HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcminutes6-14-11 KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
June 14, 2011
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by
Chair, Herman Texeira at 10:35 a.m. at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting
room 2A-2B. The following Commissioners were present:
Mr. Herman Texeira
Mr. Jan Kimura
Mr. Hartwell Blake
Mr. Caven Raco
Ms. Camilla Matsumoto
Mr. Wayne Katayama
Absent and excused:
Mr. James Nishida
Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued:
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Chair: The first item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda and before I do that I
would just like to ask the Commission to consider, we want to change the position of our agenda,
all the executive sessions in which we have four executives session, we want to hold them
towards the end. And what I would like to do is begin the meeting with the item New Business,
item 3 the shoreline setback, both shoreline setbacks, we want to put that in the front of the
agenda because Lisa Ellen is not feeling very well and also because we have some time
constraints for the applicant. So if that is okay with the Commission I would like to have a
motion to approve the agenda based on the recommended change.
Ms. Matsumoto: So moved.
Mr. Blake: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, motion carried.
On motion made by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Hartwell Blake, to
approve the agenda as amended, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD
On motion made by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Hartwell Blake, to receive
items for the record, motion carried unanimously voice vote.
NEW BUSINESS
For Acceptance and Finalization—Director's Report for Shoreline Setback Activity
Determination.
Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2011-4 for a shoreline setback
determination Tax Map Key(4) 4-9-005:005 `Aliomanu Kauai, for acceptance by the
Commission=Richard S. Hill Trust.
Director's Report pertaining to this matter.
Staff Planner Lisa Ellen Smith read Director's Report into the record (on file).
JUL 12 2911-
Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions for Lisa Ellen? There being none I'd like to
ask the applicant to come forward.
Mr. Walton Hong: Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, for
the record my name is Walton Hong representing the applicant Richard Hill. I really don't have
anything to add, I think the staff report covers everything. The proposed work is well beyond the
shoreline setback and we ask that the determination be approved.
Chair: Are there any questions you would like to ask of the applicant? There being none
thank you.
Mr. Hong: Thank you.
Chair: Would anybody from the public like to speak on this matter? There being none,
Lisa Ellen, could you provide your conclusion.
Staff Planner Lisa Ellen Smith read conclusion and department recommendation (on file).
Mr. Blake: Move to accept.
Mr. Katayama: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Wayne Katayama, to approve
staff report, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2011-5 for a shoreline setback
determination, Moanakai Road, Kapa`a, Kauai, for acceptance by the Commission= County of
Kaua`i, Department of Water.
Director's Report pertaining to this matter.
Staff Planner Lisa Ellen Smith read Director's Report into the record(on file).
Chair: Thank you. Are there any questions for our planner? There being none would the
applicant come forward.
Mr. Clyde Kodani: For the record, Clyde Kodani, I am the authorized agent for the
Department of Water. Alongside me Dustin Moises, the project engineer for the Department of
Water. We have nothing.
Chair. You have heard the report, you have no comments then.
Mr. Kodani: No.
Chair: Any questions of the applicant?
Ms. Matsumoto: I am not sure if it is to the applicant but in this establishment of this
shoreline setback line page here there is a note that says there were two maps done, surveys done
before, and that as of this date they were not certified by DLNR. Could you explain that?
Staff: 1 would defer that question to the applicant.
Mr. Kodani: The shoreline surveys were done but we were withholding submittal to the
DLNR because the certification lasts only for a period of six months and so depending on the
outcome or whether we really needed certification or not. And if we don't we will just leave it
alone.
Chair: Do you have any other questions? Anyone else wishing to...
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
2
Mr. Jung: Chair, if I could just clarify, when you look at County projects under 125
thousand dollars then there is no requirement for a certified shoreline so that is built in within our
specific shoreline ordinance.
Mr. Raco: Because of the amount?
Mr. Jun!?: Yes it is because of the amount. This project is sort of unique because it is a
roadway lot and they are just replacing the existing waterline. And in front of the waterline there
is a revetment, the Moanakai revetment so clearly the coastal process will not be affected on that
road once they put it in. There is a State lot in front of a portion of the road and the road actually
physically abuts the ocean on another portion so the project is essentially broken up in two parts
and in the first part where it abuts the property, because the improvements are going in for that
portion are less than 125 thousand they can utilize the exception for a certified shoreline. Well
actually it is the Director's call whether or not to require a certified shoreline if the coastal
process is going to be affected and because of the revetment in front of the road there is no affect
on the coastal beach process there. With the revetment as well as on the outside of Fuji Beach
there is the limestone barrier as well as the reef that is way out.
Chair: Any other questions of the applicant? There being none, thank you, anyone from
the public wishing to testify on this matter? There being none what is the pleasure of this
Commission?
Mr. Wayne Katayama: Move to accept.
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Jan Kimura, to approve
staff report, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Chair: Before we go further I would like to do one housekeeping thing which I forgot to
do which is to have the minutes approved, both minutes of May 10 ' and May 24th
Mr. Kimura: So moved.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Jan Kimura and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to approve
regular meeting minutes of the Planning Commission for 5110111 and 5/24/11, motion
carried unanimously by voice vote.
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS
Annual Progress Report for the L-ihu`e Town Core Design Plan pursuant to K.C.C.,
Section 10-5A.11, Implementation of the Lihu`e Town Core Urban Design Plan."
Informational Report pertaining to this matter.
Staff Planner Marie Williams read informational report(on file).
Chair: I would like to ask the Commissioners if they have any questions or comments
they wish to address to Marie?
Mr. Blake: Just a general question, when this first came out there seemed to be some
push back from the senior community because it required more walking and less driving. Has
that been alleviated with these (inaudible)?
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
3
Staff. The plan doesn't require more walking instead it would allow people the choice of
walking in a safe...on a sidewalk for example if they choose to but it by no means required
people to engage in active transportation, they could choose to keep their cars and use that if they
want to. It just encouraged pedestrian and bicycle facilities around the Town Core.
Mr. Blake: So it is gaining more acceptance as time passes.
Staff: I think so.
Chair: Are you through Commissioner Blake, any more questions? Anyone else wishing
to have any commentary, any questions? I do, the implementation program when is the
beginning date of that implementation program?
Staff: I would say it probably began in March of last year when the plan was approved
by Council so I believe that we have commenced year one of the 20 year planning period.
Chair: So your timetable begins from the Spring of 2010?
Staff. The timetable included in the staff report actually have been updated for this year
so if there is something that says it will occur in one year we are proposing that it will be
completed in the upcoming fiscal year.
Chair: I am looking at the implementation work program on page 2;you mentioned
some of these projects require possible grants and maybe other funding sources. Do you
anticipate any problems with that?
Staff. The plan actually did a great job of providing a list of possible funding sources
that we could pursue. At this point we haven't fully examined them but we will and will try to
pursue every possible grant that we can to implement the projects recommended by the plan.
Chair: The persons that will be writing these grants, is that in house from the Planning
staff?
Staff Most likely it would be in house but at the same time there are grants available to
community groups and if that is the case we would be willing to partner with a group if they
wanted to pursue a grant.
Chair: Under staff training could you expand on that?
Staff. We did have a meeting where we discussed the Town Core Plan and the
requirements of the new special planning areas and last year what happened is that for the first
few permits that came in we actually sat down as a team and went over each of the design
guidelines for conformance with the special planning area.
Chair: The State DOT, the next page is the circulation plan of the Lihu`e Town Core
Plan has been provided by the State DOT and their consultants, the State Bicycle Implementation
Plan, State Pedestrian, and the State Long Range. Where are these plans right now? Are these
plans completed?
Staff. They are all ongoing.
Mr. Raco: Can you briefly explain to me what is the tree ordinance?
Staff: There is an exceptional tree ordinance and right now the Banyon tree on the
Watamull building lot is not part of it and perhaps somebody else could speak more to this, we
have a few experts on the plan here and I know that they want to testify on this item. But I
believe that tree in particular was meant to be in that but it was not and so it is sort of correcting
for whatever reason it was not included.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
4
Mr. Raco: The reasoning to extend the STC over the Mill, what was the reasoning, why
wasn't that part of the first overall plan?
