Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-19 Leeward Exh A (Amend SMA 286 and Revoke SMA 456) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 19, 2015 PACIFICA BIG ISLAND, LLC (Amend A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of SMA286) and (Revoke SMA 456) was called to order at 9:36 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, Thomas Hickcox, Collin Kaholo, Barbara Nobriga and Thomas Whittemore ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Keith Unger ALSO PRESENT: Danny Patel (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Bobby Command (Deputy Planning Director), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And approximately 20 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PACIFICA BIG ISLAND, LLC (Amend SMA286) Application to amend Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit No. 286, which allowed the development of a 212-unit residential condominium project and related improvements on TMK: 7-8-010:078. The amendment is to increase the density by 16 units, increase the land area to include TMK 7-8-010:090, and a time extension to complete construction of the development. The property is located on the east (mauka) side of the Kamehameha III Road-Ali‘i Drive st intersection, Kahuluu and Keauhou 1, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 7-8-010:078 and 090. APPLICANT: PACIFICA BIG ISLAND, LLC (Revoke SMA 456) Request to revoke Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit 456, which allowed the development of a 16-unit multiple family residential complex and related improvements. The property is located on the southeast side of Kamehameha III Road, immediately adjacent to and st makai of the Keauhou Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center, Kahuluu and Keauhou 1, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 7-8-010:090. BEAUDET: Today’s first agenda item is Applicant: Pacifica Big Island, LLC, to amend SMA 286, application to amend Special Management Area Use Permit 286, which allowed the development of a 212-unit residential condominium project and related improvements. Maija? JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. I would like to take actually the two first agenda items together; the first item the applicant is requesting to amend an existing permit, and then if that amendment is approved by the Commission, the same applicant is requesting to revoke another existing SMA permit. So I would like to do the presentation for both at the same time since the two properties are adjacent to each other. BEAUDET: Sounds good. Thank you. 1 EXHIBIT A JACKSON: Thank you. The subject property is situated in the North Kona District. The property is shown in the red outline on the slide. And just to orient the Commission, this is Ali‘i Drive running in a north-south direction, closer to the shoreline right along here, and then we have Kuakini Highway up higher mauka here, and then Kamehameha III Road coming down. So this area that’s shown in the pink color is the Keauhou Shopping Center, and then the subject property is just south of there shown in like a brown color. The colors on the map represent the zoning districts. The property is currently zoned Multiple-Family Residential with a minimum size of 3,000 square feet per unit. And then, as I said, just north of there is the Keauhou Shopping Center on property zoned Village-Commercial. And then you have some Open space zoning that’s the existing golf course, the Kona Country Club Golf Course, and then further mauka you have some Single-Family Residential lots. This is the General Plan Map for the area, and you can see again the subject property is just at the junction of Kamehameha III Avenue and Ali‘i Drive; it’s shown in orange, which designates the area for Medium Density Urban Development that allows residential development up to 35 units per acre, so the SMA permit is consistent with the designation. This is the Kona Community Development Plan Map. We have a Transit Oriented Development Area just north of the subject property, and this red outline here shows the Kona Urban Area; so areas within the red line are supposed to be where more of the urban development is located and then outside of the red line is more of where we want to see rural or agricultural development. And then this is an aerial view of the property. Again, you have Kamehameha III Road coming down towards the property, you have the Keauhou Shopping Center, Ali‘i Drive, and then this structure here is a healthcare center, and then the golf course that I mentioned earlier on the east side of the property. And then this development down here is actually the first phase of residential development that was approved by SMA Permit 286; this is called the Kaulana at Kona condominiums. And, so you can see that the remaining property, which is in this general area here, it kind of wraps around Kaulana, is currently undeveloped. And just to go back, actually let me go back even further here, so, it’s a little bit hard to tell on this slide here, I outlined both properties that are the subject of these first two agenda items, but you can see a little line dividing the two; this smaller property where the red dot is locating now is the subject of the second agenda item, SMA Permit 456, the larger 20-acre property is the subject of the first agenda item, SMA 286. Okay, so just for a little background, SMA Permit No. 286 was approved in 1989 and amended in 2002 to allow a 212-unit residential condominium project and related improvements on 26 acres. The first phase of the development consisting of 44 units was completed in 1991 and the project was known as Kaulana at Kona; the project