500 square feet along the top there of the project. So we donÓt think itÓs going to be out of the character with the neighborhood. Thank you. HOUSEL: Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? Mr. Lim, I had a question to clarify. There is a parcel of land between the Sugar Cane Estates and the subject property, and we are talking about Pualena Street. Do you have an agreement with the adjacent landowner to allow that street to go through? 9 EXHIBIT A LIM: No, we donÓt. We are doing, all we are doing is we are following the dictates of the Department of Public Works and the Kona CDP to stub out to the s HOUSEL: Okay. Have you spoken with the adjacent landowner? LIM: IÓve spoken to him a long time ago, and I donÓt know what his current plans are. HOUSEL: I see, okay. Now, one of the things you stated in your application was that you felt this land qualified to be infill per the Kona CDP. Could you explain that, please? LIM: ThatÓs correct. The Kona CDP was essentially, I think, at least in my opinion, was set up to identify areas within Kona that would be proposed for a development, more so that the outside areas, and the infill was areas of land development in the general boundaries of existing urban and suburban areas. And we feel that it complies with the Kona CDP in that weÓve got existing urban and suburban areas immediately surrounding it. I think you saw from the General Plan LUPAG Map where the Urban Expansion Area was, that entire area should be going out to residential; there is a plan to do that in the General Plan anyway. HOUSEL: It seems like to me the definition as stated in the Kona CDP is infill is intended for land that has been previously developed or is surrounded by existing developments, is that correct? LIM: No, I think thatÓs an incorrect statement, and I think you are getting that from one of th glossary terms in the back of the design guidelines. And you should know that that was imported into the Kona CDP, wholesale from the Smart Code without any kind of calibration here. ItÓs inconsistent with the other definitions within the Kona CDP itself. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Giff GIFFIN: I donÓt know if this question is better asked of Ki, but just looking at the existing roadways, looking at the proposed 45 lots of the subject property, the greatest impact of this traffic that would be resulting from the 45 lots would be where? I mean not kamaÒina to that, so I just want to know, maybe from the applicantÓs representative or from Ki, the greatest impact. LIM: The two main entrances for the project are, you can see where the makai boundary of the parcel is -. BOWMAN: You get the -. Can you use the -? GIFFIN: Jeff has it. LIM: Okay. Off of the project concept, the one connection would be south to Pualena whenever that gets opened up; the other connection would be makai and right there on the makai portion of the project, you see this road tailing off, that will be developed, as the Planning Director was talking, into that Huallai Road connector right at the one straight way where thereÓs adequate sight distance. There will also be another roadway coming from the Huallai Road section back through the makai project, which is Parcel 42, out to Paulehia Street when that gets finally dedicated in the 10 EXHIBIT A Pualani Estates subdivision. So the whole idea would be to, when you look at the area-wide street maps, you can see that all these north-south roadways are attempting to contact all the way through. GIFFIN: Could we look at that other map? Where is Jeff? Jeff, the one that shows this subject property in relationship to the adjoining property. BOWMAN: And the roadways. I canÓt visualize what you were saying DARROW: HowÓs that one? LIM: That one there. So you can see the parcel in question, and the next parcel down is when I was talking about Î IÓm not real good at this, okay Î so the actual entry to Huallai Road here coming out the project, we are coming here, and what you will se IÓm going to the right one Î Pualena. Paulehia Street is here. So what youÓll have is a north-south connector here and another north-south connector coming this way. As I understand it, thereÓs further north-south connectors going this way to Huallai Road also. So the whole idea being to connect up this network of roadways within the Kona area, because thatÓs been one of the bigger problems where subdivisions have essentially been developed and they shut off these north-south roads, so you canÓt go across the mountain. BOWMAN: IÓm sorry. And there is a direct, I mean, a connection through -. LIM: Huallai Road? BOWMAN: Yeah, to Huallai. LIM: Yeah, itÓll be right about there Î sorry for the shaky hand. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. DARROW: Mr. Chairman, I do also have a preliminary subdivision layout for the property in yellow, the Hu-Ko-Pa property, if you folks would like to see that. GIFFIN: Oh, good. Yeah, where is the proposed road? HOUSEL: Yeah, weÓd like to see that, please. LIM: So this is where you can see the connector to Huallai Road up there on the top right corner, and youÓll see this, kind of a, I think this is probably an older version of the plan -. DARROW: Correct. LIM: What we saw for now, into a kind of an S-turn coming down t thatÓs Paulehia Street. ThatÓll be designed to minor street standards, County dedicable standards, and dedicated to the County as part of the requirement for that project. GIFFIN: And those internal roads already exist, or they are going to be put in? LIM: They will be constructed. 11 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: And what is the timetable in relationship to the subject property? LIM: For that particular project, we have a Planned Unit Development application in also and we have to get that approved, then after that I think we will go with the subdivision application notice Î I estimate a year and half to two years for the issuance of final subdivision approval. HOUSEL: Any more? Okay. Mr. Lim, I had one other question. As you are aware, the Kona Community Development Plan has set a preference, as this is not in a TOD but itÓs and what would be called the TND, and the conventional rezoning that you are requesting is an alternative to the TND. Did you consider a TND? LIM: We discussed it briefly with the Director, but we felt that because we didnÓt have the minimum size that itÓs very difficult to plan these TNDÓs or TODÓs. A lot of the TND and TOD concepts, at least as I understand them, are intended to be these complex concentrated urban developments that they will have some urban core where youÓve got commercial retail, you get, you know, the more residential out further and less dense residential and some greenbelt on the outside. And you really canÓt do that unless youÓve got a large project, like, the County heads the plan that you guys had had review, the Honokhau Village TOD, something like that where youÓve got, you know, a significant amount of acreage and itÓs located along one of the transit lines that are planned, because that was the whole intent, at least as I understand, of the TND. And the TOD was this Transit-Oriented Development where you would have the buses or mor whatever else in the future, and you plan these big urban projects. And this is just not appropriate for that. HOUSEL: Now, you know, and IÓm referring to the letter from the Land Use Commission regarding these four parcels, which are apparently individually owned but have a lot of thing in common, that could potentially be considered a TND; there is a large enough, there is 60 acres in that total area there that youÓve, you know, you obviously with connecting roads to adjacen properties, youÓre doing some cooperative efforts, that maybe you would consider working with the other owners to develop a TND per the Kona CDP. LIM: ThatÓs, one of the issues that the smaller developers like this one have is you really donÓt have the ability to work with some of the other developers because we donÓt know what their timing is, and there is obviously the infrastructure cost issues. So, as - (interrupted by a comment from the public). HOUSEL: Please continue. Sorry. LIM: So I guess, in short, no, we feel like the project was a small project and we could not do that with the other developers. We didnÓt even know they were going to be coming up at the same time as we were. HOUSEL: Well, I participated in the Kona CDP, and I think the general intent was to do planned development for our community, and that everyone, all landowners and everyone was encouraged to, you know, cooperate together to do mass planning and instead of piece-meal planning. So I would certainly encourage everyone to try to cooperate together and maybe coordinate their schedules, I realize that itÓs not practical for everyone to do that but, do the best they could to try to meet the intention of the Kona CDP. 12 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask the representative to respond to a concern that was raised by one of the testifiers earlier this morning. Mr. Joel Cooperson mentioned that apparently there was no attempt at paying for infrastructure. And Mr. Lim, earlier in your testimony you mentioned the construction of drywells to talk about prevention of flooding. Was that part of what you would meet infrastructure cost, or is that separate? LIM: I didnÓt understand his comment about us not paying for infrastructure, but we are going to be required by the Department of Public Works to put in all the roads and drainage. Actually, you know, technically and legally, you are supposed to handle the runoff from your project only; if there is water coming from the mauka area through your project -. GIFFIN: Which is the case, right? LIM: You canÓt increase it. Yeah. And so, ordinarily we would not be required to pick up all of water, but thatÓs what we are going to be doing. GIFFIN: By the construction of the drywells. LIM: ThatÓs correct. GIFFIN: So thatÓs from water coming from above the subject property. LIM: Yes, itÓs