Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 24, 2012 PC Minutes KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 24, 2012 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by Chair Jan Kimura, at 9:22 a.m., at the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, in meeting room 2A-2B. The following Commissioners were present: Mr. Hartwell Blake Mr. Wayne Katayama Mr. Jan Kimura Ms. Camilla Matsumoto Mr. Herman Texeira Absent and excused: Mr. Caven Raco Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimura called the meeting to order at 9:22 a.m. ROLL CALL Planning Director Michael Dahilig noted that five Commissioners were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA On the motion made by Herman Texeira and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto to approve the agenda,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission 1. Regular Meeting of June 26,2012 2. Executive Session of June 26,2012 3. Regular Meeting of July 10, 2012 On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto to accept the regular minutes of June 26 2012, the executive session minutes of June 26, 2012, and the regular minutes of July 10, 2012, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 1 VA2012 Master Files\CommissionsTlanning\Minutes12012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes S�P 11 2012 RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto to receive all items for the record, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Dahilig noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting they discussed the possibility of holding this meeting in Princeville, but due to logistical reasons the Department was unable to execute having the meeting at that location. He stated that notices were sent out with respect to the request to amend Ordinance No. PM-175-88 (Zoning Amendment ZA-88-7), but with the change in venue the Department is reissuing notices for the next Commission meeting with the correct location. He requested that the public hearing be open today, but that the Commission defers the item due to possible logistical confusion that may arise of the location being noticed for Princeville individually, but publically noticed for Lihue. He suggested the public hearing for this item be held after that subdivision committee reports. Zoning Amendment ZA-2012-6, Change from Open District(0)to Residential District (R-1)/Special Treatment-Public (ST-P) located immediately adjacent to the Department of Water office/baseyard facility in Lihue along its western boundary, at the Hala Road/Kaumualii Highway intersection further identified as Tax Map Key 3-8-005: Por., and containing at total area of 2.585 acres= County of Kauai, Department of Water. There was no public testimony on this agenda item. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto to close public hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Continued Agency Hearing (NONE) New Agency Hearing (NONE) Continued Public Hearin (NONE) All public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 There was no public testimony on any other agenda item. 2 VA2012 Master Filesl Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes CONSENT CALENDAR Status Reports (NONE) Director's Report(s) for Project(s) Scheduled for Agency Hearing on 8/14/12 Class 1V Zonin Permit Z-1V-2013-1 Use Permit U-2013-1 for improvements to the existing Ornellas Tank site in Kapahi which includes construction of two (2) 0.5 million ag llon (MG) concrete reservoirs and drilling of an exploratory well, and Variance Permit V-2013-1 to deviate from the land coverage requirements within the Agriculture District, pursuant to Section 8-7.6 of the CZO, on a parcel situated at the Kaapuni Road/Kawaihau Road intersection, further identified as Tax Mara Key 4-6-011:003, and affecting a total area of 0.836 acres= County o Kauai, Department of Water. Shoreline Setback Activity Determination Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2013-01 and Shoreline Setback Determination SSD-2013-01 for a shoreline activity determination, Tax Map Key(4) 2-6-3-18, Lawai, Kauai for acceptance by_the Commission=Harlan Amstutz. Director's Report pertaining to this matter. Commissioner Texeira asked for clarification that if they don't take any items out of the consent calendar, they won't have to discuss and act upon them and they assume that is it is approved. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that if they don't any items out of consent calendar, then they become approved at the end of the meeting per the rules. He stated that if they would like to have discussion on the item, two commissioners could vote to bring it out of the consent calendar. Commissioner Texeira questioned if they have a Director's report, why wouldn't they want to discuss it. Mr. Dahilig stated that the first item would be for accepting the report for the record and setting public hearing for the next meeting, and the other item is a shoreline setback determination that by Ordinance is meant to provide for public comment and then acceptance for the record, not an approval. EXECUTIVE SESSION (NONE) 3 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\PlanningtiiMinutes\2012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes NEW BUSINESS Zoning Amendment ZA-2012-6, Change from Open District(0)to Residential District (R-1)/Special Treatment-Public(ST-P),located immediately adjacent to the Department