Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-04-18 Windward Transcript Santo WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 18, 2013 NOBUCHIKA SANTO A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (SLU 13-007/REZ 13-161) was called to order at 9:25 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Pro Tem Ronald Gonzales presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Ronald Gonzales, Wallace Ishibashi, Myles Miyasato, Raylene Moses, Charles Heaukulani, Gregory Henkel and Stephen Ono 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), and Sharon Nomura (Secretary) Four people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: NOBUCHIKA SANTO (SLU 13-007/REZ 13-161) Applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to Urban District and a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-1 acre (A-1a) to a Single-Family Residential–15,000 square feet (RS-15) zoning district for approximately 1 acre of land. The subject property is located along the south side of Ainako Avenue, approximately 360 feet west from its intersection stnd with Kokea Street, Punahoa 1 and 2, South Hilo, Hawai‘i, TMK: 2-5-023: 015. ISHIBASHI: Okay, next agenda item we have applicant Nobuchika Santo (SLU 13-007/ REZ 13161). ARAI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning Commissioners, Planning Director. The third item on your agenda this morning is a request by Nobuchika Santo for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment as well as a Change of Zone. If I may direct your attention to the presentation screen. The subject property is located in the Pi‘ihonua area of upper Hilo. Just to help you, orient you, this line here at the top of the map is Waiānuenue Avenue. The line in the middle here is Ainako Street, which then makes a turn and heads to Waiānuenue Avenue. And below you in the area running through this yellow-shaded area is is Kaūmana Drive. Subdivisions in the proximity is also, I believe this is Hilo Heights Subdivision that is located off of Ainako, I’m sorry, Akolea Road, which is to the left of your map. And the subject property is here outlined in black. And if I were to zoom in, as you can see this is basically the crest of Ainako Street heading mauka as it turns and heads toward this connection with Waiānuenue Avenue. The subject property, again, is outlined in the black, and the colors you see here is representing the zoning districts. The green represents Agricultural 1-acre minimum lot size. The yellowish 1 EXHIBIT A color here or the mustard color is Single Family Residential uses with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. As you can see the property is basically split zoned with the sections closest to Ainako Avenue being Single Family Residential and the back half being Agricultural. This is the State Land Use District boundary map. And as you can see, the pink represents Urban district classification. The green color represents Agricultural district classification; and it’s consistent with the zoning district classification that affects the subject property. This is the General Plan designation for the area. And, as you note, more than ¾ of the property is in the yellow area which represents Low Density Urban uses. The General Plan, I should preface, is the County’s long-range planning document and establishes the land use policies for the entire island. The back half in the mustard color is the Rural designation, which is basically ½ acre Residential/Agricultural designated lands. Due to the broadbrushed nature, even though the map shows a split designation between Low and Rural, I would generally consider the whole thing to be Low Density Urban, just for the sake of application. The applicant is requesting a State Land Use Boundary amendment from Agricultural to the Urban district and a Change of Zone from Agricultural 1 acre minimum lot size to Single Family Residential-15,000 square feet minimum lot size for approximately 1 acre of land. By this action, the applicant hopes to facilitate estate planning for the future. This is a subdivision map showing the outline of the property itself. As you can see the dash line that runs through the property near the top of the map is basically where the Urban district boundary and the Single Family Residential zoning district boundaries lie. The front half that’s Urban and Single Family is approximately 13,500 square feet, with the back end which is designated Agricultural about 1 acre. Ainako Avenue runs along the front of the property here toward the top. And off to the left you may see a 60-foot wide future road. That is shown on our map for future planning purposes. That’s where we expect a new alignment of a road to extend from Iwipolena Street, which connects to Kaūmana Drive, and runs all the way through Ainako Street. And if you’re interested I have a map later in the presentation if you want to take a look at it. But that road does not exist on the ground. This is an aerial photo of the subject property. As you can see an existing home near the front half of the property is situated within the Single Family Residential and State Land Use Urban districts. As you can also tell the 60-foot alignment, future road is off to your left, and it does not exist on the ground. The back half of the property in the Agricultural zoned area is not improved at this time. This is a shot looking at the driveway leading to the existing home from Ainako Avenue. And you may note that along the front of the property is a drainage system that runs along Ainako Avenue; and under the driveway is a culvert system. The Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation on both the State Land Use Boundary Amendment as well as the Change of Zone request, subject to conditions of approval. 