Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/2011 Public Hearing Transcript re: BILL#2401PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 20, 2011 A public hearing of the Council of the County of Kauai was. called to order by Nadine K. Nakamura, Chair, Planning Committee, on Wednesday, April 20, .2011, at 1:42 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 3371-A Wilcox Road, Lihu`e, Kauai, and the presence of the following was noted: Honorable Tim Bynum Honorable Dickie Chang Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura Honorable Mel Rapozo Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura (present at 1:48 p.m.) Honorable Jay Furfaro, Council Chair The Clerk read the notice of the public hearing on the following: BILL NO. 2401 - A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 9, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS), which was passed on first reading and ordered to print by the Council of the County of Kauai on March 23, 2011, and published in The Garden Island newspaper on April 1, 2011. The following communications were received for the record: 1. Tom Shigemoto, Vice President, A&B Properties, Inc. dated April 20, 2011 (resubmittal of 11/23/2010 planning commission testimony) 2. Dennis Esaki email, dated April 20, 2011 The hearing proceeded as follows: AVERY YOUN: Good afternoon, Councilmembers. My name is Avery Youn. And I have been involved in the planning department entitlements and subdivisions since 1975, which tells me I have been here too long. This subdivision ordinance was adopted in 1973 and through my experience being with the planning department, the planning commission never put conditions on these kind of relocation of existing lots of record. I think it started almost 20 years later in the early '90s, when the new administration, new planning director, then they 1 started to add one condition, then two, and not long after that there was like pages of conditions on subdivisions like this. This is simply relocation of lots or kuleanas that's mainly within the same parcel, and we'd usually do it to give it a better location, such as next to a roadway or closer to utilities. We just finished a project, and the driveway is 600 feet long. It $75,000 just to do the driveway. So this would sort of eliminate those kind of problems that the landowners deal with. And I'm here today to support this bill, especially because it applies only to minor projects four units or less and existing buildable lots. So I believe on the lots that you relocate has to be buildable; they can't be a regular old right-of--way or something that was on record before. I think it's also very fair in allowing the landowners who desire to move existing lots within their lands that they own closer to roadways and existing utilities to make their project more economical. The conditions added to such projects today...the last one we did was about 10 pages, and it changed whereby applicants are hit with roadway dedications, roadway improvements, realignment, extending waterlines, you know, up to 1500 feet, which cost like two to $300,000 for to relocate your lots, which to me is not fair. If it was a bigger project, bigger development, then the cost could be spread out through all the lots that you create. So these conditions, you know even though the lots are buildable and are to be relocated, these conditions sometimes kill the project or make it totally unfeasible for a landowner to pursue. I'd like to just conclude by stating that the main purpose of this is to address the landowners to make it more economical for them to move their lots closer to an existing roadway or existing utilities without being burdened by the sometimes public improvement conditions, such as extending a waterline or having to realign your road and pave it, because I know definitely that those will kill such projects as this where we're dealing with four lots or units or less. Thank you. Are there any questions? Ms. Nakamura: Thank you, Avery. (Ms. Yukimura was noted present at 1:48 p.m.) JONATHAN CHUN: Thank you Madam Chair and Chair Furfaro. Jonathan Chun, speaking on behalf of myself. I don't have any particular clients that are involved in this situation, but I wanted to just inform the council that in my practice there have been a lot of situations where an ordinance like this would have really helped out. The common ones really are, and I don't know what the other speakers have said, but the common ones are houses or walls or structures that encroach on other people's property, and a lot of times they are struggling for ways of how to fix that situation. The easy way, of course is to see if we can trade land, but because of the way the subdivision ordinance is currently worded, that 2 really is most of the time not an option. In fact, I have one situation right now where a garage actually is encroaching on somebody's property and they were looking at trying to trade-off land to fix that encroachment and the setback violations at the same time, but because the current situation, the planning department advised us not to do that. So they are looking at other ways to try to resolve the situation, short of knocking or cutting the garage in half. But I just wanted to inform the council that it is a common situation. We don't see that every day, but I can tell you at least two or three times a year we have seen situations where it would be good to be able to consolidate and resubdivide and just move the boundary lines without changing the number of lots or density, but just changing the lot lines so non-conformance or encroachments can be fixed. Another common issue or situation is on access. A lot of times paper...flag lots are created and without any regards to actually where the contours