Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-21 TKKVDG PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 21, 2005 KAILUA KONA VILLAGE A regularly advertised hearing on the application of DEVELOPMENT GROUP (SSV 05-001) was called to order at 10:30 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Islander Room, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii with Chairman Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Fred GaldonesABSENT & EXCUSED: Hannah Springer C. Kimo AlamedaAllen Salavea Jeffrey McCall Rodney H. Watanabe Rene€ Siracusa William R. Graham Chris Yuen, Deputy Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel And approximately 5 people from the public in attendance. KAILUA KONA VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT GROUP (SSV 05-001) Continuationofa hearing on the application for a Shoreline Setback Variance to allow the construction of an outdoorseatinglanaitotheexistingrestaurantproposedwithinthe40-footshorelinesetback area. The property is the site of the existing Kona Inn Shopping Village, Kailua Village, Kailua- Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-5-7:21. GALDONES:Commissioners we are on agenda item number 5, unfinished business, Kailua-Kona Village Development Group SSV 05-001. This is a continuation of a hearing on the application for a Shoreline Setback Variance to allow the construction of an outdoor seating lanai to the existing restaurant proposed within the 40-foot shoreline setback area. Jeff? DARROW:Thank you Mr. Chairman. If I could direct your attention to the location map on the board. The area of this application is within the North Kona District of Hawaii more specifically in the area near Alii Drive and Palani Road. In fact very close to where we€re at, at this time. Just for bearing we€re actually in this area at this time, if you were to travel on Alii Drive we€d be looking at the Kona Inn Shopping Village which is identified with a blue dot. The applicant in this case Kailua Kona Village Development Group is requesting a shoreline setback variance for an outdoor seating lanai. Originally the applicant requested the infilling of an existing swimming pool as well as an outdoor seating lanai that projected 20 feet into the 40-foot EXHIBIT E 1 setback. The Planning Department determined that the infilling of the swimming pool didnot need a variance and the applicant had met with the Planning Director and came to an agreement that they would eliminate the makai most seating row and therefore have 1 seating row that would extend into the shoreline setback 8 feet 10 inches. The area identified in blue is an existing rock wall that is, was determined on January 24, 2005 by the Chairman of the Board of Land and Natural Resources to be the certified shoreline so that would be at the base of the makai side of this wall. The applicant is also proposing in this particular area to fix a ADA accessible ramp in this particular area to allow the public to be able to come from the south lawn grass area as well as the public access area and to be able to come into this area to the north of the Kona Inn Shopping Village. The Planning Department has not received any letters of opposition or support for this particular application. The Planning Director is recommending that this request be approved by the Planning Commission. I do have a few minor changes that I€d like to bring to your attention. We apologize for the several revised background and recommendations. The second revised background and recommendation will be the final backgroundandrec.We€dliketoincorporatethefirstrevisedintothesecondsowe€dbeadding the underlying portion that is in the first revised under subsection 1-B and we will incorporate that into subsection 1-B in the second revised. Additionally on page 2 of the background, in item 2E bullet number 1 on the last line we€d like to change 20 feet to 8 feet 10 inches and additionally the same change made on the third bullet on the third line, 20 feet to 8 feet 10 inches. Apologize for that error. Are there any questions? GALDONES:Commissioners any questions of Jeff? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Jeff is the ADA ramp physically contiguous in any way with the seating area that€s being requested? DARROW:Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I€m going to pass out some photos here. We€re going to be looking to photo number 3 and number 1. You can see it in a photo number 1 will display the area where the lanai will be placed and to the right along the wall will be the area where this ADA ramp will be placed. As far as it being, is your question that it, is it connected to the seating lanai? It appears to be separate from it. But it will enhance the public access for this area. GRAHAM:Thank you. GALDONES:Any further questions of Jeff? Seeing none is the representative or the applicant here? Will you please step forward? Mr. Lim I have already sworn you in and you€re still under oath. Will the gentleman next to you be making a statement? LIM:Yes he will. GALDONES:Okay, may I have him sworn in? Please raise your right hand sir. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? KIMI:Yes I do. EXHIBIT E 2 GALDONES:Could you please state your name and your residence address? KIMI:William J. Kimi, Jr. GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Kimi. And your residence Mr. Kimi? KIMI:My residence is Kailua and Hilo. GALDONES:Thank you. Mr. Lim have you folksreceived a copy of the background report and the recommendations and also if you have any comments to the revision that was stated by staff? LIM:We€vereceived copies of the second revised background report and recommendationandhavenocomments. GALDONES:Therevisionsareacceptablealso? LIM:That€scorrect. GALDONES:CommissionersarethereanyquestionsofMr.Lim? SIRACUSA:I€m a little bit confused from looking at those photos. There€s a grassy area and then there€s the wall and in picture number 1 are you saying that the additional seating would be on the makai side of the wall and not on the grassy area? LIM:No the additional seating is going to be located right adjacent to this building that you see there. SIRACUSA:On the grassy area? LIM:Mauka side of the grassy area. SIRACUSA:Okay so the wall is the certified shoreline? LIM:That€s correct. SIRACUSA:Then if its mauka of the wall then its, I don€t understand how its within the-? LIM:It€s mauka of the wall but against the building that you see in the photo there, the first photo. SIRACUSA:But I€m saying is that I€m trying to get a picture of this while looking at this picture. We€re asking for additional seating but-, mauka of the wall but the wall is EXHIBIT E 3 contiguous with the certified shoreline. So that would mean that it€s not within the shoreline setback area? Or you€re talking about the 40-foot after? LIM:The 40-feet mauka of the certified shoreline. SIRACUSA:Ah, okay, okay I got it now, thank you. GALDONES:Are there any questions Commissioners? Seeing that there is no further questions or no further comments from the Commissioners. The Chair is asking if there are any testimony here from the public on this matter before the Planning Commission? There€s none. Mr. Lim do you have any closing comments? LIM:Just a short presentation. We€d like to thank first of all the Planning Director and his staff for working with Uncle Billy. I think most of you know who he is. He has theUncleBilly€sestablishmentsincludingtheKonaInnShoppingCenter.They€vebeen working on this for quite some years now and I think with the assistance of the Director and his staff we€ve managed to reach a solution that both works for the County and for us. This is one of the, probably one of the few private projects that will be able to take advantage of the public interest standard exception for your variances. Because as you probably know if you€ve gone down to the Kona Inn Shopping Center in the afternoon you€ll see numerous people in wheel chairs and the public are essentially using the front lawn of the Kona Inn as like a public gathering place. And this proposed improvements to include the ADA accessible wheel chair ramp improvements will be opening up the north side of the property and as we discussed with the Planning Director this is probably one of the few areas between here and Huggo€s that is private property that is open to the public. So we appreciate the Planning Commission€s support on this application. Uncle Billy do you want to say anything? KIMI:Yeah, I want to thank our Planning Director Chris Yuen and the Commission for approving this application. I know maybe through this project this will be one st of the highlights of the Village. Incidentally as of the 1 of the month Uncle Billy has given the restaurant over to Kona Inn. Kona Inn is runningthe restaurant from here on and March or April of next year we€ll be spending about 350 to 400,000 to fix up the restaurant to make it a state of the art restaurant and that the restaurant will be called Kona Canoe Club and everything will be designed around the canoes that we have here. So this will be a big asset with the extra seating here and I know the town will be very, very proud. So thank you Mr. Chairman and this appreciate very much. Mahalo. GALDONES:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes, I suppose I should have asked this earlier but it only just popped into myhead.Wheretheexistingswimmingpoolisgoingtobefilledin,aretheygoingto,isseating going to be put there on top of it or? LIM:No that€s totally on the other side of the project, on the south side. EXHIBIT E 4 SIRACUSA:I realize it€s on the other side I€m just wondering if outdoor seating is planned for that area? LIM:No, no seating isplanned. SIRACUSA:And if not why not. Why up here and not down there since you€ve got to fill in the pool anyway? And that€s within the shoreline area? LIM:I think this is an existing area of restaurant already and as a practical matter what they€re going