Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-06-21 Leeward Exh A - Next Design LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 21, 2012 NEXT DESIGN, LLC (SMA 12-49) A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of was called to order at 9:34 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chair Geraldine Giffin presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Geraldine Giffin, Thomas Hickcox, Wayne Iokepa, Richard Nelson and Thomas Whittemore ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Brandi Beaudet and Lani Bowman ALSO PRESENT: BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Deanne Bugado (Planner), Kiran Emler (Department of Public Works, Engineering Division – from 9:53 a.m.), and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And two people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: NEXT DESIGN, LLC (SMA 12-49) Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit application to allow the development of a financial institution complex. The property is located at the northwestern corner of the Palani Road-Kuakini Highway intersection, Kailua-Kona, North Kona, Hawai‘i, Tax Map Key: 7-5-005:061. GIFFIN: The first agenda item is the applicant is Next Design, LLC for SMA Application 12-49. It is a special management area use permit application to allow the development of a financial institution complex. Daryn? ARAI: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good morning, Commissioners. COMMISSIONERS: Good morning. ARAI: The first item on today’s agenda is a request by Next Design, LLC for an SMA use permit application to allow the establishment of a financial institution complex on a property located in Kailua-Kona. If I may direct your attention to the presentation screen. The subject property is located at the corner of Palani Road and Kuakini Highway. Palani Road is in this area here, and Kuakini is in this direction heading north. Kona Coast Shopping Center is in this area here. And the subject property is outlined in blue as indicated in this area here – and I apologize my hand is shaking, I’m not that nervous but – it is located just mauka of the hotel, King Kamehameha Kona Beach Hotel. Looking at an aerial photo of the affected area, you can see this area outlined in red, that is the subject property again at the northwestern corner of Kuakini and Palani Road intersection. And fortunately, the property has been extensively graded; it was previously the site of a gas station – I think it was a Chevron gas station. And as you can see here, this is the subject property. And in this photo to your right, again, another view of the subject property with Kuakini in this direction here and Palani in this location there. 1 EXHIBIT A This is a site plan showing the subject property outlined in black. It is currently designated Commercial Village 10,000 square feet minimum lot size. It is within an area designated State Land Use Urban as indicated by the pink color. The green colors represent agriculturally designated lands. This is a map of the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map; the subject property is in an area designated Medium Density Urban as indicated by the orange color. High Density designated lands are indicated in red, Resort designated lands in pink. The subject property is in a TOD identified in the Kona Community Development Plan. However, this is a special management area permit, and the project is consistent with the existing zoning and uses allowed for the subject property. That being said, it is consistent, therefore, consistent with the Kona CDP as well. The applicant is requesting an SMA use permit to allow the establishment of a financial services office. Again, it is a site of a former gas station that has since been obviously removed. The applicant did revise their site plan from the site plan that was originally submitted with their application to address safety and access issues. This proposal was brought forth before the Kailua Village Design Commission because it is situated within the design district. And at its meeting on May 8, 2012, the Kailua Village Design Commission did vote to recommend approval of this request. This is a site plan of the property with Kuakini off to your right and Palani Road at the bottom of the site plan. The building here is outlined in a tan color, with the gray color representing the parking area and the drive-through aisle. You have basically ingress and egress permitted on Palani Road as, where my pointer is indicating. Off of Kuakini it would be limited to right-in and right-out traffic – I’m sorry – it would be limited to egress movement only, or basically just right-out. This is elevation plans; it shows the building two stories in height, approximately 28 feet in overall height. We have a few photographs. This is looking makai along Palani Road; the project site is located here off to the right across the intersection with Kuakini Highway. This is a photograph taken from Palani Road across the project site, looking directly at it, and as you can see, it has been extensively altered. This is another photograph taken from Kuakini Highway, looking across the intersection with the project site off in a distance here. And this is a closer view taken from Kuakini Highway, looking directly across Palani Road with the project site off in a distance. I’ll pass through some of these additional photos. The Director is recommending approval of this SMA use permit to allow the proposed financial institutional development, subject to conditions of approval. So with that, I stand ready to answer any questions you may have. GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of staff? Hearing none, I would like to ask the applicant and/or the applicant’s representative to please come forward. Do we have enough mikes? Please raise your right hands? Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? APPLICANTS: Yes. GIFFIN: Great. Starting with you, sir, on my left, the man with the microphone, please state your name. 2 EXHIBIT A S. LEE: Stanford Lee with Next Design. GIFFIN: Thank you. And you, sir? YOSHITAKE: Brent Yoshitake, Next Design. GIFFIN: Thank you. R. LEE: Rodney Lee with Maryl. GIFFIN: Thank you. DOBASHI: Ron Dobashi with American Savings Bank. GIFFIN: Thank you. And if you’ll just remember that our transcripts, you know, we are being recorded, so it’s really important that you speak into the microphone. Who is going to be the first spokes person? S. LEE: I will – Stanford. GIFFIN: Stanford, great. Go ahead and begin. S. LEE: Well, I’m just here to answer any questions. GIFFIN: Okay. Is there anything you would like to elaborate on what was presented by staff this morning? S. LEE: No. We’ve been working with the County. You saw the exterior elevations of the building. So we have changed the elevations a little bit to abide by the comments that came out from the Kailua-Kona special design district committee, and primarily it’s the windows themselves; we made the windows a little smaller, we put in battens to make it appear more historic in nature. Other than that, everything else remains similar to what you see up there. GIFFIN: Okay. Anybody else up there who wanted to just go ahead and give us some comments that might elaborate on what the staff presented? None? S. LEE: No. GIFFIN: Okay. Commissioners, any questions? WHITTEMORE: I just have -. GIFFIN: Tom. WHITTEMORE: A quick question. I just noticed in the handouts there are two different site, building sitings. Is the one that was shown up here the one that will be applied, with the drive- throughs in the rear? Because there was another site plan with the drive-throughs in the front, fronting Palani. 3 EXHIBIT A S. LEE: This is the correct one, with the drive-through. WHITTEMORE: This is the -. Okay. GIFFIN: Any other questions of the applicant? I think, since there are four of you, what I’m going to ask is that you please go back to your seats, because there is someone who signed up to testify this morning and I would like to have that person come forward. Thank you. The first person who signed up to testify is Mr. Joel Gimpel. Will you please come forward? Thank you. Will you please raise your right hand – the one with the microphone in it. GIMPEL: Yeah. GIFFIN: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? GIMPEL: I do. GIFFIN: Good. Will you please state your name. GIMPEL: Thank you. I’m Joel Gimpel. I’m the Public Affairs Chairman of the Kona Traffic Safety Committee, and I’m testifying on its behalf. GIFFIN: Thank you. Please begin. GIMPEL: Mahalo and thank you for the opportunity. And also thank you for including our comments to the Planning Department in the application that you, in the materials that you have before you. I’ll just iterate briefly those comments and suggestions, and respond happily to any questions you many have. I’m also pleased to learn of the Planning Department’s recommendation that there only be a right-out only on Kuakini, which was one of our suggestions; we had urged the right-turn in and right-turn out only, but the right-out only is even better. In addition, however, we believe that there should be a right-turn merge lane provided on Kuakini Highway that will facilitate safer egress. One thing we would also note is that although the applicant notes that a Kentucky Fried Chicken establishment that received an SMA permit in March 2005, would have generated more vehicular movements than the proposed bank, the traffic on Kuakini Highway has increased substantially since then due to the recent construction of the Kona Commons mall with its Target, which is a rather large anchor store, and we have also the Ross Dress for Less and the Bank of Hawai‘i there and the new McDonald’s; so there is going to be a lot of traffic on Kuakini. So we have to be very aware of that. Finally, we note that the first paragraph of the application mistakenly places the property on the southwest corner of Palani Road and Kuakini Highway, which is incorrect; it’s on the northwest corner as being recognized in your agenda and so forth and so on. But we are concerned that if such a blatant error occurred in the application and was uncorrected, are there any other errors in the application that weren’t so blatant and nobody has spotted yet. So we urge that it be carefully, and carefully, reviewed, because after all the hotel on the southwest corner is going to be very surprised that there is going to be construction there. Thank you. GIFFIN: You’re welcome. And your comments are very well taken. 4 EXHIBIT A GIMPEL: Thank you. GIFFIN: Will you please take a seat where you were, because what I’m going to do is call the applicant back unless right now -. Any of the commissioners have any questions of this public testifier? Okay, so -. GIMPEL: Okay, thank you. GIFFIN: Will you please step back, and what I’ll do is ask the applicant to come forward and address your concerns. Please come forward. I don’t know if you have in your packet Mr. Gimpel’s letter – we do. And if you would like a copy of it, which brings up the concerns that he raised this morning, I’m sure staff can provide you with a copy of it. Would you like one? S. LEE: Yeah, we’d like one. GIFFIN: Okay. Commissioners, it is the letter that’s dated Friday, April 13, 2012, and it’s in your background information. And it is, as he said, in reference to the planned accesses to the subject property. Correct? Yeah. I had a concern about it as well, and I had it marked. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman? GIFFIN: Daryn. ARAI: As they’re discussing, or looking over the comments, maybe I can kind of jump in and provide a few more comments as well. GIFFIN: I appreciate that. ARAI: Sure. th GIFFIN: And maybe while you are doing that, our attention can also be drawn to the April 19 memo from the Department of Public Works. And I thought I saw Ki here earlier. ARAI: We’ll bring him back. GIFFIN: Well, okay, but it is on the second page of the memo under Roadways and it’s No. 2. And it addresses something similar to what we are discussing, and that’s why I thought it would be prudent for us to at least include those concerns. ARAI: I just want to clarify the condition that we are recommending is -. GIFFIN: Okay, wait. ARAI: I’m sorry. If you were to look at your recommendation report -. GIFFIN: Yeah, Condition No. 6? ARAI: Right. 5 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: Yes. ARAI: It did speak to access from Kuakini being limited to right-in/right-out only; that was based on the original design concept for the proposed project. Previously, the proposed building was located closer to Palani Road, and that would have allowed for facilitated ingress and egress right- turns only onto Kuakini; however, discussions with the Design Commission and discussions with our office and Public Works, they elected to move the building back to the north. And as you can see, this would be the access aisle for the drive-through. So what that now does is basically blocks off facilitated right-in and right-out movements from this intersection, and that’s why you see the single arrow showing right-out only; because if cars were to try to come in here, it would basically get tangled up with the queue for the drive-through. So I think based on the current design, it would therefore restrict it to right-outs only onto Kuakini, even though the condition continues to provide that option. But that being said, everything must meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works. GIFFIN: Yes, yes, yes. And so then according to what we see here, and I think that Commissioner Whittemore was also concerned about the traffic flow, the in and out then, right-in right-out, would only be on Kuakini. ARAI: There would be no right-in from Kuakini based on the current design concept, because right-in will create a conflict with the queue in the drive-through. Again, as you can see, if a car were to come into the property, it will tangle up with the traffic in the queue for the drive-through. So the applicant is currently showing only right-out. GIFFIN: Okay. ARAI: Mr. Emler is in the audience; we brought him back. So if you want to direct any specific questions to him -. GIFFIN: Okay. Ki, are you familiar with the letter from the Kona Traffic Safety Committee, which raised the question of access to the subject property? Mr. Gimpel testified earlier in that regard, and so that is the issue we are discussing right now, Ki. EMLER: I’m sorry, Madam Chairwoman, I didn’t -. GIFFIN: Take a minute. It doesn’t matter. EMLER: Yeah, get a chance to read this yet. GIFFIN: Sure, go ahead. EMLER: Okay. GIFFIN: And then Daryn directed us to Condition No. 6 on Page 7 of the recommendation, which speaks to in and out. Are you familiar with the letter from the Department of Public Works that I referenced, dated April 19, Item No. 2 under Roadways also referring to right-in right-out only? S. LEE: (Inaudible) 6 EXHIBIT A GIFFIN: Okay. Ki. EMLER: Okay. Yes, I’ve had a chance to read the comment by the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. Yes, they are making a suggestion that in addition to the recommendation that Public Works made and was put into the conditions, the proposed conditions for the SMA permit; they are making the suggestion that a right-turn merge lane be established on Kuakini Highway. Haven’t really had a chance to give that much thought, but I don’t know that that is actually going to be workable because – I’ve already had a discussion with the designer on this – that is going to be a very difficult movement to make even the way it’s designed right now, given that you are going to have to make a 180-degree turn there to make the movement. And I’ve already discussed that with them. I don’t know if they are going to do something to try and -. As you can see, if you try to establish another lane on Kuakini Highway at that location, first of all we don’t have the width for that right now, and the other issue is I don’t think geometrically it’s feasible, given where their driveway location is on that illustration that’s on screen. GIFFIN: I see. I wasn’t, you know, I couldn’t even think that far in terms of geometrically, but I was thinking in terms of space and if we had enough room right there to allow for a right-turn merge lane. EMLER: Yeah, if anything, Public Works would like to have a right-turn lane on Kuakini at the intersection of Palani and Kuakini, and right now we haven’t gotten that established it’s possible because of the alignment of the lanes on the other side. And we haven’t widened that side