Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-16 Leeward Exh A (AMEND SMA 03-007) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT MARCH 16, 2017 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of WESLEY AND KELLEY HUGGETT (SMA 03-000007) was called to order at 9:32 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Keith F. Unger presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Keith F. Unger, Nancy Carr Smith, Collin Kaholo, Barbara Nobriga, Sonny Shimaoka and Perry Kealoha (from 9:33 a.m.) ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Scott Church ALSO PRESENT: Malia Ho (Counsel for the Commission), Michael Yee (Planning Director), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And five people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: WESLEY AND KELLEY HUGGETT (SMA 03-000007) Request to amend Condition No. 2 (time to complete construction) of Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit No. 03-000007, which was approved to allow the construction of a 3½-story, 45-foot high, 12-unit multiple-family residential development and related improvements. The property is located on the west (makai) side of Ali‘i Drive, adjacent to and north of the Sea Village Condominium Complex, Kahului, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 7-5-019:030. UNGER: The new business agenda, Applicant Wesley and Kelly Huggett, SMA 03-000007, request to amend Condition Number 2, time to complete construction, of Special Management Area Use Permit Number 03-000007, which was approved to allow the construction of a three and a half-story, 45-foot high, twelve-unit multiple-family residential development and related improvements. The property is located on the makai side of Ali‘i Drive, adjacent to and north of the Sea Village Condominium Complex, Kahului, North Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK 7-5-019: Parcel 30. Mr. Darrow, would you like to make your presentation? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission. Thank you again for your service today. Our first and only applicant this morning are Wesley and Kelly Huggett. As mentioned, they are requesting an amendment to Special Management Area Use Permit Number 03-07. The location of this subject request is within the North Kona District. More specifically, we are looking in the Kailua-Kona area. The actual property is identified with a black outline. For reference, running in a north-south direction we have Ali‘i Drive, and then we also have Kuakini Highway and Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway running in a north-south direction. The different 1 EXHIBIT A colors again represent the County zonings on the map. In this particular area we have two different types of zoning. The purple is Resort zoning; this particular Resort zoning is Resort-1.25, which equates to 1,250 square feet per unit. Across the street we have Multiple-Family Residential zoning, which is identified with the brown color. This is an aerial photo of the subject area. Right now, for reference again, we have Ali‘i Drive on the right side of the map. The subject property is identified with a black outline. It also includes access and utility easements through properties to Ali‘i Drive. Currently the property is vacant. We have Sea Villas \[sic\] Condominium project to the south and we have single-family residential, as well as a commercial building, on the north side. The applicants are requesting a time extension amendment to comply with Condition 2, which is the timeline for construction, of Special Management Area Use Permit Number 03-07. The original SMA Permit was approved by the Planning Commission on June 17, 2005, to allow the construction of a three and a half-story, 45-foot high, twelve-unit multiple-family residential development and related improvements. The applicants are requesting that the wording of Condition 2 be changed from “Construction of the proposed development shall be completed within five years from the date of this amended permit” to “Construction of the proposed development shall start within five years from the date of this amendment.” We’ll address the Director’s recommendation further on; we’ll move on to some more representations. This is the applicant’s submitted site plan. It shows access to Ali‘i Drive, as well as the footprint of the proposed development, including the public access easement that’s been conditioned as part of the permit, and this is located on the makai side of the development. These are some elevations that were submitted originally back in 2003. These are the north and south elevations, and these are the mauka and makai elevations. These are site photos of the proposed area. This is Ali‘i Drive looking north with the subject property, access to the subject property, on the left side of the map. You may be familiar with this building that is right here on the right side; this is a, what we call, a nonconforming structure or grandfathered in. It was built prior to certain rules and regulations, and therefore it doesn’t meet setback requirements; so that’s why this happens to be so close to the road. This is looking south on