to be doing is adding a 12-foot section of seating right adjacent to the existing restaurant. We felt that would be the-. It accomplishes 2 things. One is it gives the existing restaurant enough seats to handle the cruise ship and group tours that come in. As you probably know they come in with a certain number of people. The existing restaurant is too small to seat the entire group so what this will do is allow the existing restaurant to handle those groupsallatonetime.Theotherthingthatitdoesisrightnowonthenorthsideoftheproject area as you can see from the picture it€s a relatively closed off and unused by the public at this point in time. And we think once we implement the new improvements to the restaurant and the ADA ramp then they€re going to open up that area for public use. Cause right now most of the people just stay on the south side of the project. SIRACUSA:Thank you for explaining that. GALDONES:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I€d like to ask a question of our Planning Director. I guess this is all a little surprise to me in that the last shoreline setback variance we had was for an area a short ways north of here. Most of the Planning Commission members were here at that time but some of them are new since then where it seemed like the Planning Director and the Planning Department took a very rigorous legal interpretation of the shoreline setback variance then. That was based on a hardship standard not the public interest standard. When I look at our Rule 7, I believe it is for shoreline setback variance and read the public interest standard it says the variance may be granted for an activity or a structure and then not just tourists. Going down 2 lines which is undertaken by a private entity and is clearly in the public interest. And so it seems to me that the activity or structure here is basically the seating lanai. And the seating lanai is not being advertised as clearly in the public interest rather an additional activity is going along with this application which somehow is balancing it out in its public interest aspects which seems to me a bit of a nalo approach to shoreline setback variances. So I€d just like to get some more commentary from the Planning Director on that. YUEN:Well I think we do take a strict approach to shoreline setback variances. I think if you look at the rule that€s the approach that you€re supposed to take. And so when this initially came in we did recommend a denial of the 20-foot variance. But then the applicant proposed a much more limited variance, really quite a small setback variance plus the construction of this ADA accessible ramp which does bring, which is a public benefit and does bring it into a public interest standard. I would say that the rule doesn€t clearly say that you can do this kind of balancing but it makes sense to me. EXHIBIT E 5 GRAHAM:Could I infer that on the prior one we had north of here where the gentleman wanted to let his swimming pool extend into the shoreline setback area as neighboring properties did that if he had come up with a balancing activity like he had a public access right next to his house therethat if he€d have said well I€ll make some improvement work on the public access next to the house along with this then the Planning Department would have taken perhaps a different stand? YUEN:A possibility. GALDONES:Further questions or anycomments? Seeing none. Commissioners the Director is recommending approval and staff has made an amendment to the background report andalsoto the recommendation. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Imovethatweapprovetheapplicationforshorelinesetbackvariance application number 05-001 based on the Director€s recommendations inclusive of the amendments. MCCALL:Second. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Watanabe seconded by Commissioner McCall that Kailua-Kona Village Development Group Shoreline Setback Variance Application number 05-001 be approved by the Planning Commission and as amended stated by presentation of Staff. Any discussions? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I have to say I have to vote in opposition. And part of that a large part of that is the precedence issue. I don€t think we want to go down the road where shoreline setback variances are being granted because other activities are being proposed by the applicant, which leaves the Planning Director or the Planning Commission to feel that the net public interest is being served. I think that the public interest needs to be served by the specific shoreline setback variance project for which we€re granting the application. And it feels to me like it€s going in the wrong direction to follow that approach. GALDONES:Further discussion? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:I just wanted to say that I have a lot of trouble with shoreline setback variances and I will not be voting to approve this one. GALDONES:Seeing no further discussions. LIM:Mr. Chairman I think in light of the opposition I think I€d like to see if we can work something out further with the Department in terms of what we can do to address those concerns. You know we think that a part of it is I think the example given by the Director is maybe not quite appropriate for this situation. I guess you€re familiar with the Kona Inn Shopping Village and it has a, I think you€ve got some photos there of the, excuse me of the lawn area fronting the project. And we had the option of building onto the existing building and EXHIBIT E 6 staying out of the shoreline setback variance area. So that€s one option that we had. But we thought that instead of building into the open area because that€s kind of a, essentially apublic area although privately owned that it was better to build the restaurant addition onto an area that wasn€t right there in the middle of the public open area. So that€s why we chose the present area. As you can see from the drawings and the photos the restaurant addition is being made just to the north side of an area that juts out about 10 feet away from the sea wall. That€s why we tried to essentially hide that development behind the seawall area, behind the protrusion up near the sea wall. So we felt that the modifications from a 20-foot encroachment into the shoreline setback area down to approximately 8-1/2 or 8 feet 10-inches would be a minor intrusion into the shoreline area and would both give the applicant what they need for financial purposes and would also increase the public access along the frontage. Cause what we€ll be giving as part of the SMA minor permit that was granted and if this Commission goes with the shoreline setback variance area is a 10-foot wide public access easement fronting the whole project. Right now, like I said they€re not using the northern portion of the project and this would allow I think a improvementofthatareaandtheabilityforthepublicandespeciallythewheelchairpeopleto utilize the area cause I think Uncle Billy you know as he€s told me before that€s one of the favorite areas for the wheelchair disabled people to come out and watch the sunset cause you really can€t do that to many other places along Alii Drive. But you know if I€m unable to persuade the Commissioners today then I€d like to ask for a continuance to further discuss this with the Planning Director. GALDONES:In light of the concern of the applicant Mr. Lim and considering that there are 2 Commissioners who have expressed a certain concern I would like to recommend but it€s up to the applicant, I could like to recommend to the applicant to have this on a continuance otherwise you can see where the vote is going to go. LIM:That is agreeable to us. GALDONES:So then you are proposing a continuance for us to consider? LIM:That€s correct. GALDONES:Commissioners in light of the discussion and also the desire of the applicant to have this on a continuance we have a motion on the floor and if you€d like to amend the motion to consider the applicant€s wishes Chair is willing to entertain. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I€ll withdraw my motion and move to continue this to the next Kona meeting. GALDONES:Do we have a second? MCCALL:I€ll withdraw the second. Or and second or transfer the second. EXHIBIT E 7 LIM:I think what we€ll use this time to do is to make a subsequent amend, a supplement to our presentation that was sent tothe Commission before that time to more clearly demonstratethe public interest that€s being served by the proposed project. GALDONES:Thank you. It has been moved by Commissioner Watanabe and seconded by Commissioner McCall that we grant the applicant€s wishes to have this application be continued. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I€d just to ask our Corporation Counsel for a sense of whether we€re proceeding in a procedurally correct matter since it€s a little novel what we€re doing today as far as withdrawing at this point and all. TORIGOE:Well there€s nothing novel about you know deciding that you want to continue a matter to enable further explanation of the issues. Naturally this kind of proceeding beinganinformalcontestedcasetheChairpersonasthepresidingofficercouldjustgoaheadand continue it under Rule 4-5C. So, either by motion or by the Chairperson€s initiative the matter could be continued. GALDONES:Further discussions? Hearing none, Jeff? DARROW:Thank you Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Clarification we€re voting on a continuance? GALDONES:That€s the motion before us. GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? EXHIBIT E 8 GALDONES:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes to withdraw original motion and to continue the hearing 6 to 0. GALDONES:Mr. Lim you will be informed in writing of today€s actions. LIM:Thank you for your consideration. This discussion ended at 10:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynette Marushige, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT E 9