2 EXHIBIT A Now if I may direct your attention to the reports, the background and recommendation report, that we transmitted to you earlier, and more specifically if you could go to the recommendation itself. Attached to the recommendation, the favorable recommendation I should say, are proposed conditions of approval; and they’re labeled A through O. When the Director offered her favorable recommendation it was based on the assumption that based on the existing zoning classifications applied to the property, both single family residential as well as agricultural zoning, we initially determined the applicant had the right to basically build two homes on the property. So we felt that by virtue of this change of zone request, if we did support it, it could allow a third lot and a third home to be constructed. So the conditions were built around approval of these requests allowing additional residential units to be built. And as you know, with additional density, additional units, there should be mitigating conditions, things like fair share assessment, improvement to roads, and so forth and so on. However, recently we kind of went back and took a second look at it and we came to realize that the existing zoning could allow three homes on the property, and possibly four. Because the front of the property being Urban classification and Single Family Residential, the applicant had the right to apply for an ohana dwelling permit. The back end is Agricultural uses; and if they conduct as on the back portion of the property they have the ability to apply for a farm dwelling. And if they do enough Ag, they have the ability to apply for an additional farm dwelling. So they have those prescribed rights to apply now. So by applying for the change of zone, not only does it eliminate the split zoning of the property which creates difficulties in its own, basically it’s no harm, no foul, because the conditions do require that should lots be created on the property that restrictive covenants will not allow additional homes on each lot, like an ohana dwelling. So with that being said, we offer the revised conditions shown on the yellow piece of paper that we recently passed out to you; and if I may direct your attention to that. We ask that because there will be basically no increase in density should this change of zone be approved, and State Land Use Boundary Amendment, that Conditions (B) pertaining to the water commitment payments; (C) pertaining to a performance time frame to secure final subdivision approval, Condition L which applies to, refers to fair share, and Condition O which is the time extension request, those conditions be eliminated simply because there will be no increase in density. So, these performance conditions are normally associated with increased development and mitigating requirements. Furthermore, as you can see, just below the first statement we do indicate that Conditions B and C are being struck down, struck out. Below that you have revised Condition B. Revised Condition B is currently Condition D in your goldenrod conditions; and we’re asking that that, the added language that’s underscored be included in the proposed condition where we include the words “consisting of less than 30,000 square feet.” What that basically means is that if he creates lots as small as 15,000 square feet, which would be allowed by the proposed zoning, he would have to include covenants that will restrict the construction of like an ohana dwelling on the property. It’s just basically limited to one home per lot. If he creates lots bigger than 30,000 square feet, then no such restrictions would apply. But that, because the lot is only 57,000 square feet, he cannot build more than three lots. He would be limited to two lots only. And, finally, on the back end of that yellow sheet, you have a revised Condition D which is realphabetized Condition F which provides further elaboration regarding 3 EXHIBIT A improvements to the frontage of the road, frontage of the property along Ainako Street. And these types of improvements are normally associated with subdivision of the property, so we decided to leave these conditions, this particular condition intact; and we provided further clarification on when it should be implemented. At this time I believe I’ve covered everything, so I stand ready to answer any questions that you may have. ISHIBASHI: Questions? Commissioner Ono? ONO: Yes. Condition C, I’m kind of, rather confused on your presentation. We’re addressing the request for one residential development but the entire report seems to say that the individual is planning an estate development for the entire area. So that on Item C are we deferring Item C because of what you had mentioned about the other conditions, or are we taking the whole property request as a projected development for all of the property? ARAI: In the application the applicant made it clear that the landowner had no intentions of constructing a second home at this time, nor did they have any intentions of subdividing the property at this time. It is basically to clean up the split zoning and make it easier to, say if they contemplate in the future