Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-06 Hearing Transcript - John & Lori Kai REZ 16-210WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT OCTOBER 6, 2016 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of JOHN K. & LORI L. KAI (REZ 16-210) was called to order at 10:14 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Gregory Henkel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gregory Henkel, Joseph Clarkson, Donald Ikeda, Myles Miyasato, and Raylene Moses. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Donn Dela Cruz. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Molly Stebbins (Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), William Brilhante (Assistant Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director), Malia Ho (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Jackson (Staff Planner), Christian Kay (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 15 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANTS: JOHN K. AND LORI L. KAI (REZ 16-210) Application for a Change of Zone from an Agricultural -20 acre (A -20a) to a Family Agricultural - 2 acre (FA -2a) zoning district for 9.323 acres of land. The property is located along the west (makai) side of Akolea Road, approximately 2,700 feet from the Akolea Road—Kaumana Drive intersection, Ponahawai, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-5-047:031. HENKEL: So, we can move onto Agenda Item No. 6, John and Lori Kai, REZ 16-210. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission. If I can direct your attention to our next presentation. As mentioned, the Applicants are John K. and Lori L. Kai. They are requesting a Change of Zone. For reference, the subject application is located within the South Hilo District of Hawaii. More specifically, we're looking in the Upper Kaumana area. For reference, running in an east -west direction, we have Kaumana Drive as well as Waianuenue Avenue, and we have Akolea Road running in a north -south direction. The subject property is identified with a black outline. Here's a closer view identifying the County zoning for the particular area. Again, for reference, we have Akolea Road, and the subject property in black, outlined in black. The dark green represents Agricultural — 20 acre zoning. Immediately to the north we have and also to the east, EXHIBIT E we have light blue which represents Agricultural – 3 acre zonings. A little bit more to the north, we have Agricultural – 1 acre zoning. This is the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map for the area. Again, for reference, we have Akolea Road, and the subject property identified in a black outline. The light green represents Important Agricultural Land, and the white represents Extensive Agricultural designations for the General Plan. This is—the entire area is State Land Use Agricultural designation. Here's an aerial photo. Again, we have Akolea Road and the subject property identified with a black outline. There is a pole that provides access to Akolea and currently there is one single-family dwelling in which the Applicants reside, which is located on the subject property. The Applicants are requesting a Change of Zone from Agricultural – 20 acres to Family Agricultural – 2 acre for 9.323 acres of land. This is in order to subdivide the property into four parcels approximately two acres each in size. The Applicants will live on the—on one lot and in their home that has been previously constructed and reserve the other lots for their immediate family. This is the site plan that was submitted along with the application. Again, for reference, we have Akolea Road on the right side of the map that provides access. We have the flag pole, and the subject property which identifies the lots that will be configured for the subdivision. These are some site photos of the property. This is Akolea Road looking to the west. The subject property or the access pole is on the right side. This is looking towards the east. Again, on Akolea Road with the access pole on the left side. And, this is on the access pole looking to Akolea Road, looking makai. This is looking mauka with the access pole and the one home that is constructed on the subject property. This is a little further up. This is looking makai with the subject property on the left. Here's some other photos that just show the particular area. This is the area that is currently vacant of uses at this time. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council with conditions. Since the Background and Recommendation was forwarded to the Planning Commission, we have received two letters. One is dated September 16, 2016 from the Applicants' representative, Sidney Fuke, addressing comments from different agencies, and more recently this morning, we received a letter via email from Suzie Hamilton. With that, that concludes our presentation. Thank you. HENKEL: Are there any questions of staff, Commissioners? If not, I'll ask the Applicant or representative to come forward. CLARKSON: No, I EXHIBIT E 2 HENKEL: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Clarkson CLARKSON: —Could we just go back to the—the site, the area that shows the existing zoning. The slide that shows the zoning and the immediate vicinity. There. Okay. So, there is Ag -3 immediately adjacent to the north; Ag -3 across the road; Ag -5. DARROW: Correct, the light green is Ag -5. Ag -1 is the darker green. You have some to the south and to the north. CLARKSON: And do the—this is going to come up? Does, do the existing Ag -3's have 50 foot right-of-ways? DARROW: I believe they do. Unfortunately with this pole, they're not going to make the 50 - foot right-of-way. CLARKSON: How wide is that right-of-way? DARROW: Its 20 feet. CLARKSON: Twenty feet. DARROW: Yeah. The problem is, is they would have to acquire land from the other private landowner that's mauka which would be very difficult. CLARKSON: Okay, so I'm new at this so forgive me if this seems— DARROW: No, definitely CLARKSON: why, I would think that right-of-ways as density increases, would gradually get wider and wider to allow for bigger and bigger roads. Why is there a 50 -foot right-of-way required for Ag -3, and a 20 -foot right-of-way required for Ag -2. DARROW: That is a good question. I'm not sure when—when we went and spoke with the subdivision section, it's, there's certain requirements for sizes of lots, and there are also requirements for the amount of lots that are not a particular size. In this particular case, as long as they did not increase to six lots, that they would be able to utilize the existing right-of-way for the additional lot. If they were to go with a higher density or the larger lot, then it would have required the 50 -foot right-of-way, and it's just something in the Subdivision Code. I'm sorry, there must be a reason for it. I'm just not sure what it is. HENKEL: Are there any more questions from [sic] staff? Then, will the Applicant or their representative please come forward, please? DARROW: Thank you. EXHIBIT E 3 HENKEL: Mr. Fuke, you know the drill. FUKE: Very busy day. Sorry. HENKEL: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on matters before the Commission? FUKE: Yes, I do. HENKEL: Thank you. Proceed. FUKE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Applicant, Mr. Kai, is also over here. He's had a chance to review the staff's Background Report and the proposed conditions and found them to be acceptable. The staff's report is, as always, very accurate and so, you know, we have no comment to that except that I'd like to respond just generally to I guess to Commissioner Clarkson's inquiry regarding the road, you know, road right-of-way requirement. As I understand it, you know, the Code is saying that, you know, if you're Ag -3 and above, three, five, or whatever, then the minimum requirement for a right-of-way is a 50 -foot wide. If it's less than three acres, you know, zoning—whether it's FA -2, one acre of residential, then as long as you have less than six lots being serviced by that proposed subdivision, then your right- of-way can go as small as 20 feet. If you're gonna do like a six or less lot subdivision in a place that's zoned for Ag -3 or Ag -5, there's no way you can have a right-of-way that's 20 feet wide. That allowances is for smaller lot, you know, for all the smaller zoning and not larger zoning. Part of the theory as I understand, is that if you have a large, you know, like zoning, like Ag -3 or Ag -5, there is always a potential of that property coming in later on for further development, rezoning, and as a result, in anticipation of further activity, they would want to see a wider right- of-way. I believe that's the theory. Whether it's logical or not, I mean, it's, that I think is a theory. DARROW: If I can also interject and, Sidney, if you can confirm this, there is the possibility of coming in for a roadway variance for these particular situations so unfortunately because this is a Change of Zone and not existing zoning, we don't, we normally don't allow variances through the subdivision process. So, in this particular case, they have to meet that required roadway width because it is a new Change of Zone. FUKE: The other thing, too, is like the Applicants' property has the pole—the width of the pole is 20 feet wide, but there's an adjoining property that is also has a 20 -foot wide pole as well, so they do have a cross easement. So, as a practical matter, the—the, Mr. Kai's property has access to a total of 40 feet but still that's ten feet short of the 50 -foot requirement. HENKEL: Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Are there any other questions of the Applicant, and I think Mr. Fuke addressed the conditions that the Planning Director applied. If that's the case, then thank you very much. No one has signed up to testify. I'll look for a motion to close EXHIBIT E 4 MIYASATO: I make a motion to close public testimony. IKEDA: Second. HENKEL: It's been moved and seconded to close public testimony. All in favor say, "aye." COMMISSIONERS: Aye. HENKEL: Opposed? Okay, public testimony is closed. Now, I'll be looking for a motion for action. IKEDA: Mr. Chairman, can I ask Corporation Counsel a question? HENKEL: Go ahead. IKEDA: Is the motion correct or is it backwards? MIYASATO: It is. It's backwards. STEBBINS: I don't have that same script that you have. IKEDA: Mr. Chairman, I'll make the motion. HENKEL: Thank you. IKEDA: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for Change of Zone, Docket No. REZ 16-210, based on the following, based on the Planning Director's recommendations, findings which shall be adopted. MIYASATO: Second. HENKEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Ikeda, seconded by Commissioner Miyasoto [sic] to approve. Any discussion? If not, we'll do a roll call. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, we'll take the roll call. Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. EXHIBIT E 5 DARROW: And Mr. Chairman. HENKEL: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to zero. The discussion ended at 10:27 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission R EXHIBIT E