Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-05 Windward Transcript Winegar PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 5, 2012 THOMAS WINEGAR AND SUSAN A regularly advertised hearing on the application of FURCHGOTT (REZ 11-147) was called to order at 9:36 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Zendo Kern presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Zendo Kern, Dean Au, Wallace Ishibashi, and Raylene Moses STAFF PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe (Deputy Corporation Counsel), B. J. Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Kelly Gomes (representing Chief Engineer from 9:36 a.m.), and Sharon Nomura (Secretary) And 9 people from the public in attendance. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Takashi Domingo and Stephen Ono APPLICANTS: THOMAS WINEGAR AND SUSAN FURCHGOTT (REZ 11-147) Application for a Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential – 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a Multiple-Family Residential – 3,000 square feet (RM-3) zoning district for approximately 42,660 square feet of land. The subject property is located on the east side of Kino‘ole Street, approximately 400 feet north of West Ohea Street, Waiākea Homestead Houselots, South Hilo, Hawai‘i, TMK: 2-2- 038:017. KERN: Moving on to Application No. 3, Thomas Winegar and Susan Furgotshot (phonetic), and I apologize if I messed with either one of your names, probably did. REZ 11-147, Application for a Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential – 10,000 square feet to a Multiple-Family Residential – 3,000 square feet (RM-3) on approximately 42,660 square feet of land, located on TMK: 2-2-038:017. With that, we’re going to have a presentation. Maija? COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Commissioners. KERN: Good morning. COTTLE: Happy New Year. The next application is a change of zone request. The subject property is located in the South Hilo district. You can see it on the map outlined in black. And it’s located just east of Kinoole Street between Kawili Street and Ohea Street. The current zoning of the property is Single Family Residential; and that’s shown in yellow on the map. There are other zonings in the area. The light brown and the dark, actually the light brown is Double-Family Residential; and that’s located to the south here. You also have other properties zoned Multi-Family Residential in the dark brown. 1 EXHIBIT A And there is also some Commercial zoning shown in the pink. This is a gas station here located on the next street over. This is the General Plan LUPAG Map for the area. And you can see that the subject property is located in an area designated Medium Density Urban, that’s shown in the orange. Medium Density Urban designation allows residential zoning up to a maximum of -. I’m sorry, I just blanked, give me a second here. KERN: Glad I’m not the only one. COTTLE: Up to 35 units per acre. That is different than the Low Density Urban density designation which allows residential units up to six units per acre. And the High Density shown in red allows up to I believe 87 units per acre. This is an aerial photo of the property. You can see the subject property outlined in red. There is an old house located in the middle of the property, as well as some animal cages. The house is currently in a state of disrepair. You can also see that the surrounding area is mostly Single-Family Residential, but it is an area of transition. As I mentioned before, there is a gas station located in this general area here. There's a duplex unit located just behind the subject property. And then north of Kawili Street there is some commercial zoning. There is a dental office, as well as a student dormitory nearby. And then you can see the Waiakea High School; and the University is off the slide to the northwest. The applicants are requesting a change of zone from Single-Family Residential - 10,000 square feet to Multiple-Family Residential – 3,000 square feet. They are requesting the change of zone in order to construct a 14-unit apartment complex that will provide housing for students at the University. This is the applicant's conceptual site plan. You have Kinoole Street on the left side of the slide. There is an existing driveway in this area, and they are just proposing to expand that driveway as the access. You have the parking area in the front; and then at this time they are proposing four structures. And this is a photo of the site. It was a very rainy day, so it is hard to see the roadway. But it's a two- lane road. The guardrail actually runs across the frontage of the property here. And the property is located about 8feet lower than the roadway. So this is the roadway looking north, and the property is located in this area here. This is a view of Kinoole Street looking south; and again the property is located in this area here. This is the existing driveway. The Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for the request. And I just want to point out we did get one letter of testimony from Sam Cooper; you should have that, you should have gotten that this morning. Are there any questions? KERN: Are there any questions for staff? Seeing none, Maija? COTTLE: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to point out also that although the applicant is proposing a 14-unit apartment complex at this time, there is a range of, there are a range of uses that are permitted in the RM zoning district; and that is shown in your Exhibit 1 of your Background Report. And that’s it. 2 EXHIBIT A KERN: Thank you very much. Are there any -? AU: Yes. KERN: Yes, Commissioner Au. AU: Maija, can you bring up that up , so I can see where this property is? COTTLE: Sure. So Mr. Cooper’s property is located right here. And then just on the site plan, to give a perspective, his property line is here and here; this is his lot right here. So he’s just north along the road of the subject property. AU: Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you. Maija, appreciate it. COTTLE: Thank