coming from the Kona Orchards project. LEITHEAD TODD: Mr. Lim, how many total lots? LIM: We have 45 lots, which we will be developing through a Planned Unit Development, which would allow us to create smaller lots in certain areas with the topography will allow it, so we donÓt have to cut everything and bench it. LEITHEAD TODD: And you are being required to pay $12,000 per lot in fair share contributions to the County to mitigate parks, police, fire, solid waste and road improvements. LIM: If approved, yes. LEITHEAD TODD: So thatÓs roughly how much? LIM: ItÓs a lot. I donÓt know -. I think the combined total was about, letÓs see -. LEITHEAD TODD: I just grabbed my calculator. So your contribution is $542,679.75 in addition to other infrastructure you are going to be required to do withi LIM: ThatÓs correct. LEITHEAD TODD: And the reason that I did not agree to the word ÐshallÑ and kept the word ÐmayÑ is that there is no guarantee that you will be given credit against the fair share for any of the work that you do; thatÓs going to be up to the County Council. LIM: We understand. 13 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Commissioners, are there any other questions of the applicants? Okay. Thank you very much. LIM: Thank you very much. HOUSEL: I guess one thing that I left out was that since weÓve taken all the testimony, at least on this Item No. 1, IÓd like to close the public testimony on this. Would someone like to make a motion to close the public testimony? GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I so move. HOUSEL: Do we have a second? BOWMAN: Second. HOUSEL: Thank you. Okay, it was moved and -. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. HOUSEL: Opposed? Okay. Commissioner Giffin moved that we close the public testimony on Item 1, and seconded by Commissioner Bowman. The public testimony is now closed. Would someone like to make a motion, please? BOWMAN: Question. Do we take them both together, the change of zone and the State Land Use boundary amendment? HOUSEL: No, I believe we take them separately. BOWMAN: Which one goes first? HOUSEL: Pardon? We do the Land Use -. BOWMAN: Land Use first. Okay. HOUSEL: I guess, Deputy Corporation Counsel, could we maybe get some clarification that these two applications are separate and they are independent of each other? The Land Use boundary amendment and the change of zone, that they are not contingent on each other? GONZALEZ: You are going to have to vote on them separately. ItÓs cleaner for the record, if you make separate motions for each. HOUSEL: Right. But one doesnÓt, one being denied or approved doesnÓt affect the other, is that correct? GONZALEZ: Well, you kind of need the one for the other. 14 EXHIBIT A LEITHEAD TODD: I would say that you canÓt do the rezoning unless you could approve the Land Use and then not do the rezoning, but you canÓt do the rezoning unless the Land Use is changed, you know. HOUSEL: Okay, that helps. Thank you. BOWMAN: I move that we send an unfavorable recommendation for the State Land Use boundary amendment, SLU 10-27. HOUSEL: Do we have a second on that? GONZALEZ: Well, first, you need to state your reasons because the recommendation from the Department and the Director is for a favorable recommendation. BOWMAN: I have concerns of the project density, of the traffic on Huallai Road, of the future potential connectors with the other proposed projects. I think thatÓs it for right now. HOUSEL: Do we have a second for the motion? NELSON: Second. HOUSEL: Seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Any discussion? I guess I -. GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman -. HOUSEL: Yeah, Sure, Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: And maybe this is directed to the Director. If we have traffic concerns on the impact tha the proposed subject property would have on the surrounding subdivisions and areas, is the denial of the State Land Use boundary amendment the place where we should bring, I mean, is that directly correlated to each other, is my question. LEITHEAD TODD: You can do one and then not do the other. But this is really a decision for the Commission to make at this point. We have submitted our recommendation and I think itÓs up to you folks to deliberate and use your best judgment. GIFFIN: Thank you. HOUSEL: Any further discussion? NELSON: IÓd like to make a comment about the design of the road. The last left-turn before it gets to Queen K Î I travel there frequently, and if youÓre coming downhill, there is a tendency to go beyond the normal speed limit when you are coming down Î but when you make that left turn on there, there seems to be, particularly if itÓs at night, it can become a very dangerous turn with the given less usage of vehicles right now. Increasing the number of vehicle usage potential there could just simply increase that one particular corner unless the County road division will take a look at it to make some design changes to eliminate any potential reckless