was subdivided out from the original parcel. And just going back again, this is the Kaulana at Kona development. And then since that time the remaining 168 units have not been constructed. Then we have SMA Permit 456; this was approved in 2005, and it was to allow 16-unit multiple family residential project on the smaller 3.69-acre property. And construction of the project has not occurred yet. So the applicant is requesting to amend SMA Permit 286 to include the land area and the unit count that was permitted by SMA Permit 456. This amendment would allow a total of 184 units to be developed on the 24-acre property. Then the applicant also requests a time extension to start construction of the development within four years and complete it within nine years of the date of this amendment. And then should the amendment be approved, the applicant requests to revoke SMA 456. So they are basically trying to combine the two permits into one. This is the applicant’s site plan. We have Kamehameha III Road on the left side of the slide, left bottom, and it’s off of the site plan, but Ali‘i Drive runs in this area here off of the slide. And you 2 EXHIBIT A can see there are ten structures that they are proposing; three of the structures would be located on the smaller parcel next to Kamehameha III Drive, and then the remaining structures would be located on the larger 20-acre parcel. This is the Kaulana at Kona development in this location here. Access to the project would be off of Kamehameha III Road. There is an existing road that I can show you pictures of shortly, and that will provide access to the project; so there will be no access off of Ali‘i Drive, and there will be no access through the existing Kaulana at Kona condominiums. This is a view of the property from Ali‘i Drive, looking east towards the Kaulana at Kona condos; these are the condominiums here, so the subject property is this area, as well as further back here. And this is a view of the property from Kamehameha III Road, looking east; this is the subject property in this area here. And then another view of the property from Kamehameha III Road, looking south towards the sea; this would be as you are coming down towards the Keauhou Shopping Center, so the development would be located in this area here. This is a view of the driveway off of the Kamehameha III Road, looking south; so this is the, this will serve as the access to the development. And a view of the smaller parcel where the three proposed structures will be located, looking mauka, or east. And then this is standing at the end of the driveway, looking back towards Kamehameha III; so this is the intersection, you can see there are some crosswalks at the intersection, and it is a signalized intersection. This is a view of the property, standing on the access driveway, looking towards the sea; so you see the Keauhou Shopping Center down below. The Planning Director is recommending approval of both the amendment to SMA 286 and the revocation of SMA 456. And I have a few changes to the recommendation that I would like to bring up. The Department of Public Works in their memo to Planning had requested that some of the conditions in SMA Permit 456 be incorporated into the amended SMA Permit 286, and they wanted to add one more condition. It’s the standard condition that reads – let’s see here, let me get it – it reads something like all development-generated runoff shall be, shall not be directed to adjacent properties and it shall be contained on site. I think you’ve all seen the condition before; it’s a standard condition that we have. So we would like to add that. And then the applicant actually is proposing to change the wording of three of the conditions that the Planning Department had recommended, and we passed that out to you this morning. The Planning Director has reviewed those changes and is satisfied with them, so we would be open to making those changes as well. Are there any questions? BEAUDET: Okay, with no further questions for staff, thank you, Maija. Would the applicant or their representative please step forward? Welcome. Please, I’d like to take this time to swear you in, so if you could both raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Leeward Planning Commission? FUKE: I do. GHALAMFARSA: I do. BEAUDET: Thank you. Please introduce yourselves and then proceed with your presentation. GHALAMFARSA: My name is Ali Ghalamfarsa. I’m the architect of the project. 3 EXHIBIT A FUKE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I’m a planning consultant. I’ve been here to assist with the processing and the preparation of the report. I’d also like to acknowledge the presence of the owner’s representative, Ms. Andrea Raynal. In terms of the staff’s background report and the recommendation, the background report, as I always say, is very comprehensive and on point. The recommendations as the staff had indicated, the applicant has no objections with the proposed conditions, the added condition. I would, however, like to describe some of the additional amendments that we are proposing to which, as Ms. Jackson had indicated that the Director had reviewed and had no objections to them, but just for your information, as well as the public’s information, I’d like to go over the reasons for them. We had passed out, you know, through the staff, the proposed conditions and also like a map that accompanied that. And just for the purpose of giving you some back ground, I’d like to direct your attention to the map. You know, this, the original SMA Permit really covered all the units, the colored area is the existing Kaulana at Kona project, and the original SMA Permit covered the area, as