Ali‘i Drive with the proposed access just to the right. This is looking from Ali‘i Drive to the subject properties, and currently the proposed development is vacant, the area is vacant, but it’s covered with different types of trees. Again, this is a little closer view showing some of the trees that are there; Sea Villas \[sic\] would be on your, on your – oh, sorry about that – Sea Villas \[sic\] would be on your left and a single-family dwelling on your right. There is the picture of the single-family dwelling, as well as their access to their property. This is along the makai side of the property, looking towards the south with the current development of Sea Villas \[sic\] Condominium. This is looking directly mauka with the subject property just to the left there; this is showing the current development there as well as the type of shoreline that’s there. This is looking directly at the proposed project area. And then this is looking to the north where the single-family dwelling is and related improvements. 2 EXHIBIT A The Planning Director is recommending approval of the time extension request, but is requesting the following language be approved: Instead of the proposed language from the applicant, he is requesting approval of that the language for Condition 2 be “Construction of the proposed development shall be completed within seven years from the date of this amendment.” The reason for that is it’s not standard practice for us to propose conditions that it leaves it open-ended as far as completion of a project. The proposed request would have allowed a start date but no finish date, and so it could linger on for however long. In this particular case we are giving them a little bit more time, and we did speak with the representative of the applicants and they were amenable to this. We are giving them a little bit more time but that is to complete construction, and if something doesn’t work out, they can come back before the Planning Commission and request additional time. With that, that concludes our presentation. If you have any questions. Thank you. UNGER: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of staff? Commissioner Carr Smith. CARR SMITH: I have a couple of questions. The one photo – am I on? Jeff? DARROW: Oh, there you go. Okay. CARR SMITH: All right. The one photo that you showed me that looked like the single-family has the same access or shared access, is that true or is that? That’s what looked like to me. DARROW: It is true. CARR SMITH: Okay, it is a shared access. DARROW: Yeah. CARR SMITH: Okay. DARROW: The applicants have an access easement over those, there’s two actual properties before the subject property and they have access and utility easements over those properties for their property. CARR SMITH: Okay. DARROW: That brings up another point, is that one of the issues, previously going through the original request, was that the access easement wasn’t wide enough, and they were able to work out an agreement with the area that was limiting access to be able to provide a minimum 20-foot wide access easement, which is Condition Number 3. And they’ve been working with the Department of Public Works on that access issue, and that was a request that be placed in as a condition, which they’ve provided information that they secured that access easement. 3 EXHIBIT A CARR SMITH: Okay. Forgive me if I don’t know all the details of how this works, but on the SMA Permit are the plans for the proposed building a part of that or are they separate? Like, are we just dealing with the conditions of the SMA Permit or — DARROW: Correct. CARR SMITH: — not the structure? DARROW: The, this particular request was for a time extension, so that’s what we are working with. CARR SMITH: Right, okay. DARROW: The original request got into all the issues, and that’s not to say you can’t bring up those issues now, but basically the issue at hand is a time extension request. CARR SMITH: I understand that. DARROW: Normally, even representations made at a hearing for proposed structures, those are proposed plans and they may change as they go through the permitting process. So you never know what’s going to happen, you know, you find out, oh, I can’t build what I was proposing, I’ve got to downsize or I have to make it — CARR SMITH: Right. DARROW: So you just never know. So we kind of leave the actual details to when they go through the, but they cannot go beyond what is permitted through zone. CARR SMITH: All right, very good. Thank you. UNGER: Any other questions? SHIMAOKA: I just have one in, because of the time frame, I know that the Director’s recommendation is that within seven years from the date that we approve the amendment, correct? And the conditions may change between now and then, though, as far as the requirements will change, zoning requirements. I’m looking at, like what Nancy said, that joint access to the road it seems so small. If you are building a twelve-unit, you know, we are dealing with the problem on Ali‘i Drive already as it is — DARROW: Right, right. SHIMAOKA: — with the space. DARROW: Sure. SHIMAOKA: So, how do we address that? 4 EXHIBIT A DARROW: Well, again, if they don’t meet the condition, which is in place, then they cannot go forward. This was one of the major issues originally in the permit, and they only had 16 feet for access, which wasn’t meeting the standard. Department of Public Works requested a minimum of 20 feet, and they have been able to secure that for the access easement. So they’ve met that condition as of now. That may change, I mean, you never know, with relationships or agreements, they could change. If that does change, then they would either have to come back and request an amendment or find another option as far as widening that access. UNGER: Any other questions? Thank you. DARROW: Thank you. UNGER: Would the applicant come forward, please? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? VITOUSEK: Yes. UNGER: Please state your name and your area of residence. VITOUSEK: Randy Vitousek. I’m a resident of Kamuela, Hawai‘i, and I’m here as the attorney for the applicants. UNGER: You may begin with your presentation. VITOUSEK: Yeah, basically, the Planning Department did a very thorough job of evaluating the request for extension. The proposal to change the nature of their request from a start construction to a complete construction makes lots of sense; it’s okay with the applicant. In other words a lot of vagaries in terms of what means starting construction, so the, going from the start construction within five years to complete construction within seven years is acceptable to the applicants. Basically, you know, this project was approved, you know, some time ago. There was 13 hearings, I think, before the Planning Commission, and, you know, I participated in some of the later ones. But, you know, their request is simply, you know, to allow additional time. There have been changes in the market conditions. The Planning Department I think thoroughly evaluated the criteria for extension. And we just request that the Planning Commission accept the Planning Department’s recommendations and approve the request for extension. If there are any questions, I’ll be happy to address them. UNGER: Thank you. Any questions? CARR SMITH: Good morning. Is this property for sale? VITOUSEK: Not to my knowledge, no. 5 EXHIBIT A CARR SMITH: Okay. I saw the For Sale sign in the photo, and I didn’t know if that was old or current. VITOUSEK: No, no, no. No — CARR SMITH: Okay. VITOUSEK: — the owner intends to develop it. CARR SMITH: All right. The delay, I know market conditions, but is that really the only reason — VITOUSEK: No, it’s not the only — CARR SMITH: — that this has gone on for so long? VITOUSEK: No, it’s not the only reason. One of the — CARR SMITH: I know the property changed hands at one point. VITOUSEK: Right. And another reason was that, you know, they had to negotiate the easement in order to get additional four-foot easement for access. They completed that, they completed negotiations with the interim that there is another parcel in between, so they’ve made agreement with them. And then interestingly, you know, they had to do a shoreline certification because the certification had lapsed; it was a 2007 certification. And, I’m sure you guys are familiar with the situation, but when DLNR came up to certify, or a State Surveyor, came up to certify the shoreline, they radically changed the configuration of the shoreline, which would have a lot of impact on what could or couldn’t be done, and it would have significantly cut into the property on the Kailua town side. And so the applicant had to, you know, go and hire a coastal engineer to come and survey the property. They had to go back and take, the surveyor, Wes Thomas Associates, Nick Yamasaki, literally, literally went back onto the property at the time they were running The Eddie in order to see it in a maximum wave event. And he made a proposal to certify the shoreline at the location where the upper reach of the wash of the waves, literally, at the time they were running the Eddie Aikau Championship. And DLNR accepted that in late 2016. And so at that point, you know, that means we can go forward. So that doesn’t entirely explain, you know, the delay, but that was a significant portion of the delay in addition to the market conditions and in addition to needing to negotiate the easement. But it was just an interesting, it was an interesting little view into the shoreline certification process and what effects it has. CARR SMITH: And based upon your experience while you have been working on this, is it their intent to build what we’ve seen? VITOUSEK: I, you know, as lawyer I try to stay out of the business side of it, but my understanding is they are re-evaluating, you know, as we go along, what would be a good market 6 EXHIBIT A product and, you know, what would be consistent with the site and the market. There have been some changes to the size of it and some increase in the shoreline setback because of the change of the shoreline, so they are trying to adjust that, as they identify the appropriate product for the site and the market. And those, you know, as you know, the building plans have to go through the whole, you know, site plan approval and Building Department approval