Staff. Because the actual boundaries of the Town Core Plan did not cover that area but
because it was so important they did want to develop some general guidelines for that area and
that was one of the guidelines that came about. And it did come about through consultation with
the current landowner as well.
Mr. Raco: Who is the current landowner and what is their plans?
Staff. I don't know what their plans are right now but I believe Pahio Development has
been if,if they don't own the property they manage the property or they will be managing the
future development on that property.
Chair: Anyone else?
Mr. Blake: Is the Monkey Pod tree at the L-ihu`e Plantation offices part of the
exceptional tree ordinance also for protection?
Staff: I am sorry, I don't know that. I can get a list of all the trees that are on that list and
provide that to you.
Mr. Blake: Just for the L-1 u`e Town Core Development.
Staff Okay.
Mr. Blake; Thank you.
Chair: Marie, I have a question in regards to the L-ihu`e Mill site, it seems like that site is
very fluid property, I guess is on the market, is that tree, have you heard anything?
Staff. I haven't heard that.
Chair: Anyone from the public wishing to testify on this matter?
Ms. Pat Griffin: Good morning Chair Texeira and Commissioners, my name is Pat
Griffin and I am privileged to serve as President of the Lihu`e Business Association and we were
mentioned in Marie's fine presentation as having a purpose to engage the Lihu`e community and
stakeholders in the long range planning of Lzhu`e. We consider the stakeholders all of Kauai
since we do consider Lihu`e the heart of Kauai and our Association really coalesced around the
issue of this Town Core Plan which I served on the Citizens Advisory Committee and so did Neil
Clendenin and Palmer Hofdal and several other people who worked to organize the LBA. We
have a lot of support for the plan. We appreciate the really hard work that PBR did as
consultants. And our Planning Department really deserves a lot of appreciation and
congratulations not only for getting it done but for continuing to work on the revitalization and
improvements of where we are right now, the County seat of Kauai and the place where most of
our goods come into and passengers is slightly outside the Town Core but we all go through here
on the way. I just wanted to say on behalf of the LBA and all of us who worked on this thank
you to the Planning Department and thank you to all of you as well for continuing to support it.
Mr. Katayama: Mr. Chair, I have a question. The timing that is presented for the
development of the Town Core How is that subject to the ability to secure funding? In other
words is the money already in place to meet this timetable or are certain portions of the lines
predicated on the ability to secure outside grants and funds?
Ms. Griffin: I think that is a planner's question.
Staff: The funding is not secured for most of the projects you are referring would
probably be unless we somehow receive a grant, would be part of the County's annual budget
and it would be dependent on what occurs each year. But it is part of a plan and that is the
Planning Commission Minutes
June I4,2011
5
starting point and we hope to work more closely with our Public Works Department to make it a
reality.
Ms. Griffin: To follow that briefly what has been funded is a district development plan
update in the budget just completed and a General Plan update and that makes this even more
important because Lihu`e as a district, you asked me this question, L-lhu`e runs from the north
bank, north fork of the Wailua River to the western boundary of Kipu which is not quite to the
tree tunnel but it is a large district. The Town Core has been a little bit forgotten in recent years
and that revitalization is hard in a full development plan to look at design implications which this
plan does.
Chair: Thank you, anyone else wishing to...have any other questions, if not thank you,
anyone else from the public?
Mr. Neil Clendenin. For the record I am Neil Clendenin. I am Chairman of the L;hu`e
Tomorrow Committee which is part of the LBA and I wanted to also thank the Planning
Department and the Commissioners here too for allowing this plan to actually happen,the
Council did eventually approve it. And now to see this wonderful thing that we are talking about
plans that we actually do. And it is nice that there is an annual update, I know that is a little bit
of extra work but to make sure we are actually moving on plans that we actually pay for and put
forward. This is really good. About this plan,I am pretty excited about the plan. It is a design
plan and as a result it isn't really a plan that needs to be funded because it is really telling
landowners and others in the community what can be done and what we expect within the
community. So a lot of it is going to depend on the individuals who own land in that area to do
some of the changes. Some though will depend on the County and unfortunately we are in rather
a budget crunch and so things will go a little bit slower for the time being but I am very
encouraged by what the County is going to be doing soon with the Civic Center. There is a lot of
activity that they are going to be doing in phases, a lot of it with ADA compliance but I think we
will start seeing a difference. Hopefully that will at least start the process of other people starting
to look at the central core of L-ihu`e and tryi ig to figure out how to make it a more vibrant heart
of the town.
Chair: Any comments,thank you, anyone else wishing to testify?
Mr. Palmer Hofdal: Commissioners, I am Palmer Hofdal, a local architect. I have been
privileged to work for a long time with Neil and Pat and others on this program and with the
support of the Planning Department. Neil mentioned certain Civic Center improvements that are
coming along now and it kind of goes in keeping with your question about the funding. Much of
the plan as a design plan encourages private participation as well and initially the previous
Deputy Planning Director pointed out that the Planning Department(inaudible) need to reach out
to the business community as well and I think we will have an opportunity for that in the near
future. There are improvements in the Civic Core that include perhaps signalizing Kelly Street
and replacing a crosswalk that existed there at one time. And at that time we may be asking to
re-up that crosswalk with a decorative pattern that is suggested by the Town Core Plan to show
that holding of hands with the businesses. Here is an opportunity to get across the street to the
heart of the business community and a chance to do some traffic calming as well and to create
that invitation and symbolically at least a holding of hands with the business side of the
community. Because much of the plan will depend on how Rice Street develops with individual
owners and with your support of those guidelines encouraged in the plan.
Chair: Thank you, anyone else? If not I would like to thank you.
COMMUNICATION
Memorandum (5/31/11) from Interim Planning Director Michael Dahilig to Chair
Herman Texeira and Members of the Planning Commission, requesting delegation of authority
conduct public hearings on behalf of the Commission.
Mr. Jung: I will read it for you. "The department is currently processing Special Permits
applications pursuant to ordinance 904 and Chapter 205 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. To
date the Department has received over 60 requests and each application requires a public
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
6
hearing. Due to the timing outlined in the ordinance and the requirements set forth by Chapter
13 of the Commission Rules the acceptance of these applications has created a quote/end quote
bubble whereby the Commission's agendas over the next few months will be dominated by these
applications. Understanding the already existing constraints with the Commission's time our
office or the Planning Department has been in consultation with our office, the County
Attorney's office to explore options for processing these applications.
Procedurally before the Planning Commission handles the files for decision making the
department envisions initially processing the applications on the Commission's behalf by 1),
publishing the hearing notices, 2) appointing a hearings officer to conduct and close public
hearings, 3) transcribing the received oral testimony and compiling the written testimony, and 4)
bundling all the information for action by the Commission. Should any intervention requests be
received the public hearing would still be closed under this authority but the disposition of
intervention would be handled by the Commission directly. We believe this approach will assist
the Commission in more efficiently disposing of the applications, therefore the department
requests delegation of authority to the Director to appoint a hearings officer to process all
ordinance 904 or Special Permits in this matter."
Just a real quick synopsis, in discussing this with Mike, the interim Planning Director,the
issue was we are going to have a number of public hearings to be scheduled and the debate was
should we hold additional Commission days or should we select someone to just do all the public
hearings, process all the oral testimony as well as compile all the written testimony and then
provide a packet to the full Commission with all the necessary information so you guys can then
take action after reviewing everything. So it is limited only to the public hearing its self and if
people do want to come and testify against the permit they would still have that opportunity
when it is before you folks for action. So the goal is have like I or 2, about 20 to 30 on each day,
just straight public hearings. And the Planning Department would do the notices and all that. So
it is sort of out of the ordinary but according to some of the prior planners the Planning
Department in the past had utilized this option and held public hearings and whatnot.
Mr. Blake: So the issue is whether we should appoint someone to do what if we are
going to hear all the public testimony?