of Water office/baseyard facility in Lihue, along its western boundary, at the Hala Road/Kaumualii Highway intersection fiirther identified as Tax Map Key 3-8-005:Por., and containing a total area of 2.585 acres =County ofKauai, Department of Water. Director's Report pertaining to this matter. Staff Planner Dale Cua stated that he subject parcel is located in Lihue, immediately adjacent to the existing Department of Water office baseyard situated at the Hala Road/Kaumualii Highway intersection. The applicant is proposing a zoning amendment to amend zoning map ZM-L1400 from open district to residential district, special treatment,public district. The applicant is requesting the proposed zoning amendment to allow site development planning, subdivision, and improved public access and infrastructure utilities to the land for the establishment and relocation of its existing administration office building as well as to accommodate other government offices. The project site is consistent with the applicant's master plan which plans for the development of a fixture 17,000 square feet administration building. It is noted that their master plan identifies a need for fixture staffing and associated building space requirements to accommodate the expansion and growth of the Department of Water. A final environmental analysis has been prepared and completed. The subject parcel was created as a result of the Nawiliwili Road realignment in the mid 1980s and historically the parcel has been vacant. In 1999 the remnant highway, formerly Nawiliwili Road,was deeded to the County. The Department of Water established its office and baseyard operation on the adjacent parcel somewhere between 1966 to 1971. The existing buildings on the property include the office building,the operations building,the microbiology lab and the garage. Properties to the west are within the commercial zoning district and part of the Kukui Grove Village East commercial properties. To the north is the Lihue public cemetery and the State Division of Forestry maintenance and service complex is further east. The property is located outside of the Lihue Town Core urban design district. Upon adoption of the CZO the existing administration baseyard facility was placed within the special treatment public district to specifically designate and recognize the property for being a government building and as a result is similarly recognized in the Lihue community development plan. Currently access is provided via Pua Loke Road and presently terminates in front of the administrative building. The planning agent for the Department of Water, Mr. Tae Yong Kim, stated that they are in agreement with the Director's report. Commissioner Katayama questioned if the change includes the entire parcel of record or just a portion. Mr. Kim stated that there is no speck parcel number for the area. The property consists of approximately 2.5 acres which will then be subdivided. A portion would be used for roadway improvements while the remainder would be used for the Department of Water's physical plant facilities. 4 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\Minutes12012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Katayama questioned whose master plan the parcel is under. Deputy Planning Director Dee Crowell stated that it is owned by the Department of Water. He stated that it is outside of the Lihue Town Core, but still part of the Lihue Development Plan which is still in effect. Commissioner Katayama questioned if the change would cover everything they need or if they would need to come back for other kinds of rezoning. Mr. Crowell stated that if they are successful in obtaining the requested zoning RI STP, the STP portion of the designation would require any development to come back to the Commission for a class IV zoning permit. Mr. Cua stated that it is recommended that zoning amendment ZA-2012-6 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is made aware that development on the subject parcels shall conform to the standards of the residential district per section 8-3.5 of the Kauai County Code. 2. The applicant is advised that approval of the zoning amendment does not imply approval of the subdivision or its configuration proposed herein. 3. Upon fiirther development of the subject parcel the applicant is made aware that the portion of Pua Loke Road terminating at the project site shall be designed to County roadway standards in order to provide adequate turning radius for emergency service vehicles. 4. The applicant shall resolve and comply with the applicable standards and requirements by the County Department of Public Works, State Department of Health and Historic Preservation Division. 5. The applicant is advised that additional government agency conditions may be imposed. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to resolve those conditions with the respective agencies. Chair Kimura noted that the agenda item will be transferred to the County Council for final approval. Commissioner Blake questioned the location of the nearest well. Department of Water Project Manager Dustin Moises stated that the nearest well is at the intersection of Pua Loke and Halewili next to the KEO transitional shelter, within 1,000 feet of the building. He stated that the intent is to put the existing waste water system into sewer and not have an individual waste water system On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto to approve Zoning Amendment ZA-2012.6,TMK 3-8-005: Por., and containing a total area of 2.585 acres =County of Kauai,Department of Water, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 5 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Update on Implementation of the Lihue town Core Urban Design Plan 2( 010) Staff Planner Marie Williams stated that this is the second annual update on the Lihue Town Core Urban Design Plan which.was passed in 2010. The implementing Ordinance 894 established four special planning areas in the town core which are the Lihue Civic Center and Community Facilities neighborhood,the Rice Street neighborhood,the Akahi,Elua and Umi Streets neighborhood, and the Kuhio Highway neighborhood, all special design districts. The special planning areas serve as zoning overlays to guide the physical development through mixed use zoning and updated urban design standards. The Department has issued nine class I zoning permits in the town core since June 2011 and the Commission approved one class IV zoning permit at the State office in conformance with the special planning area design guidelines. Several capital projects are under way that will help to create the pedestrian friendly environment encouraged by the town core plan including the Civic Center ADA site improvements,the County Hardy Street improvements,the County Rice Street crossing improvements and sheltering of bus stops in the town core. The State is undertaking improvements to the Lihue Library and will include constructing a sidewalk along Hardy Street. Other ongoing planning efforts include the Lihue Development Plan,the County's multi modal transportation plan,and the State's long range transportation plan for Kauai. They also work with the Lihue Business Association's Lihue tomorrow committee whose purpose is to engage community members and stakeholders in Lihue's immediate and long range planning. The committee has focused on the Exceptional Tree Ordinance and developed an action plan to assess what trees within the town core should initially be recommended to the County's Arborist Advisory committee as candidates for exceptional tree listing including the banyan tree at the Watumull Building. Other trees being considered are the royal palm trees fronting the Historic County Building. The plan continues to be implemented on a day to day basis through major and minor development permits and on a larger scale through the County and some State capital projects, and they will continue to work with the community and other agencies to ensure that the plan's goals and recommendations are considered in all planning activities affecting the town core. Commissioner Katayama questioned the status of funding for the ongoing activities. Ms. Williams stated that the activities mentioned in the report received funding for the current financial year. She stated that most of the projects are still in the design phase and will take a few years to see the end result. Commissioner Texeira questioned if another cultural group wanted to place another monument on the lawn fronting the Historic County Building if it would require a modification. Ms. Williams stated that there is a Lihue Civic Center master plan that includes the County lawn and plans to unify the Civic Center and the Historic County Building in a campus like setting,but she did not know the process for petitioning the County for including another cultural monument on the lawn. She didn't see it requiring an amendment to the special 6 VA2012 Master Files\Coma►fissions\Planning\Minutes\2012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes planning area. She stated that the majority of the plans have to do with pedestrian friendly and bike friendly improvements to the area and connecting it in a visually cohesive way. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto to receive the report, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Request from Laurie Ann K. Chan on behalf of T-Mobile West LLC to amend Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2002-10 and Variance Permit V-2002-5 to co-locate telecommunication equipment at an existing telecommunication facility on a property located on the m kai side of Lala Road at its intersection with Nawiliwili Road NawiliwilL Kauai further identified as Tax Mats Key 3-3-003:00$ and containing a parcel area of 2.0 acres= T-Mobile West LLC. Director's Report pertaining to this matter. Staff Planner Kaaina Hull stated that the applicant proposes to mount six, 6' tall panel antenna on an existing 70' telecommunication pole located at the subject site. The proposed antenna will be located at approximately 50' on the monopole. The applicant also proposes to install a base transceiver station, backup battery racks, an electrical power converter and distribution equipment. This equipment will occupy approximately 60 square feet and will be located within the previously permitted existing fenced off compound area. The proposal is consistent with the general industrial zoning,with the Department's policy of encouraging co- location at single sites, and it is outright permitted in a general industrial area. All the equipment is being located at a height that is lower than the existing pole and within the existing fenced off compound. The Department is recommending approval on the application, and to further encourage facility co-location,they are recommending an amendment to the previously