building a second home that it could, it will be allowed to do so. So we kept that part of it in mind. Let me see, if I can back up just a little bit. Even though the zoning, part of the complication was that the zoning could allow the subdivision of up to three lots, even though the applicant indicated they have no intensions of doing so. But you can also see the complication of having this split zoning where, for example, you have Ag in the back and Residential in the front. If you wanted to do something like put up a chicken coop on the property, which is perfectly fine on the Ag portion, you couldn’t spill over into the urban portion because that is prohibited by law. But yet the landowners would sit on this land and say this is just my 1.3 acre property. So you can see some of the difficulty. So we tried to accommodate this applicant’s request by basically cleaning up the split zoning, and hopefully it will provide for, facilitate estate planning in the future. LEITHEAD TODD: The current intent in their application is that while they’re healthy, right now they’re both retired, they foresee that in the future they may want to either expand their home or build a second home so that the children can reside close to them to care for them as they get older. And the problem with the split zoning is that you can build on the Ag land but generally you have to justify it as a farm dwelling; and they don’t envision really doing agriculture. So at the moment they’re not looking at subdivision cause they’re going to continue on this property for, you know, however long they envision living there. It could be 10 years, 20 years. But they envision that at some point in the future when they pass that their children may want to subdivide to create separate parcels out. But there’s no intent to subdivide now. But they just are trying to clean it up now so that in the future if they have to do estate planning that it’s all one zoning, all one type of residence, and you don’t have to deal with the whole issue of having agriculture on the back portion in order to justify an additional dwelling there. ARAI: And if I can add one thing. The property was originally 13,500 square feet roughly. 4 EXHIBIT A Sometime ago, and I forget the exact date, the County did allow a consolidation/resubdivision of the property to basically grab a portion of the one-acre portion in the back and absorb it into the RS. So, in essence, the County created a split zone situation. So, you know, we allowed that to happen. So now the applicant is saying give us the opportunity to eliminate this split zoning which creates complications. So that’s part of the consideration when we reviewed this application. LEITHEAD TODD: The other thing, you might notice, if you look at the lots next door and how far back from the road they go, you can see that the RS zoning, you know, typically runs much farther back from Ainako than this particular parcel does. And so the reclassification to Urban is really consistent with what’s right next door all along Ainako. The reason that the property to the left is still, you know, Ag is basically cause that’s where the road extension is supposed to go along the boundary of their property. Whether the County ever builds that road, I don’t know. But we, you know, generally we try to plan for connectivity. ARAI: And what I just threw up on the screen is what the County envisions as possibly a future road alignment. And you can see Ainako here at the top, the subject property outlined in back, and this is an extension of Iwipolena Street which goes all the way back down to Kaūmana Drive. ISHIBASHI: Any further questions to staff from the Commissioners? Okay, thank you. Could we have the applicants come forward. FUKE: Good morning. ISHIBASHI: Good morning. Raise your right hand. FUKE: Sure. ISHIBASHI: Do you affirm to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission over this matter? FUKE: I do. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Go ahead. FUKE: Okay. Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Sidney Fuke. I’m a planning consultant, but today I’m kind of like working in the capacity of trying to help out my friend of over 40 years; and he’s a surveyor. He started off the company called Island Survey. Island Survey is still kind of on-going. He’s 86 or 87 years old, he and his wife; and he still golfs once a week. But, and his daughter who is a physical therapist lives with them. And obviously I don’t know how many more years, and hopefully many more years for Mr. And Mrs. Santo, but at some point in time they’re going to need to have a little bit more extended care. And the original plan was to possibly extend their existing home to possibly, you know, make accommodations for their daughter to live there, not, excuse me, she lives here already, but to provide more accommodations, you know, better service for the parents. But just given the location of the home, it became really difficult because there’s a big drop. And so they were thinking then 5 EXHIBIT A maybe another alternative would be to build a home in the back. And so if they build a home in the back as the discourse between the Director and the staff had indicated, you know, there’s some, it becomes kind of like setback complications, the use complications, and all that stuff. So essentially all they wanted to do is just clean it up so that it makes it a little bit easier for them at some point in time to either expand that