Mr. Jung: The formal public hearing, when we have public hearings it is specifically for
a dually noticed hearing which we provide notice in the paper and whatnot so we can tell the
adjacent landowners that this proposal is coming down the pipeline, here is the notice, usually
85% of people within 300 feet of the adjacent property. As well as notifying the paper to the
general public at large. Normally you guys would hold the public hearing, defer the action, wait
for the all the comments and then take action later. So we essentially alleviate holding 60 public
hearings before this body, compile all the information,the oral testimony as well as written
testimony, and then provide all that at one point so you guys can go straight into decision making
rather than sit through hours of public testimony so you could review the materials on your own
time.
Mr. Blake: But we would still be listening to the public testimony.
Mr. Jung: Yes, under Chapter 92 you still have to entertain public testimony if it is a
public hearing setting or not. Public hearing is just a legal word for giving notice of a hearing.
We still have to entertain public testimony for every agenda item so when it comes up eventually
for action you are still going to have to hear the public and what their comments are and
concerns are.
Mr. Blake: So are we going to be hiring a clerk or a hearings officer?
Mr. Jung: That is one of the things we are evaluating. We wanted to feel out the
Commission first to see if you guys would even be willing to utilize this option. If not then we
will just go with our normal schedule and just maybe try and have a few long days.
Mr. Blake: Are there alternatives to hiring an attorney?
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
7
Mr. Jung: There are, we could look at somebody from within the County because it
would just be a delegation just to...well the Planning Department would do all the public hearing
notices and then we would just have somebody sit here to receive the testimony as well as
receive the written testimony, oral and written testimony.
Mr. Blake: And that person would not necessarily be a department member.
Mr. Jung: No.
Chair: Anyone else?
Mr. Jung: It is really up to you guys. If you want to sit through all the hearings that is
certainly your Kuleana but if you want to delegate the authority just to intake all the testimony
then that is also within your authority. Normally when you guys have an appointed hearings
office it is in the function of a contested case hearing where you have two parties duking it out
over how the proposed project is going impact the neighbor or whatnot. So in this case although
there are no true contested cases yet if someone does request intervention then that would
immediately be pulled out of the stack and it would come before this body.
Mr. Crowell: What is driving this is that our Special Permit rules, the Planning
Commission's Special Permit rules have a 210 day time limit for action from the date of receipt
and there is no allowance for time extensions. So the deadline for applications on Special
Permits for transient vacation rentals which is what this is about is August 10th I believe of this
year. So come August l Oth we won't be accepting applications but before that we anticipate a
pile of application and to schedule them all for the Commission means that you might be
entertaining 6, 10, 12 applications a meeting in order to get through the 210 day time limit.
Mr. Blake: So if I have an application and we designate someone else other than the
Commission for the initial intake I would present my application before the hearings officer with
my written application and my elements of proof, he or she would accept that and then the
department would review it.
Mr. Raco: And hear public testimony.
Mr. Crowell: I think the department is already doing that, receiving the application and
determining the completeness of the application. Mike Laureta has been doing a good job of
reviewing these applications and making sure that they meet all the requirements of ordinance
904 so that is already happening. Now once all that information is deemed complete then they
submit their application and then the clock starts. So the hearings officer would just hear the
public hearing like the Commission generally does and package all the information and deliver
the findings to the Commission for disposition.
Mr. Blake: We get it?
Mr. Crowell: Yes.
Mr. Blake: The members of the public that would like to testify can.
Mr. Jung: Yes.
Mr. Crowell: Only to the extent that a member of the public can testify on any
Commission agenda item. It is not necessarily another public hearing.
Mr. Kimura: What happens with the application if we don't hit the deadline of 210 days?
Mr. Crowell: Automatically approved without conditions.
Mr. Kimura: Get out of here.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
8
Mr. Crowell: This is one of the former Governor's small business round table
recommendations that all permits have timelines so that they don't sit in the government offices
forever.
Mr. Jul: It is referred to as the automatic approval law but the department has been
very efficient in ensuring those timelines are met.
Mr. Blake: Does automatic approval mean approved as submitted or can we still attach
conditions after it is approved?
Mr. Crowell: If the Commission fails to act,which could be a possibility if all these
applications get jammed together, if the Commission fails to act then it is approved without
conditions.
Mr. Jung: But I think before we get into a detailed discussion on the automatic approval I
think that is an issue best suited for executive session so if you guys do want to deal with this
issue later we certainly could in executive session. I could brief you on the nuance of the law.
Mr. Blake: Is there any down side to having a hearings officer do the initial process?
Mr. Juniz: I am sure there is always some kind of down side because this is a relatively
new approach but it would alleviate the time requirements that would be imposed on you
because normally what you have seen here before is you do the public hearing and then defer the
action and then it comes up again and then you would hear the same testimony again and again.
So if the department does the public testimony or the public hearing which would still be in an
open area like this because it has to dually Sunshined and noticed and whatnot, then once it gets
back to you guys there is still the opportunity for people to present testimony for an against so it
is sort of this double dipping issue. Eventually it will get back to you guys and if the public
wants to specifically talk to you they are entitled to do that.
Mr. Blake: And when it comes back to us it comes back with a report.
Mr. Jung: The report would still be the staff report. It would be the staff report with all
the collated written testimony as well as the minutes from the public testimony as oral testimony.
So it is just compiling information for you, for the Commissioners to review.
Mr. Raco: What guarantees can the department give the Commission as far as in the past
we have had applications that we were up against a deadline and would these applications come
3 0 days before it is due? Because in the past what we have had is an application has come in and
decision making was that day and being that we head d the application that was information that
either an approval or denial that we could extend the decision making date because of the actual
date of that 210 days for automatic approval. I am okay in entertaining the idea of having a
hearings officer do the first public hearing but I don't want to be back against that, okay, here is
the application, today is decision making day, we go to public hearing and we hear public
testimony and the next thing you know there is key information that could either deny or approve
the project.
Mr. Juna. I can defer to Mike Laureta, I think you have kind of set up a timetable to
address those issues.
Staff Planner Michael Laureta: I have created a table on all the applications from the date
that the determination has been made when it is acceptable. The date that it is acceptable a
public hearing has to be scheduled within 60 days. That is the first deadline. Pretty much
everybody I am dealing with so far has given us a time extension on the 60 days because we
can't get it into a public hearing format before you within 60 days. It has been really difficult.
The end result, the 210 days is the one that is pushing this discussion because as we squeeze this
balloon on the 60 days, the 210 days is where that balloon stops. I have got it pegged out at least
30 to 45 days before that giving us at least 2 dates to consider it before we hit 210.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
9
I have bounced this off of you before that the other alternative was to present at least S to
8 applications per meeting, 16 per month which would take about a year if we are lucky not
including contested case hearings. I am not sure if ypu guys can handle that kind of work load
but this is another format, this hearings officer format. It does have a little bit of work load in
front and I think Ian, when we present it to whoever the individual is for the hearings officer
whatever happens in that public hearing has to be transcribed. The Commission will get the staff
report and the transcription again and if the public wants to do their dance again they are going to
do it. So it is going to be two times, you going to have it in transcript and they are going to do it
to you again when you are going to make a decision. But the part that ways heavy on me is that
210 days in the back and I am working my way up, I have a deadline in front of that so we don't
hit that situation like Caven described.
Mr. Raco: With that situation, having 10 to 16, could a consent agenda, one agenda item
sweep all? And I assuming that the only people that would really want to testify would probably
be against it that we could pull the agenda item to hear that public hearing. Is that a possibility?
Mr. Jung: That is certainly a possibility as well but the thing is each of those staff reports
would have to be read to you because that is the formal process of a public hearing pursuant to
the rules.
Mr. Raco: But when we make that announcement to the public, any of the 16, is there
anybody in the public that would like to testify on those agenda items. We could do it that way.
Mr. Jung: I could look at that.
Mr. Raco: We could listen to S or 10 but I am assuming the only people that are going to
testify are probably the people that are against the application. I don't think people that would
testify would be for the project if you know they got approval.