you. KERN: Can I get the applicant or the representative to please come forward. And whoever is going to be speaking and giving testimony on that, raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? MOOERS: I do. KERN: Okay. Very good. Give us your name and -. MOOERS: My name is Greg Mooers. I’m a planning consultant for the applicants. My address is PO Box 1101 in Kamuela. KERN: Very good. You may begin. MOOERS: Appreciate the staff’s background report. We have been provided a copy of Mr. Cooper's letter. And I would like an opportunity to respond to some of the issues and concerns that he raised. Any time you look at a change of zone, there are really two areas in which the evaluation takes place. And one is, I referred to as institutional considerations. In other words, how does this comply with the various plans, and is this what the County wants to see happen or not? And in this case I think from the General Plan slide it is very clear this is a Medium Density Urban area on the General Plan. And there are countless comments in the General Plan about supporting the University, and the growth of the University, and providing housing for the University. So I think clearly as far as the institutional considerations, this is an appropriate use for the site. The other consideration when we evaluate a plan is the infrastructural considerations -- parking, access, drainage, noise, all of the issues that are very real. And I think if you read the comments from the Police Department from Mr. Cooper there are some very valid points that are raised. And I'd like 3 EXHIBIT A to go through them and explain how the applicant is required by law to address in some cases and by conditions of the proposed change of zone ordinance as required by the Department. If you have Mr. Cooper's letter I will follow through on this point by point. The first is this traffic issue. And the first thing he says there is not enough parking to support the number of units to be developed. By the Code, we would be required to have 20 units of parking on the site. The applicant is proposing 35% more than that or 27 units. So I would dispute the fact that it is inadequate. It is 35% over the Code requirement. The second point was that the driveway or the location of the driveway is unsafe for two cars to enter and exit at the same time. If the existing drive way were to be used, that would be true. But the plan shows a 24-foot wide driveway, which frankly is wider than many roads on our island. So it is more than adequate to allow the safe ingress and egress of two cars. It will be 12-foot lanes. They point out that there is no on street parking, and that is correct. We are not proposing to use any on street parking here. The slide clearly shows there’s a guardrail that fronts most of the property, other than the driveway access. And the final point regarding parking was a request for a traffic impact analysis report. The Department of Public Works has warrants or basically requirements for when Public Works would require a traffic study. And typically that is, a 50-car per hour, per peak hour trip would trigger a traffic impact analysis report. The proposed use, a 14-build -, the apartment building is a 14-unit apartment building, would trigger 8 additional trips in the morning hour, peak hour, and ten in the afternoon. So, you know, less than 20 percent of what is required would trigger it. But you will notice in Condition E that Public Works is recommending a condition that basically says if the applicant proposes any other land use that would trigger this 50 units per hour, peak hour, a TIAR would be prepared, reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. So, currently, with the 14 units, it’s not a major traffic issue. The location of the site in the proximity of the University, the idea is to try to attract students who would be walking to the University. And the other thing is typically students don’t have the same hour, work hour, same peak hours as the normal public would. They don’t go to school at, you know, 7 o’clock and come back at 4:30 or 5 o’clock, more back and forth during the day. Particularly with this location they’d be able to walk back and forth. Now the second issue is the drainage issue. And Mr. Cooper provides a pretty extensive history of issues that he has had with the Department of Public Works relating to problems that occurred when roadway improvements were made fronting the property. And in reality that really doesn’t have much to do with this change of zone application. That’s a pre-existing condition. The requirements of the law in Chapter 27 are very, very clear for any development. And it is a, it appears in this ordinance as proposed Condition I. And basically it’s you cannot increase the volume or velocity of the flow of any water across the property; and that any water generated on the property by impervious surfaces, like the parking lot and the buildings, must be disposed of on site, which means drywells. And if the material and the area is so geologically set, there may be very deep drywells. But engineering wise, and it is very, very simple to calculate the amount and volume of flow and the requirements. And the Department of Public Works will ensure through its plan approval process that, in fact, any water generated on site will be disposed of on site. 4 EXHIBIT A Now the third issue that was raised was potential environmental hazards of destroying the existing structure, whether it be lead-based paint or asbestos. The applicants will have to comply with all the EPA requirements when destroying that building, or removing that building, so that the, their guidelines will be adhered to. The fourth issue raised had to do with Hawaiian hawks, owls, and Hawaiian hoary bats. I would refer you to our application, and specifically on pages 20 and 21. Dr. Ron Terry, a former professor at the University, conducted the botanical study and indicated that while these, you know, these birds were not seen at the time that, in fact, they could exist here. He also points out that this