established conditions of approval. Commissioner Texeira questioned if the applicant has planted any landscaping. Laurie Chan, representing T-Mobile West LLC stated that they have not planted any landscaping at this time. Commissioner Blake questioned the policy for antenna locations. Mr. Dahilig stated that it has been the internal policy to recommend co-location. He stated that it is not a formal policy that has been adopted by Administrative Rule at this point,but from a planning recommendation standpoint, they determine whether co-location is available and more appropriate versus putting up a new pole. Commissioner Blake questioned if the Department has been looking at new applications and where they would be located. Mr. Dahilig stated that the Department does not have the depth of knowledge to understand how terrain and height interact with the availability of signal. They review it after the applicant's engineers have already looked at a particular site for viability. It is more of a 7 V A2012 Master Piles\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes consistency review with the general plan and previous perspectives that the Commission has shared concerning open space,views,and co-location. Commissioner Blake expressed concern that applicants would go where it is best for them which may not be what is best for the public. He stated that when a policy was first discussed for locations of new facilities,they asked about co-location and some companies were for it and others would be at ground level if they could. He personally believed that it would behoove the Commission to tell the applicants that they want reasonable co-location. He felt it would be good if they could specify where they would like the applicants to go unless they absolutely cannot to prevent antennas all over the island. Mr. Dahilig stated that it would require the Department to obtain the necessary expertise outside of the office to evaluate the areas that are of public concern and cross reference with issues concerning viability of the site. He stated that they have tried to mitigate and direct applicants by looking at sites that are already established from a co-location standpoint because the impact has already been established. He stated that they can research having the Commission dictate where they would like to see the antennas,but they would need to obtain the outside expertise. Commissioner Katayama stated that the concept was brought up when previous applicants came in for special use permits for antenna farms. He felt that how they designate antenna farms is important,but he also felt that the current vendors should form a consortium to identify the areas and be able to put in the infrastructure so the development costs becomes lower and let the competition be on the service side rather than the physical side. He stated that the competition should not be whether they have the advantageous location for transmitter repeater, etc. He stated that if all the companies get together and agree which areas are key coverage areas and limit it to an acre, it would become easier to plan and mitigate the impacts against the community rather than addressing smaller sites and having infrastructure issues. He stated that they have the expertise. Commissioner Texeira questioned if the different companies would be able to work together to form a consortium. Kevin Kawabata from T-Mobile stated that different considerations go into the planning of the network. You would look at the incumbents that were already here when they had their analog systems. Other companies had to come in from the ground up and every company has a different target segment that they are trying to cover similar to any retail operation. In some cases, T-Mobile's strategy was to address affordable wireless coverage and plans for families whereas Nextel was targeting industrial and contractors. The design plans for each carrier will be different and as the network evolves the needs for each carrier will be different as they invest differently into their network. He stated that all the technologies operate at different frequencies, different power, and different target groups. He stated that it is not impossible to design something but it would have to be agreed upon by the individual company's business plans. He stated that the carriers have always strived to work with the County,the Commission, and the neighborhood boards to first look at opportunities to co-locate to minimize the visual 'impacts for the residents and the community. He stated that if a co-location is not viable to the design plan 8 V.W[2 Master Files\Commissions\PlanninglMinutes\2012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes then they would look at other solutions. He stated that it is an involved system and looking for co-location opportunities would vary from carrier to carrier. Commissioner Blake questioned if there are any antennae that is mutually exclusive. He questioned if there is one antenna on a monopole if another would not be allowed due to interference. Mr. Kawabata stated that every wireless carrier operates on a licensed frequency band so there is no interference between the two carriers. He stated that he only opportunity would be if one put theirs in front of the other carrier causing physical obstruction interference rather than the frequency. Commissioner Blake questioned if it would be reasonable if the County restricted the