well as the area identified as Areas A and B and the proposed development right up to the road that intersects with Kamehameha III Road and leading into the healthcare facility. So that was one original SMA Permit. One portion was developed, which is the Kaulana at Kona project; it was developed, and then was subsequently subdivided. The balance of the project was never developed as sought, and received approval for additional time extensions. In the meantime, if you, looking at the same map again, on the left hand side of that road that leads into the healthcare facility, you see another smaller parcel, that parcel was approved for also another Special Management Area Permit. Since that time, the current applicant had secured the properties of both the smaller property, as well as this property, and the larger property, and are now in the process of developing one comprehensive project. In that light, the applicant is requesting, therefore, you know, subject to the approval on the proposed amendments, that the SMA Permit for the smaller parcel be deleted because everything else would be contained in one major SMA, so it makes it easier for tracking purposes and monitoring of conditions. In terms of the proposed amendments, I would like to kind of like go over them. If you look at the staff’s proposed condition, and what we have proposed here, it’s basically the same. Looking at Condition 2, what we are suggesting here is that it would read like consisting of no more than 184 units. The way it currently read right now is it just read like consisting of 184 units. We did not want to suggest that the project would be a 184-unit project. As proposed right now, it’s only 179; so we did not want to have any misunderstanding down the road that if you don’t have 184, then you would be in violation of the permits. And so we thought it was appropriate to include no more than 184. The other proposed amendment, you know, relating to that is that we wanted to have inclusion of this term, “landscaping and security fencing for structure situated less than 75 feet from the Kaulana at Kona project identified by TMK: 7-8-010:092. And the reason behind that is that subsequent to the submittal of the application, Mr. Ghalamfarsa and myself, and Mr. Ghalamfarsa separately, had met with the homeowners, you know, a number of times to just hear out their concerns, and as a result of their concerns, you know, it related to security measures and lighting and landscaping, so on and so forth. And so this is a proposed condition that we believe addresses the homeowners’ concern. The other proposed condition is Condition No. 3. Currently, it just reads like construction for Phase II shall commence within two (sic) years. What we are suggesting here is that you include the term, which includes site work. The reason why we are suggesting this is a couple of reasons: One is that when the, you know, for time extensions, in the previous situations there has been some misinterpretation that when you take out a grading permit for the site, you know, for the site work, whether that actually constituted construction as opposed to taking 4 EXHIBIT A out a building permit and start building the verticals; and so we wanted to make clear that, you know, once you start, you know, you start working on the ground, that basically the construction timetable is triggered, so we wanted to kind of like make that clear; we also kind of wanted to point out, you know, relative to this project, again, making reference to this, that it’s a 179-unit project, and it’s not going to be developed like overnight, largely because it’s going to be market-driven; so the first phase of the project is essentially the smaller parcel, which is adjacent to the healthcare facility, that constitutes 32 units, as well as the recreational amenity, which is situated immediately to the south of that area, across the roadway; so that would be our first phase, that the owners wish to develop like yesterday; as far as the balance of the project it’s going to be, a lot of it is going to be driven by whether there is a demand for it. The last amendment we are proposing is to Condition No. 12. Basically, it’s the same as what the staff has recommended, except that it just provides a different twist to that, and it basically states that “the applicant shall consult with the staff of the State’s Na Ala Hele Trail Program and/or National Park Service’s Ala Kahakai National Trails Program regarding the appropriateness of incorporating the remnants of a historic trail on the subject site and shall provide a report of this consultation, including the incorporation of such a trail, if appropriate, to the Planning Department in conjunction with the Plan Approval process.” The reason why we kind of suggested this language is that, and again making reference to the map, the purported trail, no one really knows exactly where the trail is, if there is a trail, but it’s kind of like bubbled in orange on the top side, it’s adjacent to the Mauka Kona Country Club Golf Course. So the trail essentially comes in based upon some un-surveyed map and just a sketch, it appears to come in the general location where it’s kind of like bubbled out. So based on our discussions with the staff at the State’s Na Ala Hele Trail Program, he had contacted the State abstractor, and the preliminary conclusion is that it seems to be like more like an internal trail, rather than like the Keauhou Trail or something that has much more regional significance. And notwithstanding that, whatever the trail is, it’s already obliterated, so, on this property, as well as on the adjoining golf course property, so no one really knows physically where