Mr. Kimura: So basically if we hire a hearings officer after it is all said and done we
could probably go through the same testimony again then, right?
Mr. Juniz: That would be correct. And it not necessarily that we would have to
physically hire a hearings officer if one of the Commissioners wanted to volunteer you have that
option as well.
Mr. Blake: How much time would this take versus the one year or the normal
circumstances?
Staff The first magic number I am going to throw at you is...well in two meetings we
are going to have S. If this concept that you are considering right now is acceptable the number
is 20. That means I have to write 20 staff reports,public hearing notices,prepare that file and get
it ready. On the other hand I don't want to load whoever is going to have to do the transcription
and I am looking at Lani and 20, whatever happens in that hearing has to be prepared for your
consideration. The other part to that is this is one alternative, the other alternative is if the
Commission understood that from here on out starting maybe first July or second July meeting
we are going to have no less than 6 TVR applications per meeting. If you guys were willing to
sit through that and eat lunch and we can do it we could still maintain the operation going
forward. But whatever we run into that wants to go into a contested case or it gets difficult,
those are the ones we have to push on the side while pushing everything else forward. But what
Ian didn't explain is he is still looking at the 210 day back end to see if it can legally be extended
and nobody knows the answer to that one yet. If it can be that will take a little bit of pressure off
of us but right now nobody knows.
Mr. Blake: I would be for saving time on the front end just because you don't know what
is going to happen in the fixture, something else might come up.
Chair: So it is imperative that we move on this item,we don't want to defer this, right,
the sooner the better.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
10
Staff. Well it gives us an alternative. I think it is a viable alternative. I would not
recommend pushing it back but we can still talk about which one of the Commissioners is going
to volunteer to sit in the hot spot.
Chair: So the Planning Director if we pass this will be given the authority to appoint a
hearings officer. Would the Planning Director review that with us prior to appointing anyone
just to discuss it with us? If the Planning Director appoints a hearings officer, before doing so
will he discuss it with the Planning Commission if we have any concerns?
Mr. Juniz: You could certainly qualify that and this is up to you, this is your Kuleana so
if you want to do the delegation it is up to you. If you want to qualify the terms of the delegation
in terms of confirmation from the Commission you can certainly do that.
Chair: Does the Planning Department have anybody in mind already?
Mr. Jung: No, the deadline to put out the request for qualifications if we were to hire
someone if a Commissioner did not want to volunteer would be today.
Chair: You would put out the qualifications today.
Mr. Jung: Yes, Myles is working on that right now.
Chair: So that would be in the Garden Island? How would that be done, advertized?
Mr. Jung: It would be advertized.
Mr. Kimura: So we need to move on it right now.
Chair: Yes, I would suggest, could I have a motion?
Mr. Kimura: Motion to hire a hearings officer.
Mr. Jung: The motion would be to delegate the appointment of a hearings officer to
handle the public hearings for the Special Permits pursuant to 904.
Mr. Kimura: So moved.
Mr. Raco: Second.
Chair: Any discussion on the motion? I would like to have a roll call on this matter.
On motion made by Jan Kimura and seconded by Caven Raco,to delegate the
appointment of a hearings officer to hold public hearings for Special Permits pursuant to
904, motion carried by the following roll call voter
Ayes: Katayama, Matsumoto, Blake, Kimura, Raco, Texeira -6
Noes: None -0
Absent: Nishida -1
Note Voting: None -0
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
Use Permit U-2011-13 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2011-13 to allow conversion of
an existing structure into a commercial beauty salon, on a parcel located along the northern side
of Koloa Road in Koloa, situated approx. 300 ft. west of its intersection with Maluhia Road,
further identified as Tax Map Key 2-8-006:025 (por.) with a land area of 8.63 acres = Valerie
Murray. [Director's Report received 5/24/11.]
Staff Planner Mike Laureta read D'irector's Report into the record(on file).
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2411
11
Chair: Any questions of our planner? If not is the applicant here? Will the applicant
come forward please? First of all I would like to thank you for your patience. I know it has been
trying for you and thank you for waiting on this. Could I have your names please?
Ms. Valerie Murray: Valerie Murray.
Mr. Michael Murray: Michael Murray.
Chair: You have heard some of the planner's commentary. Do you have any comments
on what was stated; are you comfortable with what happened?
Ms. Murray: Yes.
Chair: Do you want to add anything to what he stated?
Ms. Murray: No.
Chair: Any questions of the applicant by our Commissioners? If not, thank you, and I
would like to ask the public if they have any that wants to comment on this matter. There being
none, go ahead Mike, you wanted to say something.
Staff. Chair, I would like to float a proposal to the applicants. In looking at your design
layout for the parking right now it is either parallel parking along Koloa Road or it is going to be
reverse,pulling in,pulling out. Would you be amenable to relocating that parking to the inside,
to the medical clinic to eliminate the parking conflicts on Koloa Road?
Ms. Murray: Yes.
Staff. Do you feel it would be necessary to somehow block off that area so that your
clientele realizes there is no more parking where there is parking? Do you think that would be
necessary? Do you think signage or landscaping or something like that would work?
Ms. Murray: Are you referring to the parking...
Staff: Along Koloa Road.
Ms. Murray: The parallel parking? Do I think I need signage there?
Staff: Signage or would you want to plant...just to prevent anymore of that from
occurring.
Ms. Murray: So that there would no longer be anymore parallel parking along Koloa
Road?
Staff. Right.
Ms. Murray: Yes. I would be, yes.
Staff: You would be open.
Mr. Murray: But it is currently being used and has been for the general public that goes
to Sueoka's, Crazy Shirts, and the Emporium retail store. That parking is used all day, every
day, for the general public. So are we, you are proposing that we have nobody park there? Not
only the clientele to the business but also the general public?
Staff. See and that is one of the dilemmas the circulation plan for the island identified,
that the conflicts right in that intersection area exist and should we take a stab at eliminating it or
improving it. I would be willing, as long as you would be willing to consider that, more
discussion with maybe the Community Association and/or Public Works in addressing that issue
to eliminate the turning conflicts, the parking conflicts. Do they want that or do they want to just
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
12
leave it as that? So if we were to continue we would provide time for you to resolve that with
Public Works and we could be in the middle of that one too, we would help you with that.
Mr. Murray: Is the parking that you are discussing now not public parking? I mean the
County has that roadway. Do we have the right as private properly owners to say you can't park
here on the side of the road?
Staff: No, not us, Public Works could but for us because you are asking for another use,
a commercial use, we are trying to explore if it would be safer for the community to relocate
your parking to the safer area by the medical clinic and to eliminate the parking on your
property.
Mr. Murray: Sure. Currently there is public parking pretty much all over our property to
access any of the monuments,that is all our property and we have kept that open to the public for
many years. Part of the medical clinic parking lot is not entirely for the medical clinic, there is
also a large amount of public parking that takes place in the area that you are proposing and
people use that and cross the street to shop. And that has always been kept open to the public by
US.
Staff. As long as you're will to do that.
Mr. Murray: We are.
Ms. Murray: In this case I would have a designated parking with a sign there for the
K61oa Town Salon clients and then further in for the medical clinic patients.
Staff: That's fine,thank you.
Mr. Katayama: I have a question related to that. Is the specific ownership of those
parking spaces...who owns that?
Ms. Murray: We do.
Mr. Murray: Excuse me, what parking spaces are you referring to?
Mr. Katayama: That the planner is referring to as being eliminated.
Staff. The proposed area.
Mr. Murray: The proposed area is along side of Kaloa Road.
Staff Do you have the parking layout that was in the application?
Mr. Jung: I think, Commissioners, before you get into where the public is going to park
for other uses I think keep the discussion limited specific for the patrons of the actual beauty
salon. So if they are willing to agree to that specific parking lot being in the interior portion near
the clinic I think that is sufficient enough to address it but Mike if you want to detail where...