of Kuakini yet. So at some point in time another through-lane that would probably be a combination through/right would be added there at minimum. And, you know, when we do that, again, that traffic movement from that driveway is going to be very difficult; you are going to end up encroaching in the, in the inside lane as I would put it, you would be encroaching across the makai lane into the next lane in order to make the movement. GIFFIN: Thank you, Ki. Can you just stay there for a minute? Commissioners, do you have any questions of Ki Emler from Public Works? None? Okay. The applicant, is there anything you would like to say in response to the Kona Traffic Safety Committee’s concern as stated on April 13? S. LEE: No. We are planning to comply with the right-turn egress only and not, no ingress from that driveway. And our engineer did, well, for a regular car, they can make the, basically a U-turn movement; we’ve, he’s done the calculations and that shows it can. But, again, if they do widen the highway, then I’m not sure what that will do to it. GIFFIN: Right, right, right. Okay. Mr. Gimpel, would you like to come forward? And there is only one microphone, so -. GIMPEL: Thank you. I yet just have one question of perhaps Public Works. How will a right-turn entrance be prevented on Kuakini? Somebody driving south on Kuakini, coming to that driveway, how will they be prevented from making a right turn into the driveway? GIFFIN: Yes, Ki. EMLER: This is design that was also being considered for the, in other words the right-turn out only was, I think, the same movement they were considering for the Kentucky Fried Chicken and, but I don’t recall whether the exact building layout was the same. There is, I believe, some 7 EXHIBIT A angularity that you can put into the driveway ramp that will provide some hint to the driver that they are not really going to be able to make the movement and so -. Yeah, the sidewalk width is not huge there, and so that is going to be difficult. We’ve always had some difficulty trying to work in our restrictions like that in a sidewalk design, especially given the narrow width of the sidewalk that’s available, probably only about eight feet or so there. And so, yes, it’s, I think it’s going to be an engineering problem to make sure that people get the hint properly. And, but signage is probably going to be the way that it is done. And you are always going to have somebody that tries to defeat the system. But that is why we put in, for the left turn provision from Kuakini, we tried to make sure that the applicants would be, if Public Works required it, be required to put in some kind of barrier in Kuakini to prevent left turns in to the project, which they are not proposing at this time. Yeah, as far as their designer coming back to us with any solution to what we made a comment on, that hasn’t happened yet. I’m interested to see what they’ve come up with as far as, even a passenger car template on that. I think that, when Kuakini is widened, that we will be putting that makai lane – in other words two through-lanes, one of them will be a shared through/right – one of those lanes is going to end up being actually closer to the sidewalk than it is now. The through lane that’s there now is spaced somewhat away from the curb and gutter and sidewalk; there is a striped area between the through lane there and the sidewalk. And when we do our widening and put in the additional through lane, we are going to end up moving the makai lane closer to the curb, which again is going to create more of an encroachment condition for somebody making that turn, right- turn movement 180 degree out of that establishment. So I do take exception to that at this point without getting better information from it. GIFFIN: Daryn, is there, you know, knowing all of this, is there something that we should also include in verbiage? ARAI: My philosophy – and I hope that philosophy doesn’t run counter to the Director’s philosophy, but – but, like zoning, like use permits, we are at the level of a special management area review. All we expect from the applicant is a conceptual project plan that gives us at least some idea of what is being proposed so we can assess it for impacts to the coastal resources of the area. There is going to be a lot that’s going to occur after this process, should you approve this SMA permit. They are not going to do, or put a lot of resources into detailed engineering and whatever else that is necessary, if they don’t have the entitlements in place. It just makes sense. So in my opinion, you should be rested assured that from this point on, should the use permit be approved, they will go through a lot of engineering analysis, design coordination with Public Works; everything has to be done and meet with approval of the County before they can actually implement it. And I would rely on that process, rather than trying to design and engineer something in what is basically just a permit to determine if there is any environmental impacts. So with that being said, if the Director wishes to jump in, by all means. GIFFIN: Bobby Jean? LEITHEAD TODD: Well, you know, we already had one case where we denied an SMA based on traffic issues and that got overturned up above, because they basically said that that was not the focus of an SMA; the SMA is to be looking at whether there is environmental impacts, and on cultural resources, on the shoreline resources, and whether you’ve got historic sites, you know, those are the kinds of things that you are supposed to