construction of antenna and monopoles to certain areas. Mr. Kawabata stated that as with any other type of commerce it is based on supply and demand, so it would be part of their obligation to provide coverage for certain zones. He stated that the purpose of digital wireless is to provide enhanced features and to operate at a lower power and frequencies so it is more efficient to provide the services. More consolidated coverage areas provide the features that are offered today with the network. Commissioner Blake stated that it would seem that the County could ask the companies to come up with a matrix on where they are now and where they would like to locate in the future, and how their system would or would not be compatible with co-location so the burden would pass from the County to that applicants to present a plan. Then the County can apply its standards. He stated that it would serve to shorten the process and make it more efficient. Mr. Kawabata stated that they work with the County on every design plan regarding any of the foreseeable designs and try to get the Planning Department's recommendations on where to go. Commissioner Blake stated that if they had locations for antenna farms it would be better than case by case. Chair Kimura requested a map with all of the antennas. Mr. Hull stated that maps have been distributed, but he can provide them again. He noted that there are designated sites for telecommunication facilities, and this application is within the general zoning district. He stated that the application is before the Commission because of the size of the site. He clarified that industrial zoning districts are the sites for telecommunications throughout the island and this site has been designated by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for multiple carriers. Chair Kimura noted that they are co-locating on one antenna. 4 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Plannin,-Winutes\2012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Matsumoto questioned what happens when an owner of the property sells the site. Mr. Hull stated that permits run with the land so it would be up to the new owner whether or not they want to renew the lease or tear down the site. He concluded that the Department is recommending approval with the one amendment to the existing condition of approval. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto to approve the amendment to class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2002-10 and Variance Permit V-2002-5, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. COMMUNICATION (Far Action) (NONE) COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision Commissioner Texeira presented the subdivision committee report. He stated that all of the following items were for tentative subdivision action and were approved 3-0: S-2-12-11,JAN, INC. (dba Sueoka Store) S-2012-13,State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, 50 unit incremental expansion. S-2012-15, County Department of Water/State DLNRIState DOT S-2012-16, The Saiki Family Revocable Trust, 8 lot subdivision S-2012-17,Lloyd M Sako/Elizabeth Panzetta, 2 lot boundary adjustment S-2012-18, Marilyn H. Planas/Frances Finau, 2 lot boundary adjustment S-2012-20, Barbara C. Childers/Greg Holzman The following modification of requirement/condition action was approved 3-0: S-2012-11,JAN, INC. (dba Sueoka Store) On the motion by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Wayne Katayama to approve the Subdivision Committee report, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT (Continued) New Public Hearing Request to amend Ordinance No. PM-17-88 (Zoning Amendment ZA-88-7) to utilize additional income requirements for employee housing and reduce the number of employee housing;units required for the original rezoning and and expansion of the Princeville Shoppin> Center on a property located on the makai side of Kuhio Hi hway, approx. 1,500 ft. east of the 10 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes Kuhio Highway and Hanalei Plantation Road intersection and approx. 500 ft. east of the Kuhio Hi way and Kahaku Road intersection,Princeville,Kauai further identified as Tax Map Key 5- 4-005: 031, 048, 049 and 5-4-006:014 and containing a parcel area of 17.9 acres=Princeville SC Development, LLC. Mr. Dahilig suggested that the Commission open the public hearing and then recommended continuing the hearing until the next meeting. He clarified that this item was deferred to the end of the agenda in anticipation concerning confusion of today's meeting location. Written testimony was received from the Contractors' Association of Hawaii in support of the zoning amendments,Marjorie Gifford opposed to amending the Ordinance,Barbara Robson opposing the Ordinance change, Randall Francisco from the Kauai Chamber of Commerce in support of the change, and general commentary from Gregory Goodwin expressing concerns with respect to implementation of the Ordinance. The Commission received testimony from Susan Wilson and Gregory Goodwin. Ms. Wilson stated that it would be great to hold a public hearing in Princeville because it is an enormous issue that has come up many times. The idea of eliminating or minimizing the affordable housing requirement has been an issue before the public about four times. She stated that before any substantial change to the requirement is made they should get a handle on what kind of housing is needed