driving, particularly going downhill. And I just thought IÓd bring it up now since Commissioner Bowman made that comment about her concern about increase traffic use of Huallai Road. 15 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Thank you, Commissioner Nelson. BOWMAN: And I would like to add I do believe that the applicantÓs improvements to Huallai would be mauka of where their access would be, correct? GIFFIN: I donÓt understand that. BOWMAN: Could you show where their improvements to Huallai are going to be made? DARROW: ThereÓs improvements in this area thatÓs proposed, as well as improvements to this area that are proposed. BOWMAN: Okay, and theyÓre straightaway. But the majority of the traffic will be going Î is that south, is that -. HOUSEL: Yeah, makai. BOWMAN: West? DARROW: They will be exiting the property from this general location. NELSON: Getting onto Queen K, which would be the primary source of direction. BOWMAN: So all the improvements, I mean, albeit theyÓll do it, thereÓs not a majority of the traffic because thereÓs no access from the division onto the upp DARROW: Correct. BOWMAN: Thank you. HOUSEL: Any other comments, Commissioners? IÓd like to share some comments I have about this. I am very concerned about, one of the principles of the Kona CDP is connectivity through our neighborhoods, and without an agreement to connect the southern end of this development, IÓm very concerned about that. IÓm also concerned about the density; IÓm not sure if thatÓs really appropriate even though some of the planned lot sizes will be larger than 10,000 acres (sic). IÓm also concerned about the condition of the substandard Huallai Road, and if really the road can be improved just with this development to be safe with the additional traffic thatÓs going to be flowing on it. So those are my concerns. Okay, Mr. Darrow, would you like to -. GIFFIN: I had a comment. HOUSEL: Oh, one more question? GIFFIN: Yeah, in the Traffic Impact Analysis for this project, IÓm reading here on Page 16 of that report that the Ðtraffic study concludes that the levels of service at the intersection of 1) PuapuaÒanui Street and Queen K Highway; and 2) Huallai Road and Paulehia Street will be ÒAÓ or ÒBÓ during the AM and PM peak hours and are thus Òacceptable levels of serviceÓ, in compliance with the Concurrency Requirements for development of the Project È.Ñ 16 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Thank you. Any other comments from the Commissioners? Planning Director. LEITHEAD TODD: I would just say that whether they have an agreement with Lot 22 or not, if and when Lot 22 comes in either for a subdivision or a rezoning, the Department in keeping in consistency with the CDP would require that that road be put in and connect to both the Sugar Lane as well as this, and thatÓs because when we review these, you know, we are required to try and do connectivity between developments regardless of whether they com different time frames because thatÓs the goal. And theyÓre going to be hiccups along the way because some of these subdivisions the roads are private, but the CDP is saying that we need to have the connectivity whether the roads are private or not. So at some point the County may have to address the whole issue of whether you go in and exercise eminent domain to take over the roa or if the community associations want to hand over the liability and road maintenance issues to the County and subsequently dedicate. And also, you note that part of this is because the CDP is in direct opposition to gated communities and thatÓs one reason why they want the connectivity. So when things come in to our office, we try to look at them in terms of not just the application in front us but try to make sure that thereÓs the opportunity to connect in the future. HOUSEL: Thank you. Any other comments? Mr. Darrow, could you read the motion, please? DARROW: Sure. The motion before us is to send an unfavorable recommendation to the HawaiÒi County Council for the State Land Use boundary amendment request HOUSEL: Okay, would you like to -? DARROW: With that, IÓll take the roll. Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Nay. DARROW: Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Nay. DARROW: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Nay. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? HOUSEL: Aye. 17 EXHIBIT A DARROW: The motion does not pass, three to three. GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman? HOUSEL: Yes. GIFFIN: IÓd like to make a new motion. I move that a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use boundary amendment application be forwarded to the County Council for SLU 10-27. HOUSEL: Do we have a second for the motion? BEAUDET: I second. HOUSEL: Commissioner Beaudet seconded your motion. Any discussion? Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the HawaiÒi County Council for the State Land Use Boundary amendment request. With that, IÓll take the roll. Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: No. DARROW: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Nay. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? HOUSEL: No. DARROW: Commissioner Iokepa, what was your -? IOKEPA: Nay. DARROW: Nay? GIFFIN: No, you said aye. 18 EXHIBIT A IOKEPA: IÓm sorry, aye. HOUSEL: Okay. DARROW: The motion does not pass, three to three. Thank you. LIM: Mr. Chairman, may I make a request on behalf of the applicant? It doesnÓt appear that you are going to be able to go one way, either which way. We would prefer that the Commission take unfavorable recommendation and send us up to the Council with that on both, if thatÓs what the outcome is going to be. So I request that. LEITHEAD TODD: Jeff, can you check our rules? I think the failure to have a motion either way means that it goes up with unfavorable. DARROW: Sure. We are checking it at this time on the State Land LEITHEAD TODD: Can we take a five-minute break while we check our rules? HOUSEL: Sure. LetÓs take a five-minute break. RECESSED The Chair called a recess at 11:51 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 12:00 p.m. HOUSEL: LetÓs come back and reconvene our Planning Commission meng today. There was not a majority on the vote for the Land Use boundary amendment. We should try to make a determination on the change of zone application. So would someone like to make a motion for that? GIFFIN: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that we do have to vote, but I just want to know, since the State Land Use boundary amendment was not passed, what effect does that have on the change of zone? HOUSEL: Well, corporation counsel? GONZALEZ: As the Director stated clearly, you canÓt have a change of zone without the Land Use boundary amendment, but we still have to take a vote on it because our code requires us to send a recommendation, if we can. So the way I look at it is itÓs part of the discussion and part of the basis for your reasoning on how you vote on this case, on the change of zone, if itÓs been precluded or not because of your previous vote, if thatÓs a fact that weighs on y another you are, for both instances, you are voting on the type of recommendation you are sending to the Council because the Council is going to be the final determining authority on this. HOUSEL: Corporation Counsel, Brandon, is it permissible to, as we have to do the vote on the rezone application, for the Commissioners to reconsider the application for the State Land Use boundary after the vote on the rezoning? GONZALEZ: I donÓt fully understand your question, Mr. Chair. 19 EXHIBIT A HOUSEL: Well, could they reconsider their position on the Land Use boundary and possibly take a re-vote on the Land Use boundary? GONZALEZ: Well, if any of the Commissioners want to ask to reconsider the previous matter, they can do so, as long as they can articulate the reason why they want to, especially at this meeting. HOUSEL: Okay, so, does everybody -? Oh, okay, you donÓt want to do that. Okay. BOWMAN: So I have a motion. I move that we send an unfavorable change of zone request, 10-27 (sic), to the County Council. HOUSEL: I think, Commissioner Bowman, as the Planning Director recommended a favorable recommendation, probably it would be advisable to state a reason why. BOWMAN: Okay, it would be the same reason as the State Land Use. Sorry. Thank you. HOUSEL: Thank you. Do we have a second? NELSON: Second. HOUSEL: Seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Do we have any discussion on the rezoning? Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send an unfavorable recommendation to the HawaiÒi County Council for the change of zone request. With that, IÓll take the roll. Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Nay. DARROW: Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Nay. DARROW: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Nay. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? HOUSEL: Aye. 20 EXHIBIT A DARROW: The motion does not pass, three to three. HOUSEL: So I guess, to be clear, since there was no majority -. GONZALEZ: There is no action. HOUSEL: There would be no action and no recommendation to the County Council? GONZALEZ: ThatÓs correct. Right now, Rule 13 doesnÓt have Î well, actually thatÓs the previous one Î weÓll look at it, if you canÓt get an affirmative vote, whether it goes up with unfavorable or favorable. If there is no rule on going either way, itÓs going to go up indicating that the Commission is unable to vote on the majority either way. So the record is established that you guys were split. And if there is a rule that triggers automatic favorable or automatic unfavorable an applicable, then that would be applied as well. The important thing is everybodyÓs position was clearly established on the record today for the Council to review and it will be forwarded now to the Council for final decision making. HOUSEL: Thank you, thank you very much. The discussion ended at 12:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 21 EXHIBIT A