Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-26 Leeward Exh A - Leach LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 KEITH LEACH (SMA-13-052) A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of was called to order at 9:35 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Vice Chair Brandi Beaudet presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Geraldine Giffin, Brandi Beaudet, Thomas Hickcox, Richard Nelson, III, Barbara Nobriga and Thomas Whittemore ALSO PRESENT: Bobby Command (Deputy Planning Director), Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Planner), Kiran Emler (Department of Public Works, Engineering Division) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And approximately 25 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: KEITH LEACH (SMA-13-052) Application for a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the construction of a second single-family dwelling and related improvements on 32,567 square feet of land situated within the County’s Resort-Hotel (V-1.25) zoning district and the Special Management Area (SMA). The property is located at 69-1624 Puakō Beach Drive, Lālāmilo, South Kohala, Hawai‘i, TMK: 6-9-002:013. GIFFIN: So without any further ado, let’s begin with Agenda Item No. 1. The applicant is Keith Leach, and he is applying for a Special Management Area use permit to allow the construction of a second single-family dwelling and related improvements on 32,567 square feet of land situated within the County’s Resort-Hotel zoning district and the SMA area. There you are, Jeff. DARROW: Thank you, Madam Chair Giffin. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission, welcome. And welcome to our newest commissioner, Commissioner Nobriga. If I can direct your attention to our presentation this morning. Our first application is for Keith Leach. As mentioned, he is requesting a Special Management Area use permit this morning. The area of this application is within the South Kohala District. More specifically, we are looking in the area of Puakō. Just for reference, we have Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway running in a north-south direction, and we have Puakō Beach Drive that brings access into the Puakō area, which is this area there. This is a little closer view; you will notice the subject property is identified with the black outline. The different colors on the map represent different colors of zoning. Just for reference, the light green as referenced on the map is Agricultural 5-acre, the yellow on the left side of the map represents Single-Family Residential zoning, and the purple represents Resort zoning. The darker green on the makai side of the map, or the north side, is Open zoning. You will also notice that between the subject property and the ocean there is another property, which is owned by the State; so this actually is approximately 150 feet from the nearest coastline. This is the State Land Use Boundary Map; the pink identifies Urban zoning, and the blue identifies Conservation. There is a little bit of Agriculture showing on the bottom right portion of the map, which is located closer to 1 EXHIBIT A the highway. This is the General Plan LUPAG Map, or the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map for the area; this is showing the subject property identified as Low Density Urban, which is mainly for single-family residential type uses. There is a node of Medium Density Urban, which is more for commercial type uses. Your dark green color represents Open, which is more for open or conservation type uses. This is an aerial – I’m sorry I forgot to change that – again, the subject property identified with the black outline. Currently, there is a single-family dwelling that has been constructed on the property, and we’ll show pictures of that. Again, we see the State property between the subject property and the ocean. You’ll notice the condominium project that’s on Puakō Beach Drive, as well as similar single-family dwelling type uses along Puakō Beach Drive. The applicant is requesting a Special Management Area use permit to allow the construction of a second single-family dwelling and related improvements on a portion of a 32,567-square foot property. This is a condominium property regime, or CPR consisting of two CPR units, one of which CPR2 is assigned to the applicant. The development will consist of a two-story, five- bedroom, four-bath single-family dwelling, a garage, which is approximately 6,120 square feet in size. There will be approximately 956 square feet of covered decks, site boundary walls, a swimming pool, which will be constructed as a common element to CPR1 and CPR2, and a septic wastewater system. This was a portion of the applicant’s site plan submitted with the application; this lower portion on the left side of the map shows the entire property, the left side of that plan shows the existing dwelling, on the right side this would be the proposed dwelling, which is further shown on the right side of the map. These are elevations of the house. I’ve just grabbed the south and east elevation showing that a portion of the house will be two stories. These are site photos. This is Puakō Beach Drive; we are looking makai. There is an identified shoreline public access that is located just to the south of the subject property, and that’s in this location. This is the single-family dwelling that has been constructed on the property. This is on Puakō Beach Drive, looking north, with the subject property on the left side of the map; again, you can see the constructed dwelling. And we are looking south on Puakō Beach Drive, with the subject property on the right side. This is straight on the property looking makai. This would be the location where the new proposed second dwelling would be constructed. The Planning Director is recommending the Planning Commission approve