in the area. She stated they don't have a legitimate idea where to house the multiple people that work in that area with two existing hotels and a huge amount of condominiums that have converted to time share and have been built from scratch. She felt that it would be a good idea to modify the qualifications so they may be more reasonable to people who work on an hourly wage. We also felt that they need to think about another way to provide the units perhaps above the existing shopping center. She stated that a more current housing survey is needed. She hopes that historic testimony becomes part of the documentation when the Commission makes their decision. She stated that she would love to hear the presentation before further making further comments. Mr. Goodwin stated that he submitted copies of the original master plan for Princeville and the shopping center was originally set up to be multi-family residential. He stated that half of the land is now currently a shopping center and over time it was proposed that it all be turned into a shopping center. He stated that the parcel represents broken promises that have been made to the community, State and County by the developers,mainly Princeville Development Corporation. The road that was supposed to be finished includes a 60' right of way of Hanalei Plantation Road that was supposed to continue and connect to the highway that was never finished. The residential housing was also never finished. He stated that whenever they come in for amendments they somehow get what they want without ever fulfilling the promises that were made. He expressed concern that they should be held accountable for not fulfilling their promises. He was glad that the hearing was going to be continued and hopes that it will be held in Princeville. 11 V:12012 Master FilesNcommissionslPlanning\Minutes12012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto to continue the public hearing at the next meeting on August 14, 2012, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Director's Resort pertaining to this matter. Mr. Hull stated that the applicant is proposing to amend condition 2 D of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the number of employee housing units required from 100 units to a minimum of 42 units. The applicant is also requesting that condition 2 D ii be amended to have the income requirements for the proposed minimum 42 units as follows: 20% of the units will be rented to households earning up to 80% of the Kauai median household income, and 80% of the units will be rented to households earning up to 60% of the median household income. This will equate at a minimum as follows: 8 units for households earning up to 80% of the Kauai median household income and 34 units for households earning up to 60%. It is the position of the Department that the proposal can be considered however because it remains primarily a Housing issue, the report recommended that no action be taken until comments from the Housing Agency are received. He stated that Housing comments were received about 20 minutes ago, but they would like to further research before evaluating and making a recommendation. Mr. Dahilig stated that they have not yet had time to provide an analysis on the comments. He noted that the Housing Agency is the lead agency for ensuring the availability and quality of affordable housing so their input and suggestions were needed. Chair Kimura stated that whatever decision is made by the Commission, the item will be sent to the County Council for final approval. Steve Bush representing HSC Holdings LLC, owner of the Princeville Center, stated that he thought the staff report was thorough. It is an issue of amending the current zoning to adjust the housing count. They proposed to the Housing Agency that under the provisions of the current housing amendment they would target lower income where they perceive the basic need and the number would be reduced in accordance with the current regulations allow. He stated that current regulations would allow if it's targeted at the lowest income tier a reduction by 50% of the affordable component. He noted that they are proposing a minimum of 42 which is greater than the 50%. In addition the current performa would target the rates at a 50%tier because they felt the 60%tier was steep given the considerations of what the need is with people working at hourly wages. They also felt that they would reduce the commute. He emphasized that he does not represent Princeville Corp. The owner has owned the shopping center since 2006 and is not associated with Princeville Corp. although they are bound by the conditions of the current zoning ordinance. Chair Kimura questioned where they plan on building the affordable housing. Mr. Bush stated that the current parcel slated for expansion is a 10 acre parcel to the 'test of the current shopping center that would be separated into 2 components,one being 6 acres for the commercial expansion, and the adjacent 3.5 acres furthest west near the fire station and along the highway would be at the location of the affordable housing development. 