process. The plans that you submit with an SMA are really to show, you know, kind of a maximum thing, so that, maximum project, so that you can evaluate the proposed project against the SMA criteria, you know, height, view plane, you know, access, etc. CARR SMITH: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Sure. UNGER: Any other questions? NOBRIGA: Yeah. How are you going to handle these grave sites? VITOUSEK: There are no grave sites. NOBRIGA: Are you sure? VITOUSEK: Yes, I am. Dr. Rechtman did a site visit on the property, inspected it. They submitted to SHPD, and that was addressed at the time of the previous, at the time of the previous hearing before the Planning Commission. NOBRIGA: Any other historic sites on this piece? VITOUSEK: No, there are not. And I believe that there is a copy of the SHPD letter in the file. I know there is a lot of file, Commissioner Nobriga, but, and that issue did come up; the person who raised that issue did a site visit with Dr. Rechtman, they inspected the property, they were, there’s been significant, you know, bulldozing activity on the property over the years, but they were not able to find any sites. And that was submitted back to the Planning Department and to SHPD. NOBRIGA: Thank you. UNGER: Any other questions? Thank you. We are ready for a motion, Commissioners, if anybody would like to put forth a motion. Oh, wait, we need to open it up for public testimony, so backtrack. Is there anybody here from the public that wishes to testify? KNISS \[from audience\]: I just want to say we are the ones that own the house there, the big one, and we are right next to — UNGER: Can you just take a seat? Then I’ll swear you in and — KNISS: Oh, okay. 7 EXHIBIT A UNGER: — we can formalize your testimony. KNISS: Okay. UNGER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? KNISS: Yes. UNGER: Please state your name and your area of residence. KNISS: Sue Kniss, 75-5990 Ali‘i Drive. UNGER: Thank you. You can proceed with your testimony. KNISS: Okay. My husband and I, Mike, live in the bigger house there right next — SAUER: Excuse me, please use the microphone. We are recording — KNISS: Oh, okay. SAUER: Thank you. KNISS: Okay, my husband and I live in the bigger house here right next to where they want to build. And we don’t have a problem with the building; they own it, you know, is how we look at things. What we are worried about is the driveway. I mean this is not a small building going up and not just a few condos. They said twelve. Now they are talking nine. So there have been some changes going along with this just even recently. And so we don’t know, you know, what is going on, but we will, as this process goes on. We are just mainly honestly worried about the driveway. It’s a huge issue. Do you want to say anything, honey \[speaking to her husband\]? Okay. That’s all. UNGER: Thank you. KNISS: Mm-hmm. UNGER: And, again, back to the discussion about the driveway, that all will be taken up as the project continues with Public Works, as it evolves, at the time the actual building application is submitted, etc., etc. So I think we all are concerned about the driveway as well, and that’s where the process will have to work its way through. Are there any other members of the public here to testify? Seeing none, I need a motion to close public testimony. NOBRIGA: I so move — 8 EXHIBIT A KAHOLO: So move. UNGER: Motion by Commissioner Nobriga, second by Commissioner Kaholo, to close public hearing. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. UNGER: Opposed? \[None.\] Motion carries. So we are back to requesting a motion. SHIMAOKA: Yeah, I move that the application to amend Condition Number 2 of Special Management Area Use Permit Number 03-000007 be approved based on the Planning Director’s recommendation and findings, which shall be adopted. CARR SMITH: Second. UNGER: We have a motion by Commissioner Shimaoka, second by Carr Smith. The floor is open for discussion. All my comments had to do, or all my discussion points, had to do with the extension from five to seven years and the open-ended request by the applicant. And once that was resolved by discussion with the Planning Department and the applicants, I really didn’t have any other comments or questions. Going through the seven hearings and the testimony, it’s pretty clear that this process has gone quite ways down the path. And so I will be voting aye on the motion. Hearing no other comments, Mr. Darrow, roll call. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion is to approve as recommended by the Planning Director. With that, we’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Carr Smith? CARR SMITH: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Kealoha? KEALOHA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. 9 EXHIBIT A DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? UNGER: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, six to zero. UNGER: Thank you. Applicant, you’ll be notified in writing by the Planning Commission. VITOUSEK: Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 9:52 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 10 EXHIBIT A