it is on the ground, if it is, you know, there at all. But based on the map that was provided us by the archaeologist, it will appear that if the State Na Ala Hele Trail Program staff determines that they would still like to see the remnants of the obliterated trail on the property, it can be accommodated. So what we are suggesting by this condition is that give us a chance to consult with either the State or the National Park Service, and if it needs to be, you know, we’ll incorporate it on the project site and provide a report to the Planning Department before the final plans are submitted. That’s pretty much covers our portion of the presentation, and we’ll be happy to answer any questions. BEAUDET: Thank you for that, Sidney. Commissioners, any questions or comments for the applicant? NOBRIGA: I have a question. This trail you refer to, would that be a remnant of the old railroad? FUKE: No. The old railroad trail is further mauka. NOBRIGA: More mauka? FUKE: Yeah. BEAUDET: Commissioners, any further comments? 5 EXHIBIT A HICKCOX: Yeah, I have one question. There is a lot of burial sites in the particular area. Understanding that a lot of activity has taken place in the area over the years, and knowing that these particular burial sites are somewhat lava tube connected, has anything been really kind of looked at per se in the direction and/or for the inadvertent finds along with the indigenous trees in there and stuff in the area because there was a lot of controversy on that at one particular time. FUKE: It is a very important point, Commissioner Hickcox. You know, there was an archaeological study done on both properties and both archaeological reports, which were approved, well, the archaeological report for the larger site was approved by SHPD, the State Historic Preservation Division; the other smaller property, the report is still under review by the State at this point in time, but the archaeologist in that situation had also pointed out there is nothing, you know, of archaeological or cultural significance on that property as well. Notwithstanding that, you know, as you mentioned, you know, there is always the potential that you might hit a burial, and so what happens during the situation. So the staff has proposed a condition that kind of addresses situations like that, and I’d like to direct your attention to Condition No. 13 in which it basically states that, you know, during the course of construction, you discover these things, then, you know, you basically, you have to call time stop, call the State, call the County, and take appropriate mitigation measures. HICKCOX: Thank you. BEAUDET: Thank you. Commissioners? Let it be noted that there has not been anyone from the community who has signed up for testimony. But I’d like to take the opportunity to ask one more time if anyone is interested to testify, please submit your name to staff. Okay, thank you. With that, no one has signed up for testimony on this application. Before we move forward, do we have any comments or questions on the second agenda item? Sidney, maybe, if you want to just comment a little bit on that. FUKE: I think that if the Commission acts favorably on the first application, then the second application becomes more, a very perfunctory task so. BEAUDET: Okay, thank you. JACKSON: I have nothing to add. BEAUDET: Okay, so with that, with no further comment, you may take your seats. Thank you. At this point I’d like to ask the Commissioners for a motion for action. NOBRIGA: I so move. JACKSON: Mr. Chair, I would just like to request that you take the two items separately. So preferably the SMA 286 amendment first and then vote on the revocation second. BEAUDET: Okay. JACKSON: Thank you. NOBRIGA: I move for recommendation for this SMA 286, approve the amendment. 6 EXHIBIT A BEAUDET: Okay, along with the proposed amendments to the conditions? NOBRIGA: Yes, along with the proposed amendments, yes, pursuant to the Planning Director’s recommendation, findings and conditions. BEAUDET: Any second? WHITTEMORE: Second. BEAUDET: Okay. It has been moved by Commissioner Nobriga and seconded by Commissioner Whittemore. Any discussion or comments before we call for a vote? Thank you. Staff? JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Nobriga and Commissioner Whittemore, can I just clarify that that is to approve the amendment to SMA 286 as recommended by the Planning Director, with the added condition about development-generated runoff being retained on the property, as well as the three changes to the conditions that the applicant has suggested, is that correct? NOBRIGA: Correct. WHITTEMORE: Correct. JACKSON: Thank you. Okay, with that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. JACKSON: And Chair Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion passes, five-zero. BEAUDET: Thank you. So following with that, as for the revocation of SMA 456, if there is no further discussion to be had on that agenda item, I would like to ask the Commissioners for a motion for action. 7 EXHIBIT A WHITTEMORE: I move that the application to revoke Special Management Area Use Permit, Docket No. SMA 456, be approved pursuant to the Planning Director’s recommendation, which shall be adopted. BEAUDET: Second? HICKCOX: Second. BEAUDET: It has been moved by Commissioner Whittemore and seconded by Commissioner Hickcox. Any discussion or comment? Okay. Can we proceed with the vote? JACKSON: Yes. Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. JACKSON: And Chair Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion to revoke SMA 456 passes, five-zero. The discussion ended at 10:07 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 8 EXHIBIT A