Staff. No, that is exactly what we are talking about, the proposed 6, instead of being
along K61oa Road if they are willing to relocate that to the interior that is the 6 we are looking at.
Mr. Jung: Along K61oa Road there is a County right-of-way that extends, I am not sure
the footage of the right-of-way but it does extend along the road where people could park. But
whether or not it is identifiable parking spots we would have to get public works in to address
that issue.
Mr. Katayama: It seems a bit onerous for the applicants in this case to unilaterally
commit to that kind of impact. I guess I am trying to get a sense if that is reasonable or within
their scope even because I think it does impact what is perceived as public use and I think traffic
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
13
flows are also impacted by that. So it is sort of to me three different layers of issues that I don't
know if that is appropriate for the applicant to agree to.
Mr. Jung: I think if they are willing to agree to indentify because I believe you two own
the property in the back, correct, where you are going to have a parking lot so the parking lot
could be established there to alleviate any traffic concerns and they are willing to accept that. I
think that would be an acceptable condition for mitigation.
Mr. Raco: Mike, I guess I am concerned too on the reasoning. I think the parking that is
there now, how casual it is, is kind of the Koloa Town style. I mean I use that, that is a prime
spot when the parade is there, it is a good spot to get in and try to reserve and I appreciate the
landowners not kicking anybody out when the parade is there. I mean parallel parking is on the
other side too...
Staff: All along, it is uncontrollable on the Park side because that property hasn't been
developed. It is controlled on the makai side because of(inaudible)parking so where we can
attempt to address the reversing movements onto the road that is what we should try and do. If
everybody wants to maintain as is, that is fine too. But we are looking at the safety part, the
reversing movements onto Koloa Road.
Mr. Raco: I am just saying it is kind of like the style over there and you have to drive
slow. I think it sort of in a weird way works.
Ms. Matsumoto: I have concerns about the parking as well. Kaloa Town is becoming, it
is crowed now, more crowded than it was before, it has visitors, many people shopping, and that
particular area tends to be a little congested. So I appreciate your willingness to move the
parking toward the medical clinic because I think that will be safer. Even now all along the road
there people are parking and whether or not that is legal, I don't know. And then the other thing
is that we encourage a healthy community so people can park elsewhere and walk,that is not a
bad thing either. We just had a discussion about that. I think the proposed business is a great
idea and it is just a matter of making sure that the traffic there continues to be mitigated.
Mr. Blake: If all the parking is located within the clinic area that means that your
customers would have to walk along the bridge to get to the beauty shop, is that correct?
Ms. Murray: I use that myself often to go back and forth to the clinic. There are two
crosswalks located, one right by the driveway to the clinic and then there is another crosswalk
between me and the Chevron station.
Mr. Blake: So people walking from the clinic west to access the beauty shop would be
walking across the bridge over Waikomo Stream, is that correct?
Mr. Murray: They have two options, one would be along the bridge and Waikomo
Stream and the other option would be to cross the cross walk and go over to Sueoka's, take the
sidewalk down towards the Chevron gas station, take another crosswalk over and then walk
along into the shop. So from the Chevron side crosswalk to the beauty salon is only 30 feet so
that would avoid them having to cross the bridge. So there are two ways to get there.
Mr. Blake: When I read the application that was a safety concern that occurred to me,
people walking along the bridge revetment with the cars heading east to west and so I thought
possibly if the employees parked, the employee parking was designated to be inside in the clinic
that might leave room in what operates as an informal parking area right now for the clientele.
Although walking is encouraged I know that if Jan or Ian or Caven went into to get their hair
done and came out into a wind storm it wouldn't bother them. Anybody who was coiffured with
what you can do in there, they step outside and it is just gone. One of the things I was thinking
and I don't know if this would work or not but entry into the parking lot would be only from the
west coming from the Post Office to the Chevron so that as you turn in, you turn in and then
back in. So that when you exit the parking lot you are facing the road and that would be safer I
would think and not run into two people backing out into the road on both sides of the road and
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
14
the safety issue that that would raise. That would only work for a few cars because well you
applied for 6 parking stalls?
Ms. Murray: Yes.
Mr. Blake: So I thought that was another alternative for addressing the parking problem.
Ms. Murray: I had always anticipated that the employees would park in the medical
clinic parking lot. The clients could enter onto the property for private parking for salon only. I
do have a question about the parallel parking, are you opposed to the parallel parking along
K61oa Road there in front of my property? There is about 210 feet that would be accessible for
parallel parking that doesn't involve pulling in and backing out.
Mr. Blake: Do you own property to the west of the building?
Ms. MuEay: Yes, all the way around to the curve. And I measured it out just to the
crosswalk white bar, I have 210 feet where people could parallel park along Koloa Road.
Mr. Blake: Personally I hadn't even thought about parallel parking so I am going to have
to wrap my head around that.
Ms. Murray: Well having been working there a lot the pulling in and backing out is an
issue and then it just seemed to solve the whole situation,just make it parallel parking.
Chair: Mike would you comment on that please?
Staff. The existing County road right-of-way is the area she is talking about,the road
right-of-way is that area. A portion of your building lies within the County road right-of-way.
So uses of that area shouldn't be encouraged because at some point if the County needs to go in
there and do their roadwork, either widen the road or infrastructure, everything comes out. In
fact that is one of the conditions that we are proposing regarding the building that at some point
if the County needs to go in there and widen the roadway, if parallel parking is even being
considered that is going to be eliminated right off the bat. So the parking is going to be
occurring in the County road right-of-way.
Mr. Blake: Is that allowable?
Staff. Is it going to be to County standards is one, the second part is that one we have to
wait for comments from Public Works.
Mr. Jung: Actually I have been working with Wally Kudo on the encroachment issue and
I got the email today that he is okay with it. Because this is a historic structure it is an old
structure and when they did the surveys back then they weren't as detailed as they are now so a
portion of the building, I think it is less than a foot, is in the County road right-of-way. And this
issue actually occurred with the Hapa Hongwonji right up the road. So what the County has
done in these limited circumstances where they are old historic structures is enter into what we
call non-development agreements so if the County is ever going to utilize the option to widen the
road in the existing road widening portion then they will have to remove the portion of the
structure that actually physically encroaches.
In discussions with the Murrays they are willing to execute an agreement so Public
Works has sent comments reflecting that and we have drafted up a form template of a non-
development agreement which they are willing to sign. So with that we alleviate the
encroachment issue but whether or not you can park there or not, I don't have the answer to that
but I think if they are willing to at least...right now they have enough space on their property for
5 stalls, or 6. Because there is the space available you may want to look at doing a condition to
the effect of have employees park on the back portion and then allow patrons, I don't know how
many people you intend on servicing but 1 would think there would be one to two patrons per
hour which may not congest that area as bad as anticipated. But that is certainly something for
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
15
you guys to review and acknowledge, if they want to put the actual employees in back and then
allow the patrons to park in the proposed parking area.
Mr. Blake: And that seems to be the plan according to Ms. Murray.
Ms. Murray: There were actually three different configurations; the first was to pull onto
the property...
Mr. Murray: We will just put the employees onto the backside and then one to two
clients an hour can use what is available along the road.
Staff. We can give you the flexibility to further discuss with Public Works and if they
are willing to accept parallel parking then that can go on the table too but we will let you...the
employees go in the back, parking in front for your customers but in the meantime you can
discuss and resolve with Public Works if you can do the parallel parking.
Mr. Murray Or we can give the full parking on the interior side. You need 6 stalls;we
can give all 6 on the interior.
Ms. Murray: There is enough land next to the clinic, the salon that they can pull onto the
property,park in a stall, back up and come out head first and that would service the clients. All
of the personnel park in the clinic parking lot. That is one solution that gets past the parallel
parking along Koloa Road. I have enough room there for 6 vehicles, open space.
Mr. Kimura: It seems like the applicant is willing to bend over backwards for just about
anything, they want to be accommodating as best they can. I think they can work it out with
Mike and the Engineering Department, it seems like they are willing to do anything. I feel we
should just move on with this. They can park in the front until the Engineering Department
decides what they want to do.