12 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Katayama questioned the conditions that made them propose the configuration from 100 affordable units to 42 and the level of qualifications in terms of the median income. Mr. Bush stated that the original 100 units were actually 75 affordable units and 25 market units. They did not feel that the market rate units were needed and they were trying to satisfy the affordable need. Given the current Housing Ordinance, if you target the lower income tiers, they are allowed a reduction in the total number of units which would be a 50%reduction of the number of affordable units required under the Ordinance. 50% of 75 would be 38, but they felt that 42 units would be required in order to make it economically viable. He stated that they are currently working with the Housing Agency to define the final number of units. Commissioner Katayama questioned how it would impact the 100 units that were approved and whether that would allow 48 market rate units to be built. Mr. Dahilig stated that what they see as the applicability of the 100 units and the changes in the proposal, only 75 would be affected by the changes proposed by the Housing Agency. The new ordinance allows for bonuses if the product being built targets lower income brackets. He stated that it would be 42 plus 25 which would be 67 units that would need to be constructed if the proposed conditions are adopted and 42 is the actual number. Commissioner Katayama clarified that the applicant is asking for reconsideration under new rules that are in effect and would be limited in scope to the conditions that is being brought before the Commission. Mr. Dahilig stated that the condition is strictly a Housing related item. Commissioner Katayama questioned the terms of the legacy commitments that were made under the original approval. Mr. Dahilig stated that with the consequence of the developer subdividing, and selling, and those other entities seeking further approvals, a lot of what has been brought up regarding unfulfilled conditions in the Department's evaluation would not necessarily pertain to this particular item. Commissioner Katayama questioned if the Commission can impose a quid pro quo to balance the obligation of the affordable housing provision when the initial application was approved versus what they are applying for now. Mr. Dahilig stated that as they look at balancing the obligation, the balancing that happened back in the 80s was the notion that 75 was the appropriate number. As the policy has changed over time, the balancing element was codified in ordinance. He stated that the applicant is asking to apply the new rules as the appropriate balancing sift to evaluate whether the product they are proposing is the appropriate offset with respect to the shopping center development. He 13 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes stated that it is the discretion of the Commission to determine how many units are appropriate, but noted that the guide posts have been established by the Council in Ordinance. Commissioner Katayama stated that because of the length of the development and the history he was questioning whether they balance against a new statute or balance related to the initial obligation that was incurred back in the original approval or craft conditions around testimony. He questioned the ability of the Commission related to this application. Mr. Dahilig stated that there was a litany of amendments and changes with respect to this condition and providing that context to the Commissioners with respect to the historical evaluating and balancing as the development plan has changed over the years might be helpful. Commissioner Katayama did not feel that it would be fair to hold the developer to conditions that don't make sense. Commissioner Texeira stated that he issue is whether to honor the condition that was imposed prior to the Ordinance 860. He stated that he would like more testimony. Chair Kimura questioned why it affects the 75 affordable housing but not the 25 market price housing. Mr. Dahilig stated that the Housing Agency's role is to address the segment with respect to implementing affordable housing inclusionary zoning objectives and it has been clear throughout the history of the County that affordable housing has been an issue. When the original Ordinance was passed in 1988 the language references the phrase 100 units of employee housing and at 75% of the employee housing units shall be for employees that qualify for affordable housing under criteria established by the Kauai Housing Agency. The amendment only addresses the 75% of 100. The Department has not suggested anything because it was not asked of them with respect to the remaining 25 units. Chair Kimura felt that if they were going to reduce the amount of affordable housing they should reduce the amount of regular market housing. Mr. Hull stated that Housing Agency is indicating that their comments are restricted to the 75% affordable housing, but the applicant is requesting to reduce the 100 to 42. The Housing Agency is in effect stating that they are only recommending the 42 for the 75%. Commissioner Blake stated that the right to develop includes 100 houses and there is no evidence that the affordable housing needs have been reduced. He questioned why they should change the law instead of phasing as an alternative. He questioned why they couldn't have 42 now and the difference could be addressed at a later date. He stated that if they change the law now, and then the need manifests,they would need to go through the whole process again. Mr. Dahilig stated that phasing and holding a developer accountable is under the presumption that there are other phases that are still going to be developed. He