Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-12-12 TKONAVISTAS PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 12, 2007 KONA VISTAS LLC (REZ 470) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was - called to order at 11:38 a.m. at the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, Alii I, 69275 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: William Graham ABSENT & EXCUSED: Andrew Iwashita C. Kimo Alameda Takashi Domingo Shelly Ogata Alvin Rho Rene’ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 11 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: KONA VISTAS LLC (REZ 470) Request for amendment to Condition I (time to secure Final Plan Approval) of Ordinance No. 02 131, which reclassified certain lands from Unplanned (U) to a Multiple-Family Residential 5,000- square foot (RM-5) and a Single-Family Residential 15,000-square foot (RS-15) district. The property includes the existing Kona Vistas Subdivision situated mauka of Kuakini Highway stnd, (Highway 11), Holualoa 1 and 2North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-6-21:4, 9-13 and 15-17. GRAHAM: So we have one more agenda item we can handle before lunch; that’s No. 4 on our agenda under New Business. Applicant is Kona Vistas LLC. It’s a rezoning; and being a rezoning ordinance, our only function is to provide a recommendation to the Council. It requests an amendment to Condition I, time to secure Final Plan Approval, Ordinance No. 02 131, which reclassified certain lands from Unplanned to Multiple-Family Residential RM-5 and Single-Family Residential RS-15 districts. The property includes the existing Kona Vistas stnd Subdivision, which is located in mauka of Kuakini Highway, Holualoa 1 and 2 in North Kona, Hawaii. Jeff, whenever you are ready. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The matter before us, Kona Vistas LLC, the Planning Department has not handed out a background and recommendation to the Planning Commission. We have received a letter from the applicants – just one quick second – the letter th is dated December 6, and the applicant is requesting that this time extension request be rescheduled or be deferred to no sooner than the Planning Commission’s February, 2008, EXHIBIT B 1 meeting. Within this letter, they mentioned that Condition I of Ordinance 02 131 was that they be able to meet the deadline of submitting, receiving Final Plan Approval by November 27, 2007. The applicants actually did meet this deadline; so they did comply with the Condition. They are asking for the deferral based on this letter that they are in the process of, in negotiations for selling a portion, or this particular project. And they want to be able to, if things go well, then they’ll withdraw their application; if it doesn’t go well and they need to revise the Plan Approval or resubmit, that they want to have this opportunity to come back to the Planning Commission to do so. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Darrow. Generally, when an applicant asks for a time extension, we generally go along with that. But we do have a number of people to testify here today. So we’d like to hear from them. Could you just give us a little quick run-through of the project for the Commissioners, so that testimonies we will receive will kind of ring familiar tone in our ears? DARROW: Sure. If I could also just mention, too, that we have received other letters. th We’ve received letters from Cliff Johns, dated, or received December 4; a letter from Penny th Fediuk and that’s December 4; Gary Preston, this was dated December 4, 2007; Karen Wood and David Fediuk. These are all dated December 4, 2007, and should be with the Planning Commission. GRAHAM: Thank you, Jeff. DARROW: If I can direct the Planning Commission’s attention to the location map, the area of this application is within the North Kona District. Running in a north-south direction through the middle of the map, we have Queen Kaahumanu Highway; it’s identified with a wide gray line. We also have Kuakini Highway that also runs in a north-south direction. There is a red line that runs through a portion of the middle of the map. This is the Special Management Area line. Everything on the lower portion of the map is within the Special Management Area; everything above the map is located within the, outside of the Special Management Area. The applicants, in this case, this actually has been an application that is, this change of zone occurred in 1984, which changed the properties in this particular area from Unplanned to Single- Family Residential 15,000 square feet, as well as Multiple-Family 5,000 square feet or RM-5. The conditions of the change of zone were very specific in regards to the phasings of the projects in regards to the single-family development and the multiple-family, as well as improvements and when they should occur. Additionally, these properties are affected by a LUC docket order that was approved in 1983, changing this area to Urban from Agriculture. In that particular docket, there are also some stringent drainage improvement requirements that have to be done prior to the construction of the RM portion of this property. Additionally, there was an affordable housing agreement that was executed. Again, we apologize for not having the background; it’s just that at this point, until we hear further from the applicant, it may not be necessary to submit that to the Commission. But in that affordable housing agreement, there also are pretty strict conditions requiring the applicant to construct drainage improvements for this particular area. I’m sure the