Chair: I think we have discussed adnauseum. So Mike you can work with the applicant
as well as Public Works and come up with a workable plan, right?
Staff. Yes. You can design a condition of approval for that.
Chair: Okay because we do plan to defer this item today.
Ms. Murray: Can we come to a conclusion on the parking today?
Mr. Raco: Chair, if I may, has Public Works provided you comments?
Mr. Jung: The only comments from Public Works and Wally has been out on vacation so
I just got an email With the comments regarding the encroachment issue which he was fine with.
Mr. Raco: As far as the parking.
Mr. Jung: It has not been addressed.
Mr. Raco: We have never asked for comments from Public Works on what they think
about a parking lot for a particular structure have we?
Staff: Yes we have.
Mr. Raco: We have? Other than that there is a catchall condition right now that we can
approve if we can. I am ready to go. I don't want to...they are a small business and they are
probably just trying to open up in this tough economy and if we can approve today and the
catchall condition at the bottom of this that the applicant shall comply with all agency comments
and then let them go.
Planning Commission Minutes
.Tune 14,2011
16
Mr. Crowell: It still has to be referred to KHPRC. This application is on the Thursday,
June 16`h agenda of KHPRC.
Mr. Raco: So if we get comments from KHPRC and Public Works we can still approve
today?
Mr. Jung: Normally with the public hearing and just for your edification they do the
public hearing and then it gets deferred usually to the next agenda for action. But there have
been limited circumstances when projects have been approved subject to concerns from other
agency and other agency departments. In this case because it is a historic structure, it is over 50
years old, it goes through the Historic Preservation Review Commission and then they would
submit comments to the Planning Department which then are reflected back to this body as to
those concerns. And it is on for Thursday. So it is advisable to let the Historic Preservation
Review Commission deal with what they need to deal with or if you guys want to move this
along you certainly could approve it subject to issues and concerns raised by the Historic
Preservation Review Commission but it's not necessarily advisable because we don't know what
they are going to say.
Mr. Raco: My only reason is that they are small business owners, small landowner and it
is a small building, it is not a public building. So in whichever case the Historic Preservation
decides to impose more conditions on a small landowner because it is historic...
Mr. Jung: It is a process.
Mr. Raco: It is a process but I think this circumstance is a little bit different because it is
not a public, historic building it is a private building and if the Historic Commission puts on
conditions to leave the building as it is...
Mr. Jung: They look at more of exterior issues and because there is no exterior
modifications then they could go interior, it is up to you guys.
Mr. Raco: For the rest of the Commission, I am ready.
Ms. Murray: Can I speak?
Chair: Sure.
Ms. Murray: I brought this application in September 10`h of last year.
Chair: That is a long time ago.
Ms. Murray: That is a long time ago, 270 days. I own the land. I can park the cars in a
parking lot on my land or I can park it on my land which is also can the clinic side which would
have nothing to do with Public Works. I just don't see what the issue is.
Mr. Jung: Just to qualify that, the application wasn't technically deemed complete
because there was a) a wrong TMK, and b) there was this issue with Public Works and needed to
be resolved and it has been resolved.
Ms. Murray: Which was resolved very timely which put us to 210 days today. And I
might mention that I at least 30 phone calls never called back, never got emails back from Dale
Cua, never got answered to any questions. I never got any response.
Mr. Murray: Nine months.
Ms. Murray: Nine months of this and I have the parking on my land that I own. I don't
need the County's parking. And we very generously give parking to the other Koloa Town
merchants.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
17
Chair: I am sorry that you had to wait so long for this process to conclude. I don't know
if we have a choice in this matter because of the fact that it has to go in front of the Historic
Review Commission.
Mr. Katayarna: It is really a question for Ian. You cited a level of materiality in a
previous shoreline issue with the Department of Water. Do we have such a threshold for this
kind of applicant?
Mr. Jung: There is and one of the things you guys could look at doing is..just for your
edification the application was deemed complete on May 11, 2011 so that issue is not technically
beyond the dates. I know there are some issues of when they got responses and whatnot but
physically for the purposes of the law the application was deemed accepted.
Ms. Murray And it was not because I didn't hand in everything that was requested.
Mr. Jung: So leaving that issue aside, if the Commission wants to entertain a condition to
the effect that this application can be approved subject to comments from the Kauai Historic
Preservation Commission, it certainly could. But what those comments are we don't know and
that is the fear and that is the danger but those comments are to the Planning Department. Given
there are no exterior renovations that is normally what the Historic Preservation Review would
look at is how are you going to maintain this building to the unique structure that it was back
when it was originally built. So along those lines if they are willing to accept that particular
condition that you are willing to go subject to these conditions then I think this body could
approve it today if you wanted to but again, it is up to you guys.
Ms. Matsumoto: I would just like to address the parking suggestion about putting the 3
stalls did you say, the compromise of using...reducing it from 6 stalls to 3 so that people can
back up from in your property and then come out head first onto the road is in my mind a
practical solution. And couple that with being able to park in the back in the medical center that
is also a good solution. I think that would work. I can visijalize that as working in that particular
area.
Ms. Murray: In fact I could put 4 in there.
Ms. Matsumoto: Just so that people don't back out onto the road and then stop traffic or
something else because it is hard to see sometimes. Even if you park on the other side of the
road by the pharmacy it is dicey so you want to avoid that anyway for yourself otherwise your
customers are going to complain.
Ms. Murray: And pulling out forward onto K61oa Road, the view plane is well past the
intersection of the tree tunnel all the way to the curve which curves up towards O`ma`o. So
when you pull up to enter into the road to go either way you have a very long view plane each
way.
Ms. Matsumoto: Forward,not backwards.
Ms. Murray: Forward, going out forward onto the road.
Ms. Matsumoto: Because if you go backwards people are trying to make that left onto
Maluhia Road and that gets so complicated, you want to avoid that.
Chair: Thank you, I would like to ask anyone from the public wishing to testify on this
application please come forward at this time. Since there is no one wishing to come forward to
testify on this item what is the pleasure of this Commission?
Mr. Blake: Motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Raco: Second.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
18
Chair: We have a motion to close the public hearing, we have a second, is there
discussion on the closure of the public hearing, seeing none all those in favor say aye, those
opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Caven Raco, to close the
public hearing,motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Mr. Raco: If I could make a motion to approve...
Mr. Jung: We want to hear the recommendation first.
Mr. Raco: Are we moving that way Chair or what?
Chair: Yes we are moving in that direction, why don't we just get the recommendation
of the planner.
Mr. Raco: I just wasn't sure if we were moving or we were going to continue.
Staff: Should I read it with Public Works or that is the amendment?
Mr. Jung: I think if there is going to be a motion to approve today we will take a recess,
put in what Wally emailed me and then we will also look at adding a condition referencing the
Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission to delegate some authority to the Planning
Department to address those concerns.
Staff., What I will read is what is in front of you now.
Mr. Jung: In the staff report and then if there is a motion you can request the
Commission amend the staff report to reflect two additional conditions.
Staff Planner Mike Laureta read department recommendation(on file).
Chair: Thank you, before we move forward we need to take a 10 minute recess,we will
do a caption break right now.
Commission recessed at 12:20 p.m.
Meeting called back to order at 12:30 p.m.
Chair: Is there a motion?
Mr. Raco: Motion to approve Use Permit U-2011-13 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-
2011-13.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: This would be with conditions, it has been moved and seconded that we approve
this application, is there any discussion?
Mr. Jung: I think to reflect Public Works comments the amended condition should be
read off and Mike, I think the question is do you want to address them one by one or have Mike
read all amendments and collectively...?
Chair: How many amendments are there? Could you just read the ones that we are
concerned with that are changes.
Staff: Two have been revised, one has been added.
Chair: So the one that has been revised...
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
19
Staff: Two have been revised.
Chair. Can you read those that have been revised please?