is one undeveloped lot in a residential area, so it’s not a critical habitat but a potential habitat. And he provides some proposed conditions which basically say during the spring and summer time to not to disturb that foliage. In other words when and if the trees and the shrubs are being removed, it would have to be at a time when the birds would not be nesting or raising their young, so that that would avoid any potential harm to those animals. The last one really is I think the crux of the issue, and that is too much noise and nuisance by providing housing for these students. Clearly the lot is vacant right now. And anything that is put on that site is going to increase noise and activity; and there is absolutely no question. So you really go back to I think the first issue we talked about, which is the institutional considerations. The General Plan is advocating support for the University. This project is designed to support the University by providing student housing. Will there be more traffic? Yes. Will there be more noise? Yes. That really is a decision that you need to make, is that how important is it to follow the General Plan and to advocate for the University? Because anything that goes on that property is going to be greater than what’s there now because basically it’s an abandoned home. So -. The mitigation, I think there are things that we’ve talked with one of the neighbors about, which is providing landscaped buffers -- we do have setbacks along the property lines -- and to provide, you know, landscaping in a manner that would be consistent with the landscaping that may be on the adjoining properties. To buffer and mitigate noise is something certainly that we would consider. And that’s all I have at this time. KERN: Okay, a little housekeeping. You’ve received the background report, recommendation and conditions, and you guys are acceptable with that? MOOERS: Absolutely. KERN: Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant or representative? I have just a quick one. Are you guys planning on kind of following the guidance for disturbing of the green -? MOOERS: Yes. KERN: The green waste and what not? You guys are? MOOERS: Yes. 5 EXHIBIT A KERN: Please raise your right hand. I’ll swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? WINEGAR: Yes. KERN: Okay. WINEGAR: Yes, we’ll go by whatever guidelines, legal guidelines -. KERN: Your other right hand. WINEGAR: Recommendations. Okay. KERN: You do swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? WINEGAR: Yes, I do. KERN: Okay. Cool. Thanks. Any other questions? Seeing none, you may have seat. MOOERS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve the opportunity to respond to any comments that are made during public testimony. KERN: That will be fine. Moving on to public testimony -. We do have one member from the public signed up to testify. Sam Cooper, we’ll have you come forward. And I’ll swear you in. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? COOPER: Yes. KERN: And give us your name and area you represent. You may begin. You have three minutes, so there’s a three-minute time limit. COOPER: Thank you. My name is Sam Cooper. I’m representing my mother, Gloria Claire Cooper, the owner of TMK: 3-2-2-38:18; and my mom lives on the mainland. And in response to some of the concerns, another thing with traffic is there will also be guests and visitors impacting the amount of traffic to the property. Another point is that the ingress and egress is very dangerous even if it’s 24 feet. By the location of the driveway, with a guardrail and rockwall on each side, and with Kinoole Street flow of traffic, especially at peak hours, it’s going to be very dangerous for ingress and egress of the University students who do have cars and their guests that do have cars. There is no on-street parking. There’s no on-site parking. That was one reason in the attachment, the enclosed attachments I gave to you regarding a liability for myself being able to ingress and egress out of my driveway safely with my view site being taken away. And I am in complete, I agree totally with the Police Department. That is their expertise. And there is quite a bit of heavy traffic in the mornings. Usually it’s stop and go from around 7:30 to 8:00 o’clock, which is going to really impact the traffic flowing to school, flowing to the University, and the safety of the neighborhood. 6 EXHIBIT A Regarding the drainage issues, yes, that does have a major impact on this property. The friability (phonetic), the strata is very sensitive there; and I did see that in the Kinoole Street improvements, that Federal Project #STP 100-059. And I want to thank the County, the Engineering, the Planning and the Traffic for all their help to remediate, and taking care of the issues that did arise that were really not the, anyone’s fault. It’s just, it’s what had happened with the grubbing of the said areas. And I feel that there is not enough, I feel that area does not perk well. Drywell pits may not be enough to contain the amount of rainfall that could, and flooding that could happen in times of heavy rainfall. We have been in a drought the last six or seven years, we’re beginning to come back into our natural weather pattern. The other thing, too, I’m not sure if the septic systems, those could be compromised. In times of flooding that could impact the health and safety of the surrounding neighbors. And -. KERN: I’ll ask you to please summarize. That’s the three minutes. COOPER: Okay. My other point is, you know, abolishing of that dilapidated structure. Well, one other thing on the drainage they were stating a drywell on the street -. KERN: Fifteen more seconds in summarization. COOPER: Okay. I feel that this development has too much density for the surrounding neighborhood. And the noise and nuisance cannot be buffered by landscape. It’s too much, and I am in agreement th also with the County of Hawaii’s letter to you on the 7 in regards to that. I just feel it’s too dense of a, and also it’s 14 3-bedroom apartments. So that’s 42 residents. KERN: Okay. COOPER: Thank you so much for your time. -. KERN: Thank you. Are there any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you. You may have a seat. COOPER: Thank you. KERN: Well, I think we’ve done all we need to do that far. So we’re willing to entertain a motion, anyone? AU: I -. KERN: Commissioner Au, do you -? AU: I have a question for the applicant. KERN: Yeah. Can you please come forward, applicant, representative. 