Planning Director might be more familiar with the specifics of the drainage problems in that particular area; but it appears that through the development of this, that the applicants will have to resolve these drainage problems before construction can commence on the RM zoning. EXHIBIT B 2 There have been multiple time extension requests from the applicant. I believe this extension is No. 7 for Condition I. So this has been over a long period of time that this particular Condition has been trying to be complied with. With that, are there any questions? DOMINGO: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. To what extent, the development of the property is taking place? And what’s the status of the affordable housing requirements and the work that needs to be done addressing the flooding and drainage situation? DARROW: If I could, Commissioner Domingo, if I could defer that to the applicant’s representative. They have submitted information to us that details this, and it goes into detail regarding your question. So maybe he could be able to give a background on those particular issues. GRAHAM: Good. Thank you, Jeff. I’d also like to remind everybody right now we are supposed to leave for lunch at around noon. I do have four public testifiers I’d like to get in before then. I think they also have to leave and couldn’t come in the afternoon. So let’s try to go quickly, if we can. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Okay. Just very quickly. Considering that this is a seventh time a time extension has been requested, there’s nothing that indicates here how the Department is viewing this request, whether they’re looking at it favorably or if they just -. I would like to hear from the Director on that, if you tend favorably towards granting another time extension. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Well, at this point, to follow up on what Jeff was saying, they don’t need a time extension because they actually submitted plans and they received Plan Approval. They are in effect hedging their situation in that if – they submitted plans for a project that a certain potential buyer might want to do – and if that sale goes through, they might not want to do that type of project, you know. Plan Approval is pretty specific; it lays out your actual project, where the buildings are, how many units, where the parking spaces are, where your access roads are, and the like. So at this point, if that happens and they decide to pursue with their request, we will make a recommendation in due time before it’s presented to the Planning Commission for action, you know. But at this point, all we are, they are asking for deferral and we are fine with the deferral. SIRACUSA: Okay, that’s what I wanted to know. Thank you. GRAHAM: Yes, fine. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah. It’s my understanding that by the time February comes around and if this deal does go through and the plan does change, then technically, you don’t have Final Plan rd Approval prior to the deadline of November 23. Is that correct? EXHIBIT B 3 YUEN: No, they have, they submitted plans -. WATANABE: Yeah. YUEN: For a multi-family complex on the site. They received Final Plan Approval. However, if they then wanted to do a completely different project, it would call in to question whether they had validly complied with that condition -. WATANABE: That’s, that’s -. YUEN: So they would then ask for a time extension to submit a revised set of plans. WATANABE: I guess what I’m concerned about is, okay, Oceanside 1250 comes in, they do change the plan somewhat, and maybe they want to do even more affordable housing or whatever it is, you know, then now through a technicality, the time period has elapsed. YUEN: Well, no, there are a range of things you can do by an amended Plan Approval, and we would administratively consent to that. If somebody was doing, though, an entirely different project, well, that would be something else. GRAHAM: I’d like to hold any more of this for right now, so that we can hear from the applicant and hear from the testifiers. Is that all right, Mr. Domingo, if we do that? DOMINGO: Okay, go ahead. GRAHAM: Thank you. Could the applicant come before us now at this time, please? Thank you, sir. Would you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? KOYAMA: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. Give your name and address, please, and give your testimony. KOYAMA: My name is Glen Koyama. I’m with a planning firm of Belt Collins. We are the representative for the owner, Kona Vistas LLC. Our address is Honolulu, Hawaii. I guess in response to your question on the drainage, we, the owner has prepared drainage plans, it’s 80 percent completed, submitted to Public Works Department, it’s been in review, I don’t know how far it’s gone in review with the County; but we haven’t done anything further than that. It was submitted by the previous owner, Gamrex. And as you know, the property has been turned over to Kona Vistas LLC, I believe, in 2005, 2006. In order for us to proceed with the multi-family project, we would have to complete the drainage plans, construct the drainage channel, and then we would be allowed to proceed with the development of the multi-family site. What was another question? GRAHAM: Commissioner Domingo, you had a question? EXHIBIT B 4 DOMINGO: Now the previous owner -. Is this your first application for a time extension? KOYAMA: I’m not sure how many, but there’s been a number of time extensions -. DOMINGO: Well, according to staff, they said that there have been seven time extensions. KOYAMA: Uh huh. DOMINGO: You know, I have some great concerns about this because, on the other hand, as I look at the project, and if you will be taking care of the drainage problems, certainly that would be good for the surrounding areas. But it’s not only the drainage problems that I’m concern; it’s just the whole, the whole idea of granting zoning for development. And then nothing has been done, and I don’t know for what reason. But I understand now that, you know, the present owners are negotiating for the sale of the land, you know. That further puts a great, big question mark in my mind, you know, because are we just, has the delay taken place to wait for a more favorable condition, economic condition, where they can obtain the highest return of the investment? And I don’t fault developers for doing that because that’s what they are looking at: to build and to invest and to make a profit. And the profit, it depends, you know. I just, somebody told me greed comes in different degrees. You get settled for so much and take it okay; but then some would just stand and wait and see how much more they can acquire by waiting. You know, I have some concerns about this issue with regard to just getting the zoning, waiting, picking it up and then run away with it, and make a sizable amount of profit. KOYAMA: Okay. It’s too bad you don’t have the background report on this project. But the owners of this property have gone through a lot to even reach this stage. There are numbers of things that have to be done, which all involve time consuming efforts. One was to go for a CLOMR approval. We had to do a number of studies: obtaining topographic information, doing drainage studies, going through the CLOMR process with the FEMA. And we also had to get an SMA permit for the lower portion of the drainage improvement, below our project site, below the Highway -. DOMINGO: Okay. KOYAMA: We had to go through a subdivision/reconsolidation process for the area below the Highway, which is part of this project. That’s a 12-acre site, which the owner was involved in donating this particular site to the County for affordable housing. Until that site was cleared, having a specific parcel identified, as well as having a drainage easement established, we couldn’t move forward. So until that was done, which was completed – I believe we got the permit in 2003 – we were then able to move forward with the rest of the drainage channel improvements. And by that time, all of a sudden we realized that it was 2006, 2007. So there was definitely a lot of effort placed into this -. DOMINGO: Isn’t -. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Koyama. Is it all you’re asking for today that we continue this hearing until our next -? Could I hear from the public at this point now, since we’re going to EXHIBIT B 5 have to break real soon? You can stay there, if you’d like. And then if we have time after then, Mr. Domingo can follow up. But I just want to be sure the public gets the chance. KOYAMA: I’ll sit back. GRAHAM: All right, thanks. Could I have Juliette Brossard, Dave Fediuk, Penny Lebert (sic) and Alysse Catron, as the four I have signed up? Thank you all for your patience through a long morning. BROSSARD: Good morning. Thank you. GRAHAM: First, I would like to swear you all in, if I could do that. Would you all raise your right hands, and do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission on this matter today? Just -. TESTIFIERS: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. All right. Would you like to speak first, since you’ve got the mike there? And give your name and address before you speak, please. BROSSARD: Juliette Brossard, 76-813 Io Way, Kailua-Kona. I’m here to represent Gary and Amanda Preston, who are unfortunately due to illness could not attend today, and also myself as a homeowner, that’s within the 300-foot line of the planned multi-family units by Kona Vistas LLC. I understand we cannot rezone this property. However, we have a lot of questions and concerns with the said planned development. Firstly, my question would be why we were given only three days notice prior to scheduled hearing. One concern I would like to address is the high-density housing where infrastructure and the roads are already overtaxed, with no current plans for additional roads or infrastructure. What considerations are there for sewers, waste treatment, water, roads, schools, etc.? The biggest question would be does Kona Vistas LLC have a capacity to fund such infrastructure and where is the funding coming from. You know, once again, we realize that we cannot rezone this property, but the high-density housing does not appear to be a prudent path to take. Kona is already struggling to deal with planning and funding the currently needed infrastructure without additional high-density housing adding to the problem. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you for your testimony. Next, please. D. FEDIUK: David -. GRAHAM: Sir? D. FEDIUK: David Fediuk. P. O. Box 390983, Keauhou. I’m an owner in the Kona Vistas Subdivision, and father of three children. And my main concern would be with the multi- EXHIBIT B 6 family dwellings and with the already congested Lako Street, Hualalai, and other surrounding roads, and how this multi-family would actually seed into the developments that are already surrounding the proposed development, you know, and inevitably, how it’s going to affect my children in the future; some of the things that they maybe have planned or prepared, you know, as parks or recreation or things for children in the surrounding communities could take into. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you. You all can stay up there, too, and I’ll just take questions for any of you as soon as we are through with the four. Yes? P. FEDIUK: My name is Penny Fediuk. I live at 76-832 Kalana Io Place. I also am here with Dave Fediuk and Sandy Fediuk, also residents right around where we are; we are on 300-foot. And we are here again to talk about the concerns of the classification for the property of Multi-Family RM-5. And just listening today a bit about the traffic and that, my biggest thing that I worry about is there is, the Queen K. is only a two-lane highway, one going one way and one going the other direction; and already out of Lako is gridlocked first thing in the morning, last thing at night, and at this point it cannot handle any more volume. And I’m wondering at what point does this high density area have another road coming into it. Is there going to be another entrance onto Queen K. there? Which I can already see that it could not handle. It also talked about having commuter roads back inside Kona Vistas and also going over to Palani Estates and Heights on Hualalai. And I’m wondering about those residents and how they are going to want to handle that high density going down their streets. We, I realize that this was passed in the year 1984. But this was more than 20 years ago. And our infrastructure at this point does not, is not anywheres near ready to handle the capacity of this high density. At this point now there are four, there are actually six subdivisions that surround this: There is Palani Estates, there is Heights on Hualalai, there is Io View I and II, our area Kalana Io, there is Kona Vistas, and there is also Iolani Subdivision. So there are many, many people that are affected by this high-density area and what impact of that will have. My other concern is, like you said, about this flood zone. And my son has one of the Kona Vistas properties that this flood zone kind of cuts through. And at times there is so much rain, especially within the last two storms that we’ve had in the last two months that we’ve received, and the volume of water that flows through there. We had one guy who told us that they were thinking of putting it into a culvert. And I wonder if they really realize the volume of water and capacity that’s going to come down into that subdivision. And then with extensive amount of money that they are going to spend and the planning that will have to go into that alone, when that area is finished, how are they going to and what are they going to, should deal with that with? Another situation that I have that I’m concerned about is the water. With RM-5, this will be five times more than the number of families per acre. And how is Kona Vistas LLC going to address the issues of the water source, the transmission and the distribution? Because in the recent development of Palani Estates, which is only right now at this point, it is single-family dwellings, it has increased the consumption of this water dramatically in that area just within the last two or three years. We just wonder if Kona Vistas will be able to develop a plan that will supply the 70 acres of land zoned with this RM-5 without impacting the existing residents that surround the parcel. EXHIBIT B 7 And then also, I was given this notice, like she said, only two days ago. And when we got this, we all responded. I have many residents that I’ve talked to, and they had no idea even that this kind of impact was going on in front of them. I want to reiterate again that this was done 20 years ago. And with the volume of subdivisions that are around it, there is obviously a whole different point of view coming across already. I think I might have to just stop for a bit here -. GRAHAM: That’s fine. P. FEDIUK: Because I’ve kind of reached a breaking point of what I was going to say. GRAHAM: Thank you for your testimony. And we have one further testimony from Alysse. CATRON: My name is Alysse Catron, 76-833 Io Kualua Way. And I agree with what my neighbors here have to say. And again, this zoning was granted in 1984 when Kona looked a lot different. Kona Vistas has built out its single-family portion of this subdivision, and now what’s left is all multi-family. And we are a bit concerned with this density with the problems that Kona has with the infrastructure already. None of us knew until today that Kona Vistas was trying to sell this property. But it is really irrelevant whether it’s Kona Vistas or the next developer or that. Our biggest concern is handling the flood water, providing water and infrastructure that can sustain this high-density construction. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you -. P. FEDIUK: If I could just -. GRAHAM: Penny, we are short on time -. P. FEDIUK: I just -. GRAHAM: Also for a break. You’ve got something further? Go ahead -. P. FEDIUK: Yeah, if I just could add one thing, too. This sign that is down on the Highway there, it is put, that draws our attention; because it wasn’t just the letter that I got as a 300-foot homeowner, but there is a sign there also on Queen K. And it’s very hard to see in the first place, but also when you get there, it’s labelized this, “Multi-Family and/or Single-Family Residential.” And I guess we are questioning if there is an amendment here. Hey, we are all for single-family dwelling, but we are not for multi-family. GRAHAM: Thank you. Noriko, how are we with our lunch schedule? Do we need to zoom right over, that they are waiting for us, or -? We’d best break and -. SAUER: Five more minutes or -? GRAHAM: Pardon? EXHIBIT B 