be looking at. The traffic aspect is really more when they come in for approval with Public Works in terms of what Public Works will require them, taking into consideration the site and the plan. And my recollection, isn’t that site dug down a little? Isn’t there a, is there a drop? 8 EXHIBIT A S. LEE: Yes. LEITHEAD TODD: So I was just thinking it’s going to be a little tough for you guys to do that exit, because it’s got to be at an angle, right? Or you’ve got to lift, fill in -. S. LEE: We are leveling (inaudible) -. ARAI: Microphone, please -. LEITHEAD TODD: You’re going to level, okay. ARAI: You want him to clarify that comment? GIFFIN: Yeah, I think he should. S. LEE: Yeah, we are leveling the property at that point, primarily because we have to meet ADA accessibility, as well as to make that, you know, a lot more easier for the customers who drive in or drive out. And we are working with the County, you know, on the specific driveway. I mean, if it’s, you know, if it does become a problem of safety or what not, I mean, we are concerned about the safety of our customers, too, so if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. LEITHEAD TODD: And I should probably give you a heads-up that when you come in with a landscaping plan, I, we heavily, heavily in favor of native plants and plants that don’t require a lot of water. And that’s because it’s consistent with our plans for Kona, because we are trying to reduce the amount of water that’s consumed because of, you know, water supply, and also the fact that we are trying to move -. Native lowland plants tend to require less water. And so it’s one of the things that we strongly push when you come in. So I just want to -. I notice that you have a few that I like, but I am going to have questions about some of the other things that you had in your proposal as to whether those require a lot of water, what kind of root system it has. Because we just had a snafu on another project here in Kona where we had approved native plants and then somebody complained and without knowledge the trees got changed on the property, then we had a local resident come in and complain that they were putting in an invasive plant on the property, and then all those trees had to be yanked out and replaced with native trees; so I’m just giving you the heads-up that we probably don’t want to go down that path where we come in and say, “What the heck is that doing there?” Okay? S. LEE: We appreciate. We have been working with the Kailua Village special design district people, and they made the similar comments. LEITHEAD TODD: Okay. GIFFIN: Good. Commissioners, any questions of either the applicant, Public Works or Mr. Gimpel? WHITTEMORE: Can I -? GIFFIN: Tom. 9 EXHIBIT A WHITTEMORE: I want to go back to the traffic thing just for, just a suggestion more than anything else. I know that the way that you’ve got it configured now with the drive-through in the back, you need to have access on the driver side of vehicle; but if you reversed it and did sort of a module unit on the outside so the driver were on the, you know, facing the north side, you would be, your traffic seems to me, the flow would go a lot easier towards accomplishing what they are talking about, creating a lane to merge right. Am I explaining myself properly? I just, I know it’s a little complicated. Some financial institutions have accomplished it very successfully. It’s just a kiosk kind of a thing, and you -. S. LEE: Well, we don’t take too many people are going to exit out onto Kuakini, because if you enter from Palani and you drive around the, around the bank, you are going to, your, the natural route, the way out is going to be on Palani. WHITTEMORE: I think that a left turn on Palani is suicidal truthfully. You see people trying to get out of, I see people trying to get out of King Kamehameha Hotel and it’s a challenge, so it’s just -. And you’ve got an incline there, you’ve got a shorter lane because you’ve got two lanes, one’s got to turn, you know, north on Kuakini, but -. Anyway, I’m not Public Works. But just a comment. GIFFIN: Any other concerns? The applicant, would you like to have any sort of closing comment? S. LEE: No. We appreciate the comments. We are working closely with the County on these various issues. GIFFIN: Okay. Mr. Gimpel? GIMPEL: No, thank you. GIFFIN: You’re welcome. Ki, anything else you’d like to add? EMLER: No, ma’am. GIFFIN: All right, thank you. Commissioners, if I’ve read your body language correctly, there are no more comments on this application. Do I hear a motion? Mr. Iokepa. IOKEPA: Madam Chair, I propose a motion to approve Special Management Permit No. 12- 000049 to allow the establishment of a financial institution complex. GIFFIN: Thank you. Do I hear a second? HICKCOX: Second. GIFFIN: It’s been moved by Commissioner Iokepa and seconded by Commissioner Hickcox that the Special Management Area Use Permit 12-000049 be approved, along with the recommendations by the Director, including the comments that were raised by the public and the answers to questions that were submitted to us by Planning, by Public Works. Any discussion? Hearing none, Daryn? ARAI: Commissioner Iokepa? 10 EXHIBIT A IOKEPA: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman? GIFFIN: Aye. ARAI: Madam Chairwoman, motion carries with five aye votes. GIFFIN: Thank you. You’ll be informed in writing of today’s actions. S. LEE: Thank you. GIFFIN: You’re welcome. The discussion ended at 10:12 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 11 EXHIBIT A