Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutsd 9-10-13 minutes KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING September 10, 2013 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee of the County of Kauai was called to order by Committee Chair Jan Kimura at 8:25 a.m., at the Lihu`e Civic Center,Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting room 2A-2B. The following Commissioners were present: Mr. Jan Kimura Mr. Herman Texeira Mr. Hartwell Blake The following staff members were present: Planning Department—Leslie Takasaki, Kenneth Estes, Dale Cua; Office of Boards and Commissions—Cherisse Zaima; Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi-Sayegusa Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimura called the meeting to order at 8:25 a.m. ROLL CALL Staff Planner Kenneth Estes noted that there were three Commissioners present. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA On a motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the agenda,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 1. Meeting of July 9, 2013 2. Meeting of July 23,2013 3. Meeting of August 13; 2013 On a motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Jan Kimura to approve all minutes as circulated,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 1 OCT 0 8 2013 RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD There were no items for the record. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR LISTED AGENDA ITEMS There were no public comments on listed agenda items. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS 1. Letter dated (8/28/13) from Samuel W. Pratt, President, Niu Pia Land Company Ltd., referencing Tax Map Keