Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-20 Leeward Exh B (REZ 14-179) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 20, 2014 ORCHID ISLE AUTO CENTER A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (REZ 14-179) was called to order at 10:10 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Brandi Beaudet presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Brandi Beaudet, Collin Kaholo, Thomas Hickcox, Barbara Nobriga, Keith Unger and Thomas Whittemore ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Danny Patel (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And approximately 20 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: ORCHID ISLE AUTO CENTER (REZ 14-179) Application for a Change of Zone from Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) to Village Commercial-10,000 square feet (CV-10) for approximately 1.002 acre of land. The property is situated immediately adjacent to the north of the Orchid Isle Auto Center that is located at the northeastern corner of stnd Kuakini Highway and Lako Street intersection, Hōlualoa 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 7- 6-013: 017. BEAUDET: Okay, the second application for today, applicant is Orchid Isle Auto Center, application for a change of zone from Agricultural 1-acre to Village Commercial-10,000 square feet, or CV-10, for approximately 1.002 acres of land. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. So we take a look at the regional location map. Here in outlined in blue is the subject parcel as located in the Kona Urban Area in Hōlualoa. We zoom in, we see the subject parcel here outlined in black; it is near the intersection of Lako Street running east-west and Kuakini Highway running north-south. The subject parcel is roughly triangular and about an acre in size. Surrounding zoning and uses are: to the east is the Kona Vista Subdivision and the zoning is Single-Family Residential-15,000 square feet; to the west is the Kilohana Kai Subdivision; and directly to the south is the Orchid Isle Auto Center and that’s zoned Village Commercial-10,000 square feet; across Lako Street, there is more Commercial, Village Commercial-10,000 square feet zoning with a gas station and another car dealership. Pardon me, above the subject parcel you’ll see the Walua Road right-of-way. That is the legal access to the subject parcel, but it is an undeveloped right-of-way. The applicant has proposed to utilize access through the parcel directly to the south, the Orchid Isle Auto parcel, to access the subject parcel. Surrounding State Land Use is generally Urban and that is in red. There is some State Land Use Agricultural designated areas to the north, and some to the further east Rural designation. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map shows the parcel roughly within the Low Density Urban designation; however, there was a determination requested, and if you look at 1 EXHIBIT B Exhibit 2 there is a letter to the applicant, stating that we determine that it is actually in the Medium Density Urban designation, which is the orange. Taking a look at the Kona Community Development Plan Concurrency Map, the property is outside of identified concurrency zones, M here in green and L in red. Also of notes it is outside of the nearest TOD designation, which is here in blue. Again, pardon me, the subject parcel is here outlined in black, and it is also within the designated Kona Urban Area, which is indicated by this red line. Here is an aerial photo of the subject parcel, again, roughly triangular around here, Lako Street running east-west, Kuakini Highway north-south. Access to the parcel is off of Lako Street here as again, being proposed, through the Orchid Isle Auto Center, and it would be accessing kind of the driveway area of the subject parcel that way. Again, here to the north of the subject parcel is that undeveloped Walua Road right-of-way. So the applicant is requesting a change of zone from Agricultural 1-acre to Village Commercial- 10,000 square feet for approximately 1.002 acres of land. If approved, the applicant will utilize the property to develop automobile storage and employee parking to support the existing auto sales business known as Orchid Isle Auto Center situated on the adjoining property to the south. One particular condition to mention, Condition B, would be a requirement that the applicants consolidate TMK No. 7-6-013: 017 and 035 within 180 days from the effective date of the ordinance. Here is the applicant’s site map, again, showing the existing Orchid Isle Auto Center here to the right, the parcel here, Kuakini Highway down below, and then again the Walua Road right-of-way. This is a picture taken from Lako Street, looking makai; on the right hand side here you’ll see one of the entrances to the Orchid Isle Auto Center, and this small paved area here is the entryway to Walua Road. Another kind of closer picture of the Walua Road entryway, you can see it’s overgrown with vegetation. Here is a photo that was taken, basically at the top corner of the parcel, looking down toward Lako Street. On the right hand side of the parcel here we are looking at Kuakini Highway, and you can see there is quite a bit of a drop between the highway and the parcel area. Now this is looking up from the corner of the parcel, kind of a terrace, you can see again there is a topography change. Going up higher you can see off in the distance here the Orchid Isle Auto Center building. And a little bit closer kind of up this berm here would be the Walua Road right-of-way. The Planning Director’s recommendation for this application would be a favorable recommendation to the County Council, with conditions. This is the end of the presentation, and I’m happy to answer any questions that Commission may have. BEAUDET: Any question of staff, Commissioners? UNGER: Can you just go over some of the conditions? KAY: Sure. This will be in your packets, in the draft ordinance. And the conditions of approval are actually on the blue sheets. The first, the major condition here is, again, that those two TMKs will be consolidated within 180 days from the effective date of the ordinance. We also have a condition here requiring the applicant to secure Final Plan Approval for the parking lot from the 2 EXHIBIT B Director within 180 days of the effective date of the ordinance as well. Those plans should identify the paved driveway accesses and parking stalls associated with the proposed development, as well as landscaping should be indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with Rule 17, Landscaping Requirements, of the Zoning Code. Prior to the construction of any new structure on the property in the future, the applicant would need to secure Final Plan Approval from the Director in accordance with the Zoning Code. Right now, the applicant has not said there are any future plans for constructing any structures, but we put that in there just in case, as the zoning changes, that it may be available to them. If the applicant wanted to utilize the Walua Road remnant for vehicular access, the applicant would widen and improve the remnant from its intersection with Lako Street and including the approved driveway access, providing for a minimum 50-foot wide right-of-way that conforms with the Department of Public Works Standard Detail R-33. The roadway improvements, which may include necessary street lighting, drainage improvements and utilities would be constructed in a manner meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. Should the applicant submit plans to establish a land use beyond what is proposed in this application, which the Planning Department in consultation with the Department of Public Works determines would generate over 50 peak hour trips, a Traffic Impact Analysis Report would need to be submitted for review by the Department of Public Works prior to Final Plan Approval. BEAUDET: Christian, excuse me. KAY: Yes. BEAUDET: If the Commissioners have any specific comments or questions regarding the condition, because the conditions have all been set and have all been reviewed, so if there is specific concern or question, then maybe we can get to that. UNGER: Is there any height limitations on structures? KAY: Within the Village Commercial zoning is 30 feet. UNGER: Okay, so that would be the limit. KAY: Correct. BEAUDET: Any more questions of staff? Thank you. I would like to ask the applicant or its representative to please come forward. Just, again, in the consciousness of time management, there have been four individuals from the audience who wish to testify, if you could come up to the front, then I could swear all of you in at the same time. I have Dan Hoff, Diane Blancett-Maddock, David Blancett-Maddock and Curtis Tyler. UNIDENTIFIED PUBLIC MEMBER: Excuse me. Do you take questions from the audience (inaudible)? BEAUDET: You would have to sign in with staff, and then come forward. (Secretary’s note: A public member informed the Chair that Mr. Tyler was outside the meeting room.) Okay, thank you. I’ll just swear all of you in for right now. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Leeward Planning Commission? 3 EXHIBIT B APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE AND TESTIFIERS: I do. BEAUDET: Thank you. Applicant, if you could introduce yourself. FUKE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I’m a planning consultant and I’m here assisting the applicant. My business address is 100 Pauahi Street in Hilo. HANLEY: I’m Joe Hanley, owner of Orchid Isle. My address is in Hilo, P. O. Box 4397. FUKE: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, the applicant has had a chance to review the staff’s background report and the proposed conditions, and found them to be on point, and all of the conditions are acceptable. I just wanted to give you a little bit of background as far as like how they came across this property. In the late 60’s, the County had either acquired this property or had this area donated to the County in anticipation of constructing a fire station, but, because the only fire station existing in Kona way back in the early 60’s was only down in Kailua. And what happened then was subsequently the County constructed a new fire station along Palani Road, and then they constructed another one down in Captain Cook, Kealakekua, and then finally above Keauhou and Pu‘uloa, and then the last one, of course, in Mākālei. So if you look at the entire stretch of North and South Kona, you pretty much like have all of the different areas covered. So back in 2007 the County decided that there was really no need for this particular parcel because as you can see from the photos that the staff has shown on the board, this is a remnant parcel, and the only access, realistic access, is coming in from Walua Road after the extension of the Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway at the Kuakini Highway intersection. So the County elected to put the property on auction. The adjoining property owner, which is the applicant, acquired the property in 2007. Since that time over the years what had happened is that they kind of gradually improved the site. So as you can see from the staff’s photo, the site is now like a quasi-improved into like a parking area where the applicant currently uses it for their overflow staff parking, as well as, you know, when they have excess vehicle coming into the area. The staff’s condition, you know, to answer Commissioner Unger’s question, is that some of the more appurtenant one is that first of all the staff is recommending that the two properties be consolidated. And the staff (sic) has no objection to that because that is the intent. Because if you have these two separate parcels being developed separately, then whoever is going to develop the subject parcel is going to have to sustain a lot of cost because you are going to have to improve and maintain, not maintain necessarily, but you are going to have to improve Walua Road, and you can see, you saw the decrepit condition of Walua Road right now. So they require that, you know, the lots be consolidated into one. Secondly, that they do have to come in for Plan Approval, you know, to legitimize what they already have right now, and alternatively if there are going to be any other kind of uses on the property, other than the auto storage or employee parking use, then they are going to have to come in for Plan Approval. I know there have been some concerns, you know, relative to height, you know, and, Director, to answer your question, the current zoning of the property is Ag-1 and the height limit within the 4 EXHIBIT B Ag-1 zoning right now is 45 feet. And by having this rezoning, then, of course, you have a reduction of, by 15 feet. This is not to say that that is the applicant’s plan; the applicant’s plan is to continue using it for the way it’s been using it for the last five or seven years, you know. But in the unlikely event at some point in time in the future, there is like, there are alternative uses for this area, then they are going to have to be capped at whatever the Zoning Code is, which is the 30-foot height limit. I think that’s pretty much like our portion of the presentation. So if there are any questions that the Commissioners may have, we would be more than happy to answer. BEAUDET: Commissioners, any more questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. Since we open this part of the discussion, I have more people from the audience wishing to testify. So if I could please ask the applicant to step back, that will provide more seating. We had one more testifier signed up; Michael Richards, if you could please bring yourself to the front. So I’d like to swear in at this time Curtis Tyler and Michael Richards. Please raise your right hand, sir. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Leeward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. BEAUDET: If we could just start from the far, my far left, or your far right, and, oh, okay, I’m sorry, special request for Mr. Tyler. If you could please introduce yourself, I know you’ve got some time constraints, and proceed with your testimony. TYLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Hawai‘i County Leeward Planning Commission. My name is Curtis Tyler. I’m a lifetime resident of Kona, and I’m a co-owner of Parcel 13 of Kona Vistas, which is directly adjacent to and mauka of Walua, excuse me, the Old Kailua-Keauhou Road that some of us used to take to go to school in the morning when we went mauka, elementary school. I have no objection to the consolidation and rezoning. I have a very major objection to the use of, to the possible use as recommended by the Department of Public Works letter dated 8-28-14, which is in your informational packet and the background report, saying that the road would need to be widened, etc. When Orchid Isle Auto Center approached the County to purchase this one-acre property, a resolution was brought forward for that in accordance with the Hawai‘i County Code. As I recall, and I apologize that I don’t have the resolution in front of me but certainly your staff can find it, there is a provision for the use of the portion of the old road for any vehicular purpose and no access from Orchid Isle Auto Center, it is not permitted; it was a condition of the sale. And the reason for that is because this is a residential district, we don’t want a 50-foot road there, and there is a possibility, as stated in the resolution, and if you go back and look at the testimony, that this might be a continuation of the Walua Walkway Trail; it was never thought to use it as a roadway. So I would say that if that’s one of the conditions that the road be improved, I would ask the Planning Director to please go back and check with the County Council regarding the condition of purchase of the property. I also recall that there was a request, I can’t remember if it was a condition, that any moneys that were derived from the sale of the public property remain in the district in which the property was located. 5 EXHIBIT B I have no other comments at this time. I would be happy to answer any questions that any of you might have. Thank you for this opportunity. And I appreciate from the others the opportunity to go first; I have an eleven o’clock appointment. BEAUDET: Thank you, Mr. Tyler. Any questions or discussion with the testifier, Commissioners? Thank you. TYLER: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. I hope you will look into that before you approve the condition. BEAUDET: Thank you. We appreciate that. We’ll start at the far right. If you could please state your name. DIANE BLANCETT-MADDOCK: Hello. My name is Diane Blancett-Maddock. I live on Kamehamalu Street, right above from the proposed change. One of my concerns is that the conditions that you are proposing that they submit a parking lot plan and landscaping things be done before the approval is done by the Planning Commission to make sure that they do comply with what you are asking them to do, because if you approve the change before the plan, there might be a chance that they will not do what they are supposed to. And I just drove by there today, and they already have paved the parking lot, they are already using it for the conditions that they are asking for now. It’s a paved parking lot, there is a wall, there are cars on it; so they have already been using this location before they had the zoning change, as an agricultural thing. The other thing that I’m concerned about is my house has an ocean view and a coastal view currently. If you permit any additional height, if you permit any additional growth on this property, on this site, I will lose my ocean view and my coastal view. Currently, this plan, this location is about 30 feet above the highway, so you are putting 30 feet there and you are putting 30 feet above that, you are going to talk about 60 feet or whatever the height restrictions are. It’s going to really block up the view of all these houses in the Kona Vistas Estates. I can currently see the location, the top of the roof already of the two-tiered building there. They are tiered up and they go all the way up this, they go up the mountain, the side of the mountain. They are not on the highway as the other commercial uses are; they are above that. Thank you. BEAUDET: Sir, please state your name and your residence. DAVID BLANCETT-MADDOCK: David Blancett-Maddock. That’s my wife. I always let her speak first. I also live on Kamehamalu. I have a several things and I have a couple of questions, if someone here could indulge me with the answers to those. Let me skip to one before I get to the other issues that are really primary to me. There is a condition here that the two properties merge as a single property for zoning purposes. My question is, how will you measure height once that happens? As you know from the topography running from north to south along the highway, that the topography rises at this location to probably its peak, and it then recedes down along, and if you look at the rest of the commercial zone that moves to the south, it runs into a valley where the lava has flown its highest point here. My wife has mentioned that there is nonconforming, what I would, in the terms I understand, it’s a nonconforming, illegal use that’s there currently. They are using it for the purposes that they are proposing to use it for. They may or may not do that in the future once the zoning change takes place. But if you consolidate these two properties, will you be measuring the height requirements from the highest point on the property, which will now be 6 EXHIBIT B additional 20 feet higher than it is on the property that’s below and zoned separately. If it is, I oppose that consolidation, because what it’s going to do is it’s going to increase the actual height restriction, rather than lessening it. We would actually be looking at, you know, this, what is it, 25 or 30 feet from the highest point. If that’s the case, then that’s going to be problematic. The entire property, I’m not, the entire property would be subject to those requirements. So I have some concerns about that, and I would wonder if someone here could answer the question about how they would be measuring the height, if the two divisions are joined. The other thing here is that, what she’s talking about topography is, as you know, well, let’s go back about the historical thing that was said here. I was looking at the sale of the property as it appeared back in August 23, 2006, when the County agreed to sell what was going to be a fire station. And there were restrictions at that time, not only to the highway but there were expectations from this owner as a condition of the purchase that they would develop certain things to accommodate the trail, they were supposed to provide water and parking for the public. Instead, they put their own uses into, on this property without any regard to the public. It seems to me that we have to be careful about the conditions where there is a history of an owner who violates both the law and the conditions that they obtain the property through. So I would ask that the Commission take a careful view of the conditions it’s making and make sure that they make these things stick. As one commissioner mentioned, you can tear any of this stuff apart in time. This is an odd district to begin with, because they’ve taken and made commercial out of this entire portion along there, and it goes all the way back up against the properties of Kona Vistas Estate, as you go to the south and to the west. We are going to have to be dealing with those height restrictions as time goes on. But that is a valley there. And now we are looking at raising the ultimate levels of these blocking the ocean. And if it is allowed to consolidate and those heights do go to the second portion of the property, which goes there, ultimately we’ll lose the coastal view, which is what people bought their properties for in first place. And this is primarily, it’s primarily a residential district on three sides. As to the use itself, we don’t know what the future uses would be, once you give them this commercial, this is the highest level of commercial view that I could find in your code. It comes just next to industrial, and so it really has the ability to encroach on neighborhood uses in a large way. I find it odd that they zoned this in this manner, because you have Neighborhood Commercial districts, which are used almost everywhere else; this is the only one that I can see in this area. Yet they chose to put this here. Well, we can’t challenge that at this point, but we do have to be careful that the uses are congruent. Your code actually calls for that as part of its purpose and part of your job here today. And I believe that this Commission does look into those issues. This particular use is an automobile usage. Now, if you’ve been around automobile usages before, you know that sometimes you have good neighbors, which I think these are probably good neighbors from what I can tell, I haven’t seen any problems with them, or you can have bad neighbors, and we never know who they are going to be. But in making your conditions you always have to kind of look at those bad neighbors and say perhaps maybe one day there will be a bad neighbor here. In the use of automobile usage, if they use this for storage, we are now talking about them having open and notorious as opposed to what it would be, my old friend used to say if it’s illegal, keep it illegal, because people behave themselves; once we make it legal and this thing comes into conformance, they tend to use all of the advantages that they have on the property. That’s just a normal use of an owner. 7 EXHIBIT B We have issues over height, issues over sound and issues over light. Now, the light issues are twofold here; one is with the widening of the highway, or the improvement of the old highway there, it is now currently abandoned, or the, and also on the site itself. Now, normally when a person operates an automobile dealership, their concerns are over security for example. So what we see, tend to see among automobile dealerships is a very large increase in the use of lights; we’ll see lots of lights on the property. The lights are between these houses and the ocean. One of the things that, the beauties of our island is that we get to look at the ocean, and at night we look at the ocean, and we look at the coastline and the sunsets. And when there’s too many lights, I know that even here we dealt with lighting from the point of view of the Department of Public Works, puts in special bulbs that don’t interfere with the observatories, all those kinds of things. We have to be very concerned that they don’t install lighting here that’s going to interfere with the neighbors. I think they aren’t using lighting right now. I don’t think they should be using it; it should be a condition of the use in the change. The other thing that I would say about noise is that when you have this type of use, there is a lot of talk, there is a lot of story in this about the efficiency of their operation. When you start to use this openly and notoriously, one of the things that car dealerships have all done notoriously is to use PA systems to call their employees back and forth from these areas. These PA systems are immediately adjacent to a neighborhood. Again, as the restrictions go, I would ask that you consider putting restrictions on no outdoor PA systems. Also, on noise are the fact that they are parking a large number of cars. The cheaper security for a car lot is to turn the alarms on on the cars. When you have a densely populated area of cars, the normal density would be what would be a residential district; it’s one or two cars per household. They usually don’t use or operate their alarm systems. On a car lot you might have 300 cars that have car alarms. They can go off any time. Now, I don’t know, my wife will tell you we are new here, we’ve only been here, we’ve had this house for a year, but I don’t know how your enforcement can work with those. When alarms go off, they generally don’t do anything about it, rather than ignore it. And what will happen is with that happening these car alarms can go off for hours when people are trying to sleep and get ready for work in the neighborhood or just to enjoy the beauty of Hawai‘i. One last thing on this issue of this tiering, I can’t emphasize enough and I am going to ask if someone could please answer the question of how they will measure this height, if you put these two divisions together. Because currently there is a two and half-story building, or a two-story building -. BEAUDET: Thank you, sir. DAVID BLANCETT-MADDOCK: Yes. BEAUDET: We have more testifiers, and -. DAVID BLANCETT-MADDOCK: I’m sorry. BEAUDET: This is a question that you opened with. So we’ll address that. DAVID BLANCETT-MADDOCK: Thank you, sir. Thank you for your time. 8 EXHIBIT B BEAUDET: Staff, maybe if you could comment on the height regulations and where the one-inch mark is and where the 30-foot mark is for Commercial zoning. And if we could just go back, a little earlier someone commented from staff that the Ag-1 zoning had a height restriction of 45, and the Commercial zoning under the current application would restrict the height to 30 feet. So if we can reiterate that. DAVID BLANCETT-MADDOCK: Mr. Chairman, can I ask one question to you? Would not, and also would not Agricultural height restrictions be limited to agricultural uses, which are different than commercial uses? BEAUDET: Staff? ARAI: Okay, for property designated as Agricultural there is a 45-foot maximum height limit for structures associated with an agricultural type of use; however, if, I’m trying to do this from memory, but I thought there was a provision that if it’s a structure, such as silos, that stores the type of agricultural product, you can actually go higher. And I’m trying to remember what that height would be. But on a, and you need to substantiate or have established a significant agricultural activity in order to warrant that type of associated structure. So normally when we look at a proposed structure, it has to be commensurate with the level and scope and scale of the activity occurring on the property. So hopefully, that provides you with some reassurance. And you are correct; the height limit in the Village Commercial zoning district is 30 feet. And that is for main type of structures. When there is an accessory type of structures, such as an associated shed or something, then I believe there is a 20-foot height limit. Now for the difficult part. I’m tempted to read you the section of the Zoning Code that talks about height, but I think I’ll probably confuse everyone a lot more. So what I’m going to attempt is that on a property that’s sloping we do take the average grade, and what we do is we look at a reference point, five feet from the exterior boundaries of the exterior walls of the building, establish the datum on either side, and if the difference between the high and the low spots is less than ten feet, then we measure it from the lowest spot; if the difference between the high and the low is more than ten feet, then from the low spot we make a reference point at the ten-foot mark, and from the ten-foot mark we measure the 30-foot up to the mid-point of the gable of the roof. Clear? DAVID BLANCETT-MADDOCK: In other words, in simple terms, if these were joined, it would ultimately raise the level of height restriction for this property, if something was built anywhere on the new property. ARAI: That is not entirely correct, because, as I mentioned, the reference points are five feet from the exterior wall of a structure; so it’s not averaging out the entire elevation of the property. DAVID BLANCETT-MADDOCK: Just for clarification then, if they decided to build on the new property, and the new property then would be the reference point that would establish the reference point. And since that’s the higher point, the reference point would be from the highest and lowest points on the structure to be constructed. In other words, if they make a choice to build on this new property, it will ultimately raise the level, if you look at the actual level above sea level, it will raise the level above sea level that the structures can be. 9 EXHIBIT B ARAI: If measured from sea level, yes, just due to the elevation of the property. But again, that is why the Code when it defines height, it defines it by building height; it’s not height of property. DAVID BLANCETT-MADDOCK: I understand that. So just for clarification then, if we do not join these property, then only the structure that’s built on the property could have that advantage. This property, the, any structure that might be built on to the old property would not have that advantage. ARAI: There is no advantage one way or the other -. DAVID BLANCETT-MADDOCK: Why? ARAI: Consolidation of the property doesn’t alter the ability to increase or decrease the maximum height that is allowed. As I mentioned, the reference datum, so the reference point by which we measure the height of a structure is based on the footprint of the property as it sits on any particular location. DAVID BLANCETT-MADDOCK: So if the construction crossed the property -. BEAUDET: Let me interject. DAVID BLANCETT-MADDOCK: I’m sorry. BEAUDET: The purpose of the hearing is for the applicant to state its purpose, and if there are concerned members of our community, then it is also to provide them with the ability to share their concerns with the Commission so that we can make an unbiased vote based on both sides of discussion. So I think it’s clear that your concern with the construction of buildings on the property is a height issue, and it’s a visual plane issue. So I think we can just take that and move forward. DAVID BLANCETT-MADDOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your indulgence. BEAUDET: So I’d live to move on to you, sir. HOFF: Good morning -. KANUHA: Mr. Chair? HOFF: My name is -. BEAUDET: Oh, one second, sir. KANUHA: One more point of clarification. And the height determination is taken from finish grade, okay? BEAUDET: Sir? HOFF: Good morning. My name is Dan Hoff. I reside at 76-130 Kamehamalu Street. It’s a single-family home, single-story home. We purchased the house, my wife and I, in 2011. We’ve 10 EXHIBIT B been fulltime residents in that house since 2012. I’ve also been a property owner on this island for over 35 years. Our home is mauka of the property that’s the subject here today. And speaking strictly on behalf of myself and my wife, we are opposed to this zoning change. I submitted an information sheet before the hearing that shows three Google Earth photographs. And the top photograph, as indicated, was taken in 2006, and it shows the property apparently covered by vegetation. The property, as has been noted, was purchased by Orchid Isle in 2007. By 2010, the next Google Earth image, which is in the center, shows that the property has already been paved and is used for parking and apparently for vehicle storage. And the final photograph at the bottom, very similar to the one above it, shows it in the most recent Google Earth image, which was 2013. In a 21-page County memorandum dated August 6 of this year regarding this zoning change, there are hints that the property is already being used for vehicle storage and has been paved, but it doesn’t really say that. Throughout much of the memorandum Mr. Hanley, the principal, Orchid Isle Auto Center, indicates several times he has no intentions to do any more with the property other than parking. However, should the zoning change, intentions could change just as control and ownership of this property apparently changed a few years ago when it passed from one generation to the next. A change from Agriculture to Commercial Village could mean the owner could place the following on the property: a bar, a repair facility, a convenience store, which could be open 24 hours a day, a funeral home complete with a crematorium and several other businesses. Under Agricultural zoning the owner would have to get a special use permit to erect, or have erected, a cellphone tower, which could easily be well over 100 feet tall; under Commercial Village zoning the tower would be permitted and there apparently is no requirement for a special use permit. I understand the zoning change could be, if it was implemented, the County would be entitled to additional property tax revenues; I do not believe that should be a motive for a change of zoning. I have absolutely no objection to Orchid Isle Auto’s current use of this lot for parking and vehicle storage, and I would hope the property remains as it is today, being used for parking and auto storage. Because the owner has already paved the lot, which should not have been allowed under the current zoning, because of the myriad of changes the owner could make to this lot with a zoning change, I repeat my opposition to this zoning change. I hope the County and Mr. Hanley can work out some arrangement where the parking lot stays and the zoning remains Agricultural. Thank you. BEAUDET: Thank you, sir. If we could move on. RICHARDS: Thank you, Commissioner. And I’d like to thank you for accepting my questions at this late time. I’d also like to thank my neighbors for their comments. My name is Michael Richards. My wife and I, Young, live on Kamehamalu Street. We are fairly new here; we came here after serving three decades for Uncle Sam in some of the less nice places of the globe, Iraq, the West Bank, etc., and we chose Kona because we were very impressed with it and we liked it very much, the quiet and the beauty, and hope to be able to retire, looking at our, sitting on our lanai and looking at the ocean. I’m afraid that if the Commission does approve this request, we will not be able to do that. So I would like to ask two questions. The first has to deal with the memo submitted by the Department of Water Supply on 3 September of this year, in which they are speaking about fire hydrant location and safety issues, saying that it should be the, any new structure and existing structure should be within 150 feet of an existing fire hydrant. And they make note that if a structure were to be built, as the business is requesting, that it will be 400 approximate feet away from the structure. And I was wondering if anything was going to be done about that issue to 11 EXHIBIT B protect the structure and the surrounding homes from any sort of possibility of fire. So I appreciate it if that could be answered. Also, in its application dated 15 July of this year, application for rezoning, in the county environmental report section, Section IV, Part J on Pages 6 through 7, the business addresses the issue of visual considerations and states that from the highway there will be no impact visually upon looking up at the mountains mauka side; it does not address the impact going the other way, looking towards the ocean from the landowners. And I want to point out this was not addressed, because any building that would be placed upon these newly rezoned lands, will in fact provide derogatory experience to the landowners. And while I don’t want you to step in the way of businesses doing business, I do want you to reaffirm, or to affirm, for the Commission that, as homeowners here, we also have a stake in keeping Kona beautiful and in also enjoying the land. That’s it for my questions. I thank you very, very much for listening to me at this late time. BEAUDET: Thank you, sir. Any questions or comments from the Commission? Okay. If there are no more questions for the testifiers, I’ll just ask one more time if there is anybody else in the audience who wishes to testify, please come forward. Thank you. If we could just go back to the initial testifier, Mr. Tyler had a comment, or a concern, relative to the development condition of the old Walua Road. If, staff, if we could just visit the discussion. ARAI: I don’t have the resolution with me right now. We are trying to make a few more copies, so we should have that back shortly. But the resolution does make reference to the sale of the land to, I think it was Interisland Motors back in ’07. And one of the concerns expressed was the potential, that the property was not, the use of the property was not conducive due to the size of it, I guess, so the question was raised. Another point that was raised was concerns about the commercialization, or the potential commercialization, of the property and its potential impact upon the residents nearby, the nearby subdivision Kona Vista. So that is what was contained within the reso, as a whereas. As far as the directive, it directed the sale of the property, but there was no further mention about any specific restrictions as part of the sale of the particular property. So we are trying to assess what the language within the resolution actually means and its implications upon this application. BEAUDET: So could the condition stay as it is now without revisiting the resolution, or do we need to do that and make any changes that would adhere to the reso? ARAI: From what I remember reading of the resolution, I think the Council made it explicitly clear that utilizing Walua Road for vehicular access would have a significant adverse impact. So I would think in order to be consistent with the findings within the resolution, we would have to amend the condition and pretty much put a prohibition or restriction on use of Walua Road as, for any vehicular access associated with this property. BEAUDET: So that would in fact remove access to Lako from the current designated access point; we would need to remove that. There was a phot of the one truck that was parked next to the remnant road, right? Which could be viewed as a driveway. ARAI: Right, but that’s, it’s hard because Walua Road is not really a part of this application; I mean it affects a property adjacent to the Walua Road right-of-way, so if there is any management 12 EXHIBIT B of the use of the roadway for vehicular type of activities, it will probably fall on Public Works or the County to manage the use of land and put up additional barricades -. RICHARDS: Excuse me, can I interject for a moment for that? ARAI: Maybe not right now. BEAUDET: No, not right now, sir. Thank you. ARAI: So I think the condition in the ordinance, the proposed condition, required the consolidation of the property with the Orchid Isle Motor’s property, that would go a long way toward reassuring that all traffic, or all vehicular access, would be channeled through the existing access points associated with Orchid Isle Auto Center. And that should address any potential impact to the Walua Road right-of-way. BEAUDET: Thank you. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, I think the reason that, actually I know the reason the condition is in there is that Public Works in commenting on this application noted that in the event Walua Road was to be used for access, then these other requirements that they are going to put on here. Based on Mr. Tyler’s testimony – and I think, after I get through commenting, I think it would be a good idea to have the, bring the applicants back up and revisit what their thoughts are regarding the commentary provided – but we definitely have to probably amend the specific condition, because it does give implications that in the event Walua Road is used for access that certain improvements would be made. And we don’t believe that that was the intent. And again, it’s not part of this application. BEAUDET: Thank you, staff and Director, for your comments. I need to ask for a motion to close this portion of the public hearing. RICHARDS: Excuse me, may I make one comment on that? I think it’s not factual; that I think there has been a small mistake made in this street, and I would just like to address that, if possible. BEAUDET: Well, okay. RICHARDS: Thank you very much. My name again is Michael Richards. From my reading of the paperwork, if the business wanted to use the road, Walua Road, it would be able to. The cost of providing upgrades, including re-grading, widening, guardrails, drainage and street lights, would then be placed upon the company, not upon the County, but the permission was part of the conversation back and forth between the County and between the business. Thank you. BEAUDET: Thank you, sir. With that, any more comment from our public testifiers? Okay. If I could ask for a motion to close this public hearing portion? HICKCOX: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public testimony section of this hearing at this point. BEAUDET: May I have a second? 13 EXHIBIT B NOBRIGA: I second. BEAUDET: Thank you. It has been moved by Commissioner Hickcox to close this portion of the public hearing, and seconded by Commissioner Nobriga. All those in favor? ALL COMMISSIONERS: Aye. BEAUDET: Unanimous decision to close the public hearing portion of this application. Thank you for your comments. Your concerns have been noted. I thank you for your time. I’d like to ask the applicant to come forward again. So I think the concerns of the surrounding neighbors were pretty clearly communicated. And if you’d like to take the opportunity to maybe comment on those concerns. FUKE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think that notwithstanding, you know, having read the resolution, you know, there are a number of whereases but, you know, there were never conditions when the, were expressed, you know, in conjunction with the sale, but, nevertheless, in the spirit of the conveyance I think that the intent was not to have any portion of the subject property utilize Walua Road for its access. And I agree with the Planning Director that the existing Condition E seems to kind of suggest that maybe there is a kind of opportunity. So I discussed it with the applicant, and the thing that what we’d like to propose, you know, in deference to that concern is deletion of Condition E in its entirety, and the substitution of the following: It would read, “Walua Road shall not be used as vehicular access to the subject site.” So it just makes it very, very clear that, you know, in tandem with the other condition that the staff is proposing, which is to mandate the consolidation of these properties, then obviously the only way that this area can get access to, eventually, to Lako Street would have to be through the existing parcel and not from Kuakini Highway or any portion of Walua Road. And as a matter of fact, right now the access to the, you know, the auto service facility does not come from Walua road; it’s actually blocked off. The access to the Orchid Isle Center comes in directly from Lako Street, and they will continue to utilize that access in eventually servicing this area as is currently happening. So, you know, that would be the deletion of Condition E and, you know, substituting basically what I just read. And in deference also to the height, you know, Mr. Hanley recognizes the concern about height and, you know, his primary intent is essentially to, you know, what you see is basically what you get, I mean, that is the intent. But, nevertheless, as the gentleman has pointed out, one of the testifiers has pointed out, there is always the possibility that, you know, the automobile industry might go kaput and we just find different ways of transporting ourselves, and so they may have to find some different uses for the property. So in deference to that, you know, relative to the height, you know, the applicant would be willing to have a condition that would say essentially, as represented by the applicant, the maximum height of all structures for the subject site shall not exceed 20 feet or one story. So currently right now, you know, like you have a 45-foot height limit and, you know, truly it has to be agricultural activities. But bearing in mind that within Agricultural zone residential dwellings are also allowed. So conceivably you could have like a three-story 45-foot high structure and accessory structures in that area, a barn or whatever have you. Under the current CV zone, you know, it reduces it down to, from 45 down to 30 feet. But what the applicant is saying is that okay, fine, you know, he recognizes the adjoining property owners and so he will just cap it at the single story and no higher than 20 feet, if there is going to be any structures. And at this point in time the applicant has no intention of constructing any structures on the property. But as was indicated 14 EXHIBIT B early, you can never predict what’s going to happen five or ten or twenty-five years down the road. So with those two proposed amendments, Mr. Chairman, if there are any further questions that you may have, or unless Mr. Hanley has (Secretary’s note: Mr. Fuke briefly spoke to Mr. Hanley), you know, we’ll be more than willing to answer. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman. Again, Sidney, just to clarify the second proposal to limit the height to one story or 20 feet, that’s something we can’t impose on you, because if the zoning goes through, that’s what the height limit is going to be, unless the applicant is acknowledging that it’s voluntary as, it’s an agreement by the applicant that that’s what they will abide to. Is that the Commission’s understanding? FUKE: That’s exactly, I understand that like normally, you know, if the code says one thing, unless the applicant openly exceeds that they would like to have this reduction, it’s kind of hard to have that, you know, made as a condition. And that’s the reason why I had suggested, pursuant to that understanding, said, “as represented by the applicant,” that the height of the structures, you know, all structures shall be, you know, capped at the two-story, I mean, one story or 20 feet. KANUHA: Okay. I hope that’s clear to the Commission, but that’s not withstanding what the Commission will decide to do, right? BEAUDET: Any questions or comments of the applicant? WHITTEMORE: I’ve got a question, and this might best be directed to the Department. I’m just, and I don’t know if this falls under Planning or more Public Works. But looking at the photos, it was interesting to see the work that had been done that I assume was permitted? ARAI: Commissioner Whittemore, the improvements shown on the subject property were not reviewed and approved by the Department prior to it being established. WHITTEMORE: And that normally would have been the case, correct? If it -. ARAI: Normally, we would ask that any proposed use of land be first reviewed and any appropriate permits or approvals be secured prior to its establishment. WHITTEMORE: Okay. Then my next question would be directed to the property owners. When were those improvements made? HANLEY: This is Joe Hanley from Orchid Isle. The improvements were made around 2008. I guess it started maybe six months after I acquired it. The purpose of the land use was to take customers’ and employees’ cars off of Lako Street due to lack of space. So once I got it, I cleared it based on what I would be allowed to do based on the amount of movement of earth. We removed very little of the land, of the earth. It was all moved in the place, the topography of the parcel was very limiting in its use, and it kind of, it mirrors what you see at the original facility where we have a three-tiered facility. So we basically just leveled off those three areas and put some paving and then a retaining wall, so we could have pulled all these cars that had been parked on the street. So that was it in a nutshell. 15 EXHIBIT B WHITTEMORE: Was there any thought given to, or advice given to you as far as getting permits? It seems a little, kind of after the fact that we are looking at this now when it probably should have been addressed back in 2008. HANLEY: I was, the contractor I used told me I didn’t need to do any permitting for the type of work I was going to be doing, so I did not do it. HICKCOX: Mr. Chair? BEAUDET: Yes. HICKCOX: If I may, question. Is it an illegal activity at any point in time to, or are there any restrictions in reference to paving on Ag zoned lands? ARAI: If there are any restrictions, those restrictions are tied in with, associating the proposed improvements with the uses typically permitted on the Agricultural designated lands. So being that they represented that the improvements were to take care of employees’ and additional car storage and customer parking, that is directly to the commercial activity occurring on the adjoining property. So what occurred was improper and in violation of the code. KAHOLO: I’ve got a comment, owner. When you purchased the property in 2008 and you decided to pave the lot, what was your mindset at that point? HANLEY: Let me make sure I understand it. At the time I bought it, what was my purpose for purchasing it? KAHOLO: After you paved it. HANLEY: To use it to park the vehicles that I sell, my employees’ parking and customer parking. At any given time the percentage of those types of parking uses vary, whether there is a heavy shop load or a lot of trucks. We sell a lot of trucks, you know, commercial trucks, whether it be, it services ag, fishing, ranching, you know, so we do a lot of truck business there. So the primary intent was to get all of these vehicles that were on the roadway on Lako off the road. KAHOLO: So my understanding is your priority was safety? HANLEY: That was -. KAHOLO: For the general traffic going up and down, and vehicles parked on the Lako road? So with the intent, safety was your biggest concern to do what you did for the property? HANLEY: That was part of the purpose. We would have pretty much both sides of the street tied up with a lot of cars, and so the intent was to get those vehicles off the road. KAHOLO: Where I’m going at is, you know, if safety plays the fact that, we always look at the community, and with that stated, if you have all the types of vehicles out there, you know, you need to get, need to put it some place, whereas you take it away from the public to make the public right-of-way a lot safer than what it is. That’s where I’m going at. 16 EXHIBIT B HANLEY: Right. There was a zone change moratorium back at the time I bought that. So, a zone freeze, I’m not real knowledgeable in what that entail, but essentially I couldn’t apply for a change at the time. PATEL: Chair, if I may, just to bring everyone back, keep in mind that what we are working towards today is a determination of whether or not the application meets the statutory and the rule requirements of the Commission. So as much as possible, if we can keep today’s proceedings, you know, in line with the scope of that, that would be great. BEAUDET: Thank you, Counsel. I think that’s a good point that has been brought up; the focus is the application and for what it will bring in the future. And I think we should keep our focus on that. So with that, Commissioners, any further comments or questions to be had with the applicant? Applicant, would you, is there anything that you want to conclude or -? FUKE: I guess just in summary, Mr. Chairman, as your counsel has advised, you know, in looking at this application from, you know, the regulatory standpoint, you know, the General Plan, the Community Development Plan, you know, and the basic infrastructure, we believe that this request is a reasonable request. There were concerns raised relative to some of the, you know, the mitigation aspects, and I think that to the extent possible, we’ve tried to address those mitigations vis-à-vis two proposed conditions that we had offered, one relating to no access from Walua Road and the other one capping the height limit to a single-story, 20-foot limit. The other thing, you know, just for your information and I guess maybe for the public information, you know, relative to the issue about the fire hydrant, it should be noted that, you know, sure the fire hydrant is 400 feet away, but what happens is that when you are on the same property, the Building Department reviews all building permit applications, and at that time the Fire Department weighs in on the application and they make a determination specifically during the building permit process, as far as whether your fire mitigation meets their code or not, so. BEAUDET: Okay, thank you. I appreciate the summary. So that will be all? Thank you. FUKE: Thank you. BEAUDET: If staff could present the revisions for the conditions as was suggested by the applicant. Do you have something ready that the Commission could hear? ARAI: Okay. To address the resolution that was mentioned by Mr. Tyler and as recommended and agreed to by the applicant, there was a proposal to eliminate Condition E as currently written, which speaks to improvements to Walua Road, and replace it with a new Condition E, which would restrict access to Walua Road, and that can be accomplished by the following language: New Condition E will read, “Walua Road should not be used as vehicular access to the project site.” To address the representations regarding the maximum height limit to be applied to this property, we would like to recommend a new Condition F, as in Frank, that shall read, “As agreed to by the applicant, all structures upon the project site shall be limited to one story and a maximum of 20 feet in height.” So I hope the language is agreeable to all the parties, to the Commission and to the applicant. 17 EXHIBIT B BEAUDET: Okay, if any questions or comments from the Commission on those two revised conditions? UNIDENTIFIED PUBLIC MEMBER: Mr. Chair? BEAUDET: Sorry, sir, the public hearing portion was closed earlier. HICKCOX: Mr. Chair? BEAUDET: Yes. HICKCOX: As stated earlier, could we impose a condition on the height limitation at this juncture? KANUHA: As I, in my discussion with the applicant, we can’t impose a condition that’s contrary to the zoning, unless the applicant agrees themselves, you know; if they offer a restriction on the zoning, then it will be permissible. So that’s why the condition is worded such that based on the representations, you know, of the applicant, that this is what the condition would entail. HICKCOX: Thank you. ARAI: And Mr. Chairman, just to clarify real briefly, I mentioned Condition E regarding the Walua Road restriction, I said, “Walua Road should not be used as vehicular access to the project site”; we should say “shall” to make it absolutely clear. BEAUDET: Should we be specific, “shall not be from Lako or Kuakini?” I mean those are the two access points for the remnant, right? I don’t know if we need to be that specific or not. ARAI: I personally think you don’t need to be that specific because they will need access regardless, and if you cut off Walua Road, they have no choice but to come in through Lako through the existing Orchid Isle Auto Center property; there is no other way to get to the property. BEAUDET: Okay, fair enough. Thank you. Okay, so, Commissioners, I would like to ask for a motion for action. HICKCOX: Mr. Chair, I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for a change of zone, Docket No. REZ 14-179, based on the Planning Director’s recommendations and proposed conditions, as amended, as amendments submitted under Condition E and the addition of Condition F, as stated by staff. BEAUDET: May I ask for a second? KAHOLO: Second. BEAUDET: Discussion, Commissioners? Let’s note that there’s no request for discussion. So, staff, if you could call for a vote? ARAI: Oaky, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Hickcox? 18 EXHIBIT B HICKCOX: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Unger? UNGER: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. ARAI: And Mr. Chairman? BEAUDET: Aye. ARAI: Mr. Chairman, motion carries with six aye votes. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman? BEAUDET: Yes, sir. KANUHA: Just for the information of the public who testified on this particular application, the Planning Commission is just going to provide a recommendation to the County Council. The County Council will be the body that makes a final decision on this. So there will be other opportunities for you to provide testimony, if you choose to do so, when it gets to the Council level, both in their Committees and at the full Council. Okay? BEAUDET: Thank you, Applicant. You will be notified shortly of the decision from staff. The discussion ended at 11:22 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 19 EXHIBIT B