this with conditions. I do have a few extra things to bring to your attention. No. 1, we have received two letters since the background recommendation was sent to the Planning Commission: No. 1 is a comment letter from the Department of Public Works, dated August 7, 2013, and then this morning we have received a letter from Ross Engineering, dated September 26, who is, David Ross is their representative for the applicant. I would like to turn your attention to Exhibit 10, which was received by the Planning Department in relation to this application, in which four questions were asked, and I’d like to address those questions for the Planning Commission. No. 1 – I’m sorry, this letter was received from Josephine Tanimoto, the date of the letter is August 19, 2013 – Question 1 asks, “The property map does not detail an SMA boundary Chapter 205A. Therefore, it is undiscernable to where the highwater mark is located.” As mentioned previously, this property is not a shoreline property, there is a property that’s between the shoreline and this property; therefore, a shoreline survey was not requested. It’s approximately 150 feet from the nearest shoreline. Additionally, this entire area up to the highway 2 EXHIBIT A is within the Special Management Area. So it was unclear as to exactly what she was asking, but hopefully, that answers that question. She is saying on No. 2, “Therefore, the swimming pool may need some adjusting.” Again, because it’s so far from the coastline, there would be no, it’s clearly out of the 40-foot shoreline setback area. No. 3, “It is unknown what type of wastewater treatment will accommodate the swimming [pool]. This community frowns on marine water pollution.” If I could direct that attention to the applicant’s representative in regards to how they are planning on taking care of draining the pool, if they ever need to. And then, “Lastly, there was no indication how the outdoor night light system will prevent shining into the ocean.” And that brings me to my next issue, which is we need to make an adjustment in the recommendation regarding outdoor lighting. There is a condition that has been placed within the application that deals specifically with outdoor lighting, and this is Condition No. 6 found on Page 8 of the recommendation. It says, “All permanent lighting should be shielded in conformance with the Hawai‘i County Outdoor Lighting Ordinance.” It references Hawai‘i County Code Chapter 9, Article 14; that should be Chapter 14, Article 9. So my mistake. And the same change will need to be made on Page 5 of the recommendation on the lower portion of the page. GIFFIN: Jeff, excuse me, could you please go over again what Chapter and Article this is? DARROW: This would be Chapter 9, I’m sorry, Chapter 14, Article 9; so it’s just reversed. GIFFIN: And then Page 5 of what? DARROW: The recommendation. We make reference to the same Chapter in Code. But, again, this condition should take care of the issues regarding outdoor lighting. There was a change in the State law 205A-71, which required the counties to take care of outdoor lighting. Our County Code was changed to deal with shielding of lighting, outdoor lighting. And so when they come in for their permits, they will need to take those issues into account. And, again, we’ve made it even clear of making it a condition in the permit. Okay, I believe that concludes our presentation. Are there any questions? GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of Jeff? DARROW: Thank you. GIFFIN: Thank you. Hearing none, may I please ask that the, first of all, the lights go on, and secondly the applicant please come up, and/or his representative. ROSS: Good morning. My name is David Ross. GIFFIN: Good morning. Thank you very much. Please be sure to use the microphones. And I need to swear you in first. Could you please raise your right hand, both of you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Leeward Hawai‘i County Planning Commission? ROSS: I do. GIFFIN: All right. Beginning with you, sir, please state your name. 3 EXHIBIT A ROSS: My name is David Ross. I’m a civil engineer in Kona, and I prepared the application for Mr. Leach who is on my left. GIFFIN: Thank you. Go ahead, your full name. LEACH: I’m Keith Leach, and I’m the owner of the lot. GIFFIN: Thank you. Would you like to begin, Mr. Ross, or Mr. Leach? Who would like to begin to speak to this application? ROSS: Perhaps I should do that. GIFFIN: All right. Thank you. ROSS: This is a 35,000-square foot lot on which there have been two CPRs. And the one correction I’d like to make, I think it wasn’t clear, Mr. Leach owned CPR1 on the left hand side originally, and then he purchased CPR2; so he owns both at this time. And I think that was said that he owned only one; he owns them both. So I just, to make sure that, so he has authority to govern however the conditions are set and -. GIFFIN: Thank you for the clarification. ROSS: There is not going to be confusion there. And the first project that’s gotten started there was permitted, let’s see, I think the beginning of last year, right? And it was a two-bedroom residence that was meant to be a guest residence that would be built first and the main residence built second. And so when we came to building the second residence, that’s why we needed to do the SMA Major application. And I think the report that Jeff Darrow has given you, the overview was pretty thorough; I don’t know if I should repeat myself here on any of the aspects of it. But I think it’s fairly straightforward. The neighboring properties have similar homes that are of this character and developed in a similar way, and there are other actually CPR lots that are vacant that probably will also be developed in a similar way. So I would say this is a fairly typical residential application. And because of the planning requirements here we’ve completed the SMA Major application. So unless there are specific categories people would like me to clarify, I’m ready to answer some questions, GIFFIN: Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? BEAUDET: I have a question. GIFFIN: Mr. Beaudet. BEAUDET: I’m not sure if this question has anything to do with the application. But in view of the photo with the shoreline access to the south of the property, is there any opportunity for the owner to provide better parking so that the access can actually be utilized? There didn’t seem to be any shoulder parking or adequate shoulder parking to access that, the trail. ROSS: The trail itself is not on the Leach property; it’s on the adjacent parcel. The shoulder along the frontage there, and I haven’t looked at that, I suppose that’s County right-of-way, so if there 4 EXHIBIT A were, that there is, there is a driveway access that needs to be maintained open, but I imagine that there would be some, but I haven’t studies that so I’m not sure how many vehicles can park there. BEAUDET: I’m just familiar with the Puakō shoreline, and there is multiple access routes to the shoreline, which is appreciated; but for some reason when those access routes were developed, adequate parking space was not, was not, and I’m not sure if the association or the County would have come up with that, but there is inadequate parking for access through those beach access routes. ROSS: Right. Yes, I can speak to everything within the property boundary, and that we haven’t provided for public parking on a private property. So that’s the best answer I can give. GIFFIN: You know, Mr. Beaudet, I share your concern, and that maybe this is something Jeff or Ki can speak to? EMLER: Good morning. GIFFIN: Good morning, Ki. EMLER: Okay, so you wanted to know if there is parking available -. GIFFIN: Adequate. EMLER: Adequate. GIFFIN: You know, we were looking at the shoulder near and about the public access that abuts the subject property. The applicant has made it very clear that the public access is not on the subject property but on the southern lot right next to it. And Mr. Beaudet wanted to know about, you know, parking like perhaps on the shoulder or in fact even on the public access. EMLER: Okay, well, unless it’s designated as no-parking with signage, and usually there is a traffic code amendment that would establish that, then parking would be allowed off of the traveled way or the roadway; it wouldn’t be allowed to, say, block somebody’s driveway, but otherwise it should be allowed. The problem is sometimes as people encroach in these shoulder areas with their landscaping and so forth, which can limit it just by physical barrier. But, you know, if somebody does that and there is a complaint, we do follow-up. GIFFIN: Brandi? BEAUDET: That should suffice. I guess it was more of a question of staff than it would have been the property owner. But I’ve just, I fell into the problem where shoulder parking because of landscaping would actually put your vehicle, you know, inside the white line, and it becomes a safety issue, you know, both traffic and pedestrians, so -. ROSS: May I make one comment? BEAUDET: Sure. 5 EXHIBIT A ROSS: There will be a front wall that’s elevated a foot above grade so water can pass underneath it; so the problem with landscaping is not going to be an issue. So he will have all the way up to the property boundary whether in the areas where the gate, there is a gate that’s open to allow access to the property, obviously you can’t block that, but it looks to me like there might be room for possibly two vehicles in front of the guest residence, and maybe the same in front of the proposed new residence. So there might be three or four parallel parking slots along the frontage that could possible be used, I mean I haven’t sat down and measured it, but that’s what just the first impression seems to be. GIFFIN: Thank you. Daryn, did you want to add anything? ARAI: I guess I’m just simply going to add that I understand the concerns about adequacy of parking when you establish or create public accesses, because, you know, pedestrian movement and vehicular parking go hand in hand in many ways. In this particular area we are dealing with a subdivision that has pre-existed some of our current public access requirements. So in the best of both worlds, true, we would look at adequacy of parking while providing for pedestrian movements as well. But in this particular case, we do have a pre-existing situation and we cannot accommodate both, so at least there are provisions for pedestrian access; unfortunately, it’s hard for us to provide for parking as well. GIFFIN: Thank you. COMMAND: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: Bobby. COMMAND: May I ask a question of staff? GIFFIN: Yes. COMMAND: Ki, do you know the width of the shoulder in that area? EMLER: Let me see where I can find that. I didn’t record it, I should have, but -. My apology. GIFFIN: Did you have another question? COMMAND: No, no, I’m just, I’m just looking for -. GIFFIN: I know, I know. And the width becomes an issue at times. Jeff. DARROW: To answer the last question, the right-of-way width is 40 feet, the pavement width is 21 feet. So it appears that you are probably going to have anywhere between eight to ten feet on each side. When we went down, when we had -. Let me just go forward here, this will give a little better picture of what we are looking at in regards to the shoulders there. In regards to landscaping, as mentioned, yeah, you can see certain areas, but in regards to the subject property it doesn’t look like that would be an issue, if they are going to be putting the wall that they have mentioned. So it could provide several parking spaces in the front along the subject property. I also, when we visited this 6 EXHIBIT A area for the site inspection, we actually parked on the mauka side of the road, which accommodated