7 EXHIBIT A AU: Thank you. You know, traffic is, traffic and parking is an issue. And I’m just looking at your preliminary construction plan, and I don’t see any parking in here. So how would you deal with -? MOOERS: Parking, there are 27 units in between, on the front side of the property between Kinoole and the buildings -. COTTLE: Commissioner Au, I can point it out to you. There are 27 spaces, 27 stalls, in the very front of the property here. AU: Okay, okay. I was just looking through my, and I didn’t see it. COTTLE: Yeah, it’s in the very beginning of your packet. LEITHEAD TODD: Just before page 6. AU: Okay, thank you. KERN: Do you have, are you going to ask many more questions, Commissioner Au? AU: No. I’m done. Thank you. KERN: Okay. Since we have the applicant up here, are there any questions at this time? We’re good. Thank you. You may have a seat. We do have one other member signed up to testify from the public. And since we do not, we’re not in the process of a motion quite yet, we’re going ahead and do this, okay, and considering that the opportunity for public testimony is still open. So I will call up David Hurd. There is a three-minute time limit on this. You may have a seat. Use the microphone please. And I’ll swear you in before we start. Can you raise your right hand. Can you grab the microphone. HURD: Using both hands -. KERN: I know. It’s a tricky one. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? HURD: Yes. KERN: Okay. And before you begin, give us your name and area you represent; and then you may begin. HURD: Okay. My name is David Hurd, H-u-r-d. I live at 1626 Kinoole, immediately across from the proposed building site. KERN: Okay. You may begin. You’ve got three minutes. HURD: Okay. The building site has a rather checkered history. We’ve lived in or present house for approximately 20 years. And it was actually inhabited when we first moved in. But since the person who lived there died, the house and the lot has gradually gone into decay. And at this time it is a 8 EXHIBIT A mosquito and coqui infested place that’s particularly unattractive. I, having taken a look at these plans, I think if these buildings are put up as the plans are shown, I feel that they would be a very attractive and useful addition to the neighborhood. It’s, the neighborhood between Kawili and Puainako is largely rental units anyway. So there’s no kind of fundamental change with respect to the usage of the buildings. And with respect to traffic concerns I think it would be minimal. There’s traffic there in the morning for about 15 or 20 minutes in terms of backup going to the University and the schools, and another dozen or so people probably wouldn’t even come in at the noise level with respect to that. I don’t see noise being a problem if the college aged students are going to be in there. We have several groups of those immediately adjacent to us now and it’s not a problem. They’re just kids. So with that, once again I would like to speak in favor of the project. I think it will be an attractive and positive addition to the neighborhood. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Are there any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, you may have a seat. Thank you very much. Okay, so we are going to officially close public testimony at this point in time, and willing to entertain a motion. Commissioner Au? AU: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to send a favorable recommendation to the Hawai‘i County Council for applicants Thomas Winegar and Susan Furchgott, Rezone 11-147, with the proposed conditions. KERN: Is there a second? MOSES: I second. KERN: Very good. Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? Commissioner Au. AU: This development is a much needed development. You know, we all cannot deny the fact that we do need housing for our growing University. So, you know, looking at this development, all the buildings and, you know, everybody, the applicant is complying and will be complying with all the rules and regulations set forth. So I think this is a good development. KERN: Okay. Any other discussion? I’ll put my two cents for a little, prior Commissioner Iwashita coming through here saying maybe it’s time that when we have the budget to update the Hilo Community Development Plan so we have an, you know, updated version of that to kind of work with the growing need of the UH and the changes that are occurring in town. So I feel him chirping in my ear right now, so I’ll put that out there. With that, I’m going to support this too. It is needed, we do need the housing. This is also about neighbors working together. We’ve, you know, this is a time where we need cooperation. This is the time where we need people to work together to help work with this. And we, you know, the more division that we have amongst each other, the more division that we have amongst our different, you know, subdivisions and communities on each side of the island. We’re all losing. We really do need to work together and be good neighbors with each other. So with that I hope you guys can work with that and be good neighbors; and I’m going to support this project. So with that, any other discussion? Seeing none, Maija. 9 EXHIBIT A COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion before you is to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council. Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: And Chair Kern? KERN: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes four-zero. KERN: So you’ll be notified in writing. The discussion ended at 10:07 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 10 EXHIBIT A