of the land lie. So when people actually buy these lots and try to put a driveway or an accessway along the flag portion or the pole portion, it's just physically impossible. So one way they looked at doing it is try to see if they can move that pole section further down to the left or to the right. But again, because of the subdivision ordinance, that is almost very difficult to do without spending more money than it really is necessary to do that. And the third one, of course, is the common kuleana situation where we have old kuleana lots located within large parcels, and everybody seems to agree that we'd be better off moving it somewhere else on the parcel, and that is another common issue. So I just wanted to let the council know that those are real-life situations that are occurring right now, which this ordinance would address. Ms. Nakamura: So you are in support of this? Mr. Chun: Yes, I was speaking in support of this proposed ordinance. Thank you. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura? Ms. Yukimura: So in the flag lot situation, how did we allow the flag lots to be created in the first place? Mr. Chun: Well the flag...the subdivision ordinance right now doesn't address issues actually on the ground. I mean the flag lots, when they are created, they meet the subdivision ordinance in terms of the length of the pole section, the width of the pole section; they meet all the requirements of it. But what a lot of times happens is they'll draw the line and sometimes without regard as to where the contours of the property is, the topography. 3 Ms. Yukimura: Well that is what I mean, how come we're allowing that? Mr. Chun: It meets the subdivision ordinance. Ms. Yukimura: Well, I know, but maybe we need to change the subdivision ordinance if we're creating lots that aren't usable or are impractical or something like that. I mean we don't require contour maps with our subdivision ordinances...I mean with our subdivision applications? Mr. Chun: Not that... You could ask the engineers over here, but not that I recall. I mean that is another issue, but I do know...I don't know what the current one, because I don't really get involved too much with subdivisions, but I do know there are older subdivisions that I seen created, especially in the Kapa`a area back in the 1960s and that is common. Ms. Yukimura: Okay, yeah, if they are really old and the problem has been addressed today. Mr. Chun: And I can't address whether or not what they require right now. I mean some of the other speakers probably could do that. Ms. Yukimura: Well, it...I think this bill is well-drafted and I think it's worthy so much that I... at least as far as I know, but I think it would be foolish to use it to correct situations that we could not create in the first place by having well-drawn subdivisions in the first place. So that's why I asked. Thank you. Ms. Nakamura: Maybe what we can do is this will come back to the committee. At that time and have someone from the planning department subdivisions there to answer your questions? Ms. Yukimura: That would be great. Thank you. Ms. Nakamura: Can you remember that question? Council Chair Furfaro: So the question will deal with reconciling the use of flag lots, as well as the requirement for topographic maps... are they available during times of subdivision? We'll send those over. Ms. Nakamura: So if we can ask staff to arrange for subdivision staff to be here at the next planning committee meeting. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Mr. Chun: Thank you. 4 Ms. Nakamura: Anyone else who would like to testify? State your name for the record. DENNIS ESAKI: Good afternoon, Dennis Esaki, for the record. Mr. Chairman and Councilmembers, I am basically in support of this proposed measure. However, on section 1, paragraph e, findings and purpose, it says, "for this particular case, you know, for (inaudible), want to proceed without unwarranted conditions or requirements." I think for all subdivisions you shouldn't do any unwarranted conditions, not only for this. And also in the page 2, section 9-2.13, it talks about four existing lots or parcels of record. They are not synonymous-lots and parcels, because "parcels" as defined by the property tax division only for tax purposes and they are not necessarily the same. So if you are going to talk about lots, just call it "lots." Ms. Nakamura: And in this case, it would be lots. Mr. Esaki: I would think so. Ms. Nakamura: Right. Okay, thank you. Mr. Esaki: And also on line 6, where it says "any off-site county infrastructure," Iwould like to delete the word "county," because some areas have private infrastructure. Like, I believe, for example, in the Princeville area it's not a county water system. Ms. Yukimura: I'm sorry, I'm not clear where are you referring to? Ms. Nakamura: Line 6 of section 9-2.13. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Ms. Nakamura: Still part of that first sentence. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Ms. Nakamura: Can you repeat that again? Mr. Esaki: I would like to delete the word "county infrastructure;" because some areas are not served with county infrastructure. And also, if you leave that in, you might say the applicant would have to do a private million-gallon tank or something, which is what we're trying to eliminate. Any questions? Ms. Nakamura: Any questions for Mr. Esaki? 5 Mr. Esaki: Thank you very much. Ms. Nakamura: Thank you for your constructive concerns. Any other member of public who would like to testify on this? Okay. Then if not, I will close this public hearing. There being no further testimony on this matter, the public hearing adjourned at 1:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,~- ,-,. PETER A. NAKAMURA `'' County Clerk /ao 6