Staff: The first revision is condition No. 3, 3 is being eliminated in total and it being
replaced by the condition recommended by Public Works, it reads, "Due to the encroachment of
the south facing portion of the structure onto the Koloa Road right-of-way the applicant must
enter into an agreement with the Department of Public Works of the County of Kauai to
accommodate any future road widening improvements to K61oa Road." And just for your
information the applicant has already signed the agreement. That is one.
Chair: Do we need to vote on this?
Mr, Jung: Yes because there is the main motion and then these are amendments.
Mr. Raco: Motion to approve as read by the planner.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Caven Raco and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to add new
condition No. 3, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Staff: The next condition is condition 5, it has been restructure, it read, "Relative to the
proposed parking scheme, a)An environmental impact assessment fee based on the number of
required off-street parking stalls shall be paid at the time of building permit application", that
remains. What has been added is, "Employees shall park in the parking lot adjacent to the
medical clinic parking area to ensure adequate parking for the patrons."
Mr. Raco: Motion to approve.
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: Any discussion?
Mr. Blake: To ensure adequate parking for who?
Mr. Kimura: Patrons.
Mr. Jung: Patrons for the actual beauty salon.
Chair: So we have a motion, discussion was completed, all those in favor say aye, those
opposed,motion carried.
On motion made by Caven Raco and seconded by Jan Kimura, to amend condition
No. 5, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Staff: Condition 10 that has been added, "The applicant shall address any concerns
raised by the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission with the Planning Department."
The applicant has reviewed these and they are acceptable to them.
Mr. Raco: Motion to approve.
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Caven Raco and seconded by Jan Kimura, to add condition No.
10, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
20
Chair: We have all of the amended conditions approved so before we go back to the
main motion I would like to have the Director make an explanation.
Mr. Crowell: The department is concerned about the possible approval of a commercial
use in the Open Zone which is something that the department usually frowns upon. I think if you
approve this permit I think you should find that maybe the structure has been there since before
the CZO,the commercial use has historically been there before the CZO and that it is located in
the middle of the Koloa Commercial District so as to make the precedent not as big.
Mr. Jung: It certainly is a unique situation.
Chair: So let's go back to the main motion, is there a motion to approve?
Mr. Raco: There is a motion on the floor Chair.
Chair: Any discussion on the main motion, if not I would like to call for the vote, roll
call.
Mr. Blake: What you just mentioned, you want that included in the motion?
Mr. Crowell: No. Well somehow and maybe just me saying it is enough.
Mr. Jung: Yes, it is in the record now so although it's not indicated in the staff report...
Mr. Kata, ama: Can we immortalize this in the staff report its self?
Mr. Jung: Normally when you would amendment staff report it would be reflective only
in the conditions but I think now that it is physically in the record because of Dee's statement
then it would be as apart of the record in total, not just the staff report. The staff report is just a
portion of the record, all the testimony, all the discussion becomes part of the record so I think it
is sufficient enough.
Mr. Raco: Could we add it as a general note in the conditions like add a condition to that
so that this is dually noted that this is not precedent setting?
Mr. Jung: You certainly could as not a binding condition that they will have to comply
with.
Mr. Raco: Not a binding condition and the applicant understands what we are about to
do, it is not binding.
Mr. Murray: Not fully.
Mr. Blake: I am in favor of it being stated as an asterisk in the motion or as formally as
part of the discussion because it is going to come up again on other, not their property but other
properties that this is a historical building, it is right in the middle of the Koloa Commercial
District. And as such,the only reason it is open is because it is right next to the river not to act
as a buffer between any natural feature and further development and that should differentiate it
from the standard application for development in an Open area.
Mr. Raco: Yes, Chair, I think it is a good idea to make it a condition. In fact if I could
ask the Director, in any case if this applicant comes back and wants to build more at least that
condition will be in there that we gave him the approval based on the existing building staying
within the parameters. And that if some day he wanted to build more, at least this condition
states back the reasons why.
Mr. Crowell: Now that there has been the discussion I think that is adequate as far as
establishing the record of how this got approved and under what circumstances.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
21
Mr. Raco: I would like to add that as a condition if it could be crafted.
Chair: We are at the main motion; we have to get back to an amended...
Mr. Raco: We are at the main motion;no one voted so I can make an amendment still.
Mr. Jung: You can do two things, one, you can add a condition or request that the
Planning Director write that, if it is approved, write that in the approval letter with the stated
conditions that these are unique circumstances and delegate that to Dee as the Deputy Director to
do.
Mr. Raco: So moved on that condition that the Deputy Director writes the reasoning for
the circumstances of this permit being approved.
Chair: Is there a second?
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: Any discussion, all those in favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Caven Raco and seconded by Jan Kimura, to delegate Deputy
Director Dee Crowell to add condition to approval letter, motion carried unanimously by
voice vote.
Chair: Back to the main motion again, we finished the discussion, we would like to have
roll call.
On motion made by Caven Raco and seconded by Jan Kimura, to approve staff
report as amended, motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Katayama, Matsumoto, Blake, Kimura, Raco, Texeira -6
Noes: None -0
Absent: Nishida -1
Not Voting: None -0
Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2011-09 and Use Permit U-2011-09 to operate a beauty
salon at property located in Waipouli,Kauai, approx. 125 ft. north of Kuhi`6 Highway and Ala
Road intersection, further identified as Tax Mai Key 4-3-009:036, and affecting_a portion of
land approx. 9,410 sq. ft. =Eric and Jeannette Hugger. (Director's Report received 4/12/11.1
Letters in Support of Application from:
a. Mrs. Ambrose Curry, Marta's Boat (12/20/10) with numerous other supporters
attached.
b. R. Valnet Bobby V's Italian Restaurant (Undated),
c. Susan L. Marshall (5/30/11).
d. Paul and Nancy Andrade (5/22/11).
e. Sandi O'Shaughnessy(5/29/11).
f. Lorren Van Fossen CEO,Prudential All Star Reality, Inc. (5/3 1/11).
g. JoAnna J-V Davis (5/31/11).
h. Sonya Raines, Spa by the Sea 5/20/11 l
i. Michael Lind, Hydrate Hawaii (5/27/11).
j. Ryoichi Ogawa, D. C., Ogawa Chiropractor(4/26/11).
k. Jason Barth and Heather Barth (4/27/11).
1. Sue Maruyama-Strickland and Greg Strickland (4/27/11.).
Staff Planner Nani Sadora read Director's Report into record (on file).
Chair: Thank you Nani, are there any questions of the planner? If not would the
applicant please come forward? State your name please.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
22
Mr. Palmer Hofdahl: Aloha Chair Texeira and Planning Commissioners, Deputy
Director and Council. I am Palmer Hofdahl of Palms Hawaii Architecture. I am please to
represent the Huttgers who I have known for several years since their daughter began working
with our small architectural firm as an intern 8 years ago or something like that. We are helping
with this project that seems in keeping with the direction that the County has and appropriate use
for this project. I would like to thank Nani for her careful report and concise and also we
receive excellent help from the planning staff, Lisa Ellen Smith, in preparation, Dale Cua and
Kaaina Hull were all very helpful in moving forward. You know the existing residence as a
property owned by the Unimora and Eda families for years, you would recognize across from
Taco Bell is that house with the round circle in the entrance. So at this point with your
indulgence I would like to turn this portion of it over to my project architect Andrea Lincoln and
Jeannette Huttger who can answer your questions more in detail.
Ms. Andrea Lincoln: Good afternoon Commissioners, Andrea Lincoln for the record. I
work with Palms Hawaii Architecture. I thank you for your time and your patience here we
really appreciate it. I think Palmer pretty much described the project and as he mentioned Nani
did a fabulous job in her report. I would just like to point one thing in this project and that is all
the letters of support of this project that were submitted by the applicant Jeannette Huttger, I'm
sorry, submitted by the immediate neighbors and the other property owners in the neighborhood
and were submitted by Jeannette by our office. We welcome your questions hoping we could
clarify anything and everything you and we would just humbly ask for approval of this project,
thank you.