existing dwelling or possibly more than likely construct the second dwelling, that second dwelling being in the back. Mr. Santo and his wife, they acquired the one-acre portion in 1990 and, you know, as a surveyor I guess like he was responsible in doing some of the survey work on the properties in the back. And, I guess, you know, he thought that it was a very good opportunity for him to also extend or increase the size of his lot. Because as the Director pointed out, if you look at many of the lots in that area there, one is like about 13,000 or 14,000 while most of the other lots in that area like about 18,000 to 20,000 square feet. And so the properties in the back, aside from his property, is zoned Ag-1. And there was a developer that was at one point in time interested in doing a massive one-acre lot subdivision. Whether that subdivision application is still pending or not, I’m not aware of. And that’s the reason why they had shown that road alignment. Then that property actually extends from Akolea Road going all the way down to Ainako Avenue. So, essentially, in a nut shell, you know, that’s what the applicant is requesting. And I’ve discussed the proposed conditions as amended by the staff this morning, you know, with the applicant and his family members, and they’re very appreciative of the proposed changes. ISHIBASHI: Any questions for the applicant’s representative? ONO: This is just a layman’s question. But is it possible that the present owner could use his existing property and make a driveway like thing to go further in the back to build the second home, if we don’t approve this thing? FUKE: Yeah, at this point in time, if they’re going to build a second dwelling they will probably utilize the existing driveway because, you know, you see that road stub, you know, it is nonexistent right now. So -. ONO: I was just wondering if in the future plan that the County was going to build that road. So it will be a long, long time. FUKE: I doubt very much if the County is going to build the road. If anything, it is going to be the obligation of the developer of that larger subdivision. So if and when that happens then it is possible that if Mr. Santo elects to subdivide his property then he'd be able to get access from that road. ISHIBASHI: Okay, any further questions? Okay, thank you. FUKE: Okay, thank you. LEITHEAD TODD: Mr. Fuke, for clarification, Mr. Santo does not own the parcel where we’re looking at a future road? 6 EXHIBIT A FUKE: No, he does not. LEITHEAD TODD: So he can’t use that for access to the -? ONO: I’d imagine he’d have to use his own existing road. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah. He’d have to use his own existing property because he doesn’t own the parcel next door and doesn’t have a, and there is no road. ISHIBASHI: Okay, thank you. FUKE: Thank you. ISHIBASHI: We have no public testifiers. Anybody would like to speak? No? Okay. PUBLIC: Hi. ISHIBASHI: Hi. Okay, motion is in order. Commissioners? MOSES: Mr. Chair, I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for a State Land Use Amendment, SLU 13-000037, based on the Planning Director’s recommendation and proposed conditions, and those that are revised conditions. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Any second? GONZALES: I’ll second. ISHIBASHI: Motion has been moved and seconded to approve of the recommendations to the County Council. Okay, the boundary amendment we’re taking that first, so that’s the motion. ARAI: Commissioner Moses made a motion to, a favorable recommendation on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment; and that does not have conditions of approval attached. The conditions are attached to the Rezoning. MOSES: I see, to the rezoning. ISHIBASHI: Okay, so we’re taking one at a time. MOSES: Okay, so it’s the State Land Use Boundary Amendment? That’s the first one? TORIGOE: Yes. MOSES: Okay. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment 13-000037 based on the Planning Director’s recommendation. 7 EXHIBIT A GONZALES: I second. ISHIBASHI: It has been moved and seconded by Commissioner Moses and Commissioner Gonzales. Any discussion? Open for discussion, Commissioners. Okay, seeing none, we can take a vote. ARAI: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. ARAI: Mr. Chairman? ISHIBASHI: Aye. ARAI: Mr. Chairman, motion carried with seven aye votes. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Now we have the rezoning. So we need a motion on that rezoning on the second part. MOSES: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for a change of rezone, Change of Zone Application 13-000161, based on the Planning Director’s recommendation and proposed conditions. ISHIBASHI: Any second? GONZALES: I’ll second. ISHIBASHI: Okay, it has been moved and seconded by Commissioner Moses and Commissioner Gonzales to approve the rezoning based on the recommendation from our Planning Director. Any discussion from the Commissioners? Okay, seeing none, take the vote. 8 EXHIBIT A ARAI: Mr. Chairman, sorry, I just want to clarify who made the second. ISHIBASHI: Seconded by Commissioner Gonzales. ARAI: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. ARAI: Mr. Chairman? ISHIBASHI: Aye. ARAI: Mr. Chairman, motion carries with seven aye votes. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. We’ll be notifying the applicant in writing of the decision. The discussion ended at 9:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 9 EXHIBIT A