stated that their understanding is that they are looking at building out the rest of the commercial development in 14 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes one shot. if they were to phase it,they would have to either align or front load everything. He noted that in 1988 it was a fixed number. Essentially the lower you target on the median income bracket the harder it is to make the bottom line. He stated that Ordinance 860 allows for bonuses for the lower end product. The developer is asking to take the opportunity to target the segments of the population that the Council indicated deserve more incentive to construct versus something all the way up at 140%. Commissioner Blake stated that according to the testimony,there seems to be less and less and the people who need the housing still don't have it. Mr. Dahilig stated it depends how the Commission wants to evaluate it, as fixed units or have what is the more contemporary policy as adopted by the Council and implemented by the Housing Agency as different products for different segments of the population which have bonuses and incentives. He stated that the decision before the Commission ultimately to recommend to Council is to either hold them to the fixed amount of 75 regardless of whether it is 140 of the median, or allow for Ordinance 860 to target certain segments of the population that they feel need the housing which is 60%of the median income. Commissioner Blake stated that when the condition was originally imposed on the initial developer, it was targeted to hit the working Princeville employees. As Princeville continues to develop,they continue to build houses that will appeal to those who can afford it,but he did not see the same type of consideration given to the working people. He felt that it appears that as they progress chronologically,the working class gets less and less Mr. Dahilig stated that contextually what may be helpful in evaluation is that they can work with the planner on providing the current median income that the Housing Agency is using and how it correlates with the capacity to pay the rent. The current Ordinance defines working class as a spectrum all the way from 60 to 140. Commissioner Blake referenced the Mr.Dahilig's comment on phasing requiring front end loading. He stated that if the first phase contemplates the 42 units,he questioned why the developer couldn't come in later to request a change. Mr. Dahilig stated the difficulty is that by compulsory phasing there would have to be a finding of impact that requires a gradual build in versus building all at once. The capacity to construct everything is there and from an impact standpoint,they haven't heard anything from the other agencies that would indicate that the noise,traffic, sound or other type of infrastructure elements would necessitate the gradual phasing of the proposed shopping center expansion. Commissioner Blake questioned who would be best able to make that determination. Mr. Dahilig stated that ultimately it would be the Commission's call,but it does get into legal standards and if compulsory phasing was a desire of the Commission,they may want to discuss it in executive session. 15 V;\2012 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Katayama questioned if there is any gray. There is an applicant that is proposing amendments under the new Housing Ordinance. He questioned the Commission's ability to decide whether new or old or if there was a gray area in between. Mr. Dahilig stated that there are grays but he would be unable to frame them at this time based on where the Housing Agency is going with the conditions. He stated that he can provide the options for the Commission. Commissioner Katayama stated that he felt they need the options as they move forward and that deferral is absolutely critical. Commissioner Texeira stated that he would like to emphasize that it would be helpful if they had options to look at. Chair Kimura questioned if the Commissioners would be able to work with staff individually to provide their opinions after they read the Housing Agency's comments. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that the Commission would normally collectively hear the issue and deliberate. He noted that Sunshine Law allows Commissioners to meet two by two, but they cannot agree to vote. Chair Kimura stated that it would only be to give an opinion or provide input on the staff report. Mr. Dahilig stated that he would be more than happy to meet with Commissioners to get their perspectives before they develop their amendment to the current report based on the comments from the Housing Agency. He stated that it is not an Ordinance that the Planning Department enforces, they just take another agency's desires and fold them into the recommendations to the Commission. On the motion by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Wayne Katayama to defer the agenda item to August 14, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Kimura announced that the following Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m. or shortly thereafter at the Lihue Civic Center, Tuesday, August 14, 2012. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the meeting at 11:22 a.m. 16 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes Respectfully submitted by: Duke Nakamatsu, Commission Support Clerk 17 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2012-7-24 Planning Commission Minutes