Chair: Any questions of the applicant? There being none is there anyone from the public
wishing to testify on this item? There being none, this is going along pretty fast, what is the
pleasure of this Commission?
Mr. Raco: Motion to close public hearing.
Mr. Kimura: Second.
Chair: There is a second to close the public hearing, any discussion, if not all those in
favor say aye, those opposed, motion carried.
On motion made by Caven Raco and seconded by Jan Kimura, to close public
bearing, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Chair: Would you please provide, not you, this is for the planner to conclude with her
recommendation.
Staff Planner read department recommendation (on file).
Chair: Thank you Nani. The applicant has heard the conditions. Do you have any
concerns or comments in regards to those conditions?
Mr. Palmer: Palmer Hofdahl. If you would could you restate the fee on the
environmental impact?
Staff. Condition No. 5, "An environmental impact assessment fee based on the number
of required off-street parking stalls shall be paid at the time of the building permit application."
Mr. Raco: There is no off-street parking is there?
Staff: Not as part of their initial design.
Mr. Jung: This is for the EIA fees for parking.
Mr. Raco: You said aff site parking? Is that how the condition reads?
Staff: Yes.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
23
Mr. Raco: But there is no off-street parking, right?
Mr. Jung: In this particular case...
Mr. Raco: Correct me if I am wrong Palmer, as I look at the site plan all parking is on-
site, correct?
Mr. Hofdahl: On-site,that is correct.
Mr. Raco: There is no off-site parking is there that you are proposing?
Mr. Hofdahl: That is right so that is what I wanted clarified. I thought I also heard that
as on-street or something.
Mr. Raco: Off-site she said, off-site parking.
Mr. Jung: Dee, under Chapter 1 I for the EIA fees are we allowed to...
Mr. Crowell. It is for on-site parking actually.
Mr. Raco: On-site.
Staff. So it should say on-site.
Chair: So is that okay?
Mr. Hofdahl: As long as my clients understand that, yes. Approximately what is that
fee?
Mr. Jung: 100 dollars per parking stall.
Mr. Raco: What choice do you have?
Mr. Hofdahl: Exactly, I just want to make sure everybody is clear on this and it hasn't
been bumped up to something outrageous.
Mr. Jup& I will give you the specific citation so you can go back and refer to it.
Mr. Raco: They have to pay that anyway, right?
Mr. Jung: Yes.
Mr. Raco: So there is no discussion there.
Mr. Jung: Chapter I I specifically, 11A-2.2, section 6, says "Each new commercial
development shall be assessed 100 dollars per the minimum number of parking stalls serving the
development as required under the CZO."
Mr. Hofdahl: Thank you for that clarification.
Mr. Raco: Chair, I have one question for the applicant's representative. Palmer, in
reading the recommendations I came across that Andrade Construction is their general
contractor.
Mr. Hofdahl: I know him as Ken Nakazawa, he is the contractor.
Mr. Raco: I was just wondering because in Paul and Nancy Andrade's they say they are
looking forward to the completion of it and I was wondering if there was any special
circumstances that they were holding up the project or anything.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
24
Mr. Hofdahl: I don't believe so. The project has been long in the process and the owner
has with the cooperation of the Building Department been allowed to make repairs and
maintenance of the existing...you have probably seen those improvements already painting those
kind of, many of them exempt items. So they do have a residential permit for construction and
with the willingness of the Planning Commission we would like to submit if we could for a
commercial application to finish that construction while these things are being formalized if we
could be allowed to move forward with the commercial permit. That would be very beneficial to
get this business going again. It has been waiting quite some time for this process.
Mr. Raco: How long would this process be in approving this Class IV if it is approved
that he could apply for his construction building permit so that he can open up the business?
Chair: He can apply tomorrow.
Mr. Raco: So you could apply tomorrow, this afternoon even.
Mr. Hofdahl: This afternoon for our commercial permit, thank you very much.
Chair: Thank you. So we need a motion but we need to amend the condition that was
included by Nani so could I have a motion to if it is your desire to approve and to approve with
the amended condition?
Mr. Jung: If there is a motion to approve it would be a motion to approve the Director's
Report as read and amended by staff.
Mr. Blake: So moved.
Mr. Raco: Seconded.
Chair: Any discussion, we would like to have a roll call on this please.
On motion made by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Caven Raco, to approve the
Director's Report as amended by the planner, motion carried by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes: Katayama, Matsumoto, Blake, Kimura, Raco, Texeira -b
Noes: None -0
Absent: Nishida -1
Not Voting: None -0
Mr. Jung: Now we need to review certain cases filed against the County as well as
options for the hiring and selection of a Planning Director. I will read through all of them but
Chair I would just ask if there is anybody in the public who wanted to testify in any of these
items you could ask now.
Chair: Is there anyone from the public wishing to testify on these four executive session
items? There being none...
Executive Session: Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statues Sections 92-4 and 92-5(a 4
and Kauai County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County Attorney requests an
executive session with the Planning Commission to discuss legal claims and remedies associated
with Civil Case No. 08-1-0005 regarding WAYNE R. DANIEL Individually and as TRUSTEE
OF THE WAYNE R. DANIEL SELF-TRUSTED TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 18 1999 v.
KODANI: COUNTY OF Kauai COUNTY OF KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF KAUAI PLANNING DEPARTMENT, IAN K. COSTA, in his official cnacity
as the Director of Planning, et. al. This briefing and consultation involves the consideration of
the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the Planning Commission and the
County as they relate to this agenda item.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
25
Executive Session: Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92-5(a)(4),
and Kauai County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County Attorney requests an
executive session with the Planning Commission to discuss legal claims and remedies associated
with Civil Case No. 10-1-0026 re,ar R3BST, LLC v. THE COUNTY OF Kauai; COUNTY
OF Kauai PLANNING DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION;
MICHAEL A. DAHILIG, in his official capacity as D,hector of Planning, JAMES NISHIDA, in
his official capacity as Kauai Planning Commissioner and Chair, HARTWEL L BLAKE, JAM
KIMURA CAMILLA MATSUMOTO PAULA MORIKAMI CAVEN RACO and HERMAN
TEXEIRA, in their official capacities as Kauai Planning Commissioners. This briefing and
consultation involves the consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities and/or
liabilities of the Planning Commission as they relate to this agenda item.
Executive Session: Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92-5(a)(41
and Kauai County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County Attorney requests an
executive session with the Planning Commission to discuss legal claims and remedies associated
with Civil Case No. 5CC10-1-0601 regarding MICHAEL G. SHEEHAN vs. COUNTY OF
KAUAI, COUNTY OF KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION,et. al. This briefing and
consultation involves the consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or
liabilities of the Planning Commission as they relate to this agenda item.
Executive Session: Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92-5(a)(41
the purpose of this executive session is to consult with legal counsel regarding powers duties,
privileges, immunities.,-and/or liabilities of the Planning Commission as it relates options
available for the selection of the Director of Planning pursuant to Charter of the County
Kauai Section 4.04.
On motion made by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to go
into executive session for four (4) items, motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
Chair: Going back to the main agenda we have nothing on the subdivision, nothing to
report, Unfinished Business none,therefore I would like to propose a motion for adjournment.
Mr. Katayama: So moved.
Ms. Matsumoto: Second.
Mr. Jung: At the conclusion of the executive session.
Chair: At the conclusion of the executive session, all those in favor, those opposed,
motion carried.
On motion made by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to
adjourn the meeting upon conclusion of the executive session, motion carried unanimously
by voice vote.
SUBDIVISION—(NONE)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS—(NONE)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING— (NONE)
NEW BUSINESS
For Acceptance into Record—Director's Report(s) for Project(s) Scheduled for
Public Hearing on 6/28/11.—(NONE)
Commission went into executive session at 1:09 p.m.
Commission adjourned the executive session at 3:33 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
26
ADJOURNMENT
Commission adjourned the meeting at 3:33 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted.
Lani L. Agoot
Commission Support Clerk
Planning Commission Minutes
June 14,2011
27