8 SAUER: Five more minutes or -, well, our reservation is at 12:00. GRAHAM: Okay, we’d better finish up as quickly as we can then. Can I have any questions for the testifiers? Yes, Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: I won’t ask any questions to further delay our lunch. I just want to make a few comments. Nineteen eighty-four, seven extensions, and nothing has been done. The amount of development taking place in the surrounding area, and if I get the total region with an increase in density, but I don’t know how many percent, and with nothing has been done; has the Planning Director ever considered revocation of the zoning ordinance? Because I see here a situation in contrast with Kohala LLC, making Kohala LLC like a Mickey-Mouse issue. And when you look at this issue, it’s an impact on the total region that’s already overgrown; and then, you know, I just wanted to know if any kind of thought has been given to revoking the zoning. Now I’m not saying that we should, but I just want to know where the Planning Department is coming from on this one. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen, do you have a comment you’d like to make? YUEN: Well, I’m going to try to, I can’t talk about Kohala LLC because it’s not in front of us right here. This is similar to a question that Planning Commissioner Siracusa asked about what is Department’s position on the time extension. And because we are, because of what we explained, we are not there to talk about, we are not present with our recommendation on the time extension. I would like to point out, though, there are a couple of things that I should point out with this is that there is a requirement that they basically channelize the existing floodplain on the property. There’re actually two natural flood zones through the property and, that used to continue on downward, and affect a piece of property that is on the makai side of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. That property -, and this is all part of a integrated development proposal, and what is now the folks are here testifying live in the Kona Vistas Subdivision, which is a part of the same rezoning actually. And the company that was developing this also own the property on the makai side of the Highway. Their affordable housing requirement was that, was satisfied by their donating about 12 acres to the County on the makai side of the Highway. There is an agreement in place for this donation, but the actual transfer hasn’t taken place. But this is an important affordable housing site for the County. That site is difficult to use at present because of drainage issues on the mauka property; the same drainage issues that need to be solved hopefully by the construction that I just talked about on the mauka property. So that’s a consideration here on whether the mauka side property should be developed. The other thing I’d like to mention, and this is just in a really general, like land use concepts and planning concepts, we’ve, the Planning Department has generally supported housing in the urban core of Kailua-Kona, including multi-family housing which is the only realistic option for a very large percentage of our population. So, and without, you know, committing to a position on the time extension, which is not before us and we haven’t taken yet, as a matter of a general practice, that has been the practice in the Planning Department. The gist and the thrust of the Community Development Plan has been to encourage actually higher density residential development, more compact residential development, which does also include attached types of houses, so that you EXHIBIT B 9 don’t have sprawling communities; you put more people in a smaller area, so that you have a more walkable and more compact kind of community. So that’s likely to be the thrust of the Community Development Plan. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yuen. I’ll take one more comment from Commissioner Woodward. And then I think we’ll have to break for lunch. WOODWARD: Well, I think it’s clear that we don’t have enough information. We weren’t given background information, we haven’t heard really other than the sketch from the petitioner, we’ve heard from testimony from the public; but we don’t have enough information to make a decision. So I think it’s clear. And if it’s appropriate at this point, I would move that we continue this action as requested by the petitioner. WATANABE: I second. GRAHAM: All right -. P. FEDIUK: I, I -. GRAHAM: Excuse me -. P. FEDIUK: Sorry -. GRAHAM: We don’t really take public testimony after we’ve gone into our decision making mode. So thank you all for coming forward. I don’t think we have more questions. Okay, so we have a motion and a second to continue this to the next hearing -. WOODWARD: Well, I believe they asked to, no earlier than February, was it? WATANABE: Yes. DARROW: Correct. WOODWARD: February. So I would move that we continue this until our February meeting. GRAHAM: Is there any discussion on that motion? ALAMEDA: With proper notice? Could you include -? WOODWARD: That will be fine -. ALAMEDA: That as a friendly amendment? Thank you. GRAHAM: Okay. Jeff, you want to take a vote on the motion then? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to continue this matter until the February Kona meeting. With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Woodward? EXHIBIT B 10 WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: No. DARROW: The motion passes, seven to one. GRAHAM: Thank you. The discussion ended at 12:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT B 11