our vehicle off the road. GIFFIN: Thank you, Jeff. Any other comments from Commissioners regarding this agenda item? Mr. Hickcox. HICKCOX: Madam Chair, there was a question raised by Mr. Darrow in reference to the handling of waste water, not waste water, swimming pool water, should it have to be drained. ROSS: Yeah, I spoke with Mr. Leach about this just this morning. It seems like there are two options. In a normal situation, you can have drainage that meets the County Code in a slow percolation situation, you know, like a 24-hour or 48-hour where you just, you know, don’t do it in a hurry. An alternate to that would be actually have a truck come in and pump it out and truck it away. So those are two options that come to mind immediately. We’ll do whatever is required by the County, whatever the standards are. GIFFIN: I think that was in response to the letter, right, Tommy, from Jojo Tanimoto that Jeff spoke of earlier, and I think it is No. 3. So is there going to be any kind of statement in terms of what is going to be required, Jeff? DARROW: In speaking with Ki regarding this issue, it looks like this would be a situation that would probably most likely fall under Department of Health, Clean Water Branch. And so our standard condition that says that the applicant shall comply with all rules, laws and regulations -. GIFFIN: Yeah, uh huh. DARROW: But the main concern, I believe, that the drafter of the letter was trying to make was that we avoid the water going into the ocean. GIFFIN: Ocean. DARROW: Yeah, so that’s the main thing is that if the Commission would like to entertain a specific condition, we can draft up something, or if you feel that the current condition is sufficient -. GIFFIN: Jeff, what specifically, which No. is that in reference to? I can’t seem to find it. Oh, yeah. Tommy, we go back to you. Is No. 12 on Page 8 specific enough to meet your concerns and your questions? HICKCOX: My concern dealt primarily with the answering of the question itself. I know that the water usage and disposal issues are covered, and the addition of chlorine to the ocean is actually prohibited, if I’m not mistaken. Correct me, if I’m wrong, Jeff. DARROW: Unfortunately, I’m not sure about these things. In this particular area in our situation, again, we were looking at the property that was quite a distance away from the shoreline, so we weren’t as concerned in regards to this issue. Had it been something more -. And I believe Health would have commented clearly in regards to that issue, had it been a shoreline parcel. 7 EXHIBIT A HICKCOX: Yeah, well, maybe, maybe the question should just go to the applicant then, though. What are you planning to do with the water from the pool, should you have to empty the pool? ROSS: I can tell you we are not planning to run it over land onto the, across the boundary into the ocean; we are definitely not planning to do that. Like I say, usually whenever you have pools on a property, on a residential property, if there is storm drainage improvements, usually you have a separate line from the pool that lets just slowly drain over a period of time. That’s a normal application that would probably be our preferred application. The ground does act as a sand filter or, you know, a gravel filter. So if that meets the question about chlorine -. I’ve never done a study on how effective the ground is in filtering out before, 150 feet later the water finally makes its way into the contact with the ocean. This is a new question in terms of what level and how, what level, or standard where we are working to. But if that becomes a standard that’s required of us, we will meet it by trucking the water out every five years, which, you know, in other words Mr. Leach is not anticipating regularly emptying his pool, but if it’s necessary, if he has to bring a water truck in and pump it into a truck and haul it away, that’s what he will do, if that’s what is required. GIFFIN: Tommy, excuse me. But, Bobby, being the Director, how comfortable are you with the verbiage in terms of this condition? COMMAND: I’m comfortable with the language; but if the Commission would like to add something else, that’s, I’m comfortable with that as well. GIFFIN: Okay, good. Tommy. HICKCOX: I think that the applicant’s statement as far as being on the record as to do the right thing will be sufficient at this point. Thank you. GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, any other comments regarding Agenda Item No. 1? Hearing none, do I hear a motion? Oh, I should say that no one has signed up for public testimony for this agenda item. Having said that, do I hear a motion? Mr. Beaudet? BEAUDET: With regard to Special Management Area Use Permit No. 13-000052 I move for the approval of the permit, along with the conditions as stated within the County’s recommendation. GIFFIN: Thank you. Do I hear a second? HICKCOX: Second. GIFFIN: It’s been moved by Commissioner Beaudet and seconded by Commissioner Hickcox that the Special Management Area use permit, No. 13-000052, be approved, along with the conditions as stated by our Director. Any discussion? Hearing none, Jeff? DARROW: If I could ask for clarification. The approval recommendation will also include the minor amendments that were -. GIFFIN: Yes, sorry, yes, the changes in the numbers that Jeff brought up earlier. DARROW: Thank you. With that, we’ll take the motion. Commissioner Beaudet? 8 EXHIBIT A BEAUDET: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. DARROW: And Madam Chair? GIFFIN: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, six to zero. GIFFIN: Congratulations. You should get all of this in writing from our Department. ROSS: We thank the Commission for your consideration and this opportunity to be with you. Thank you so much. GIFFIN: You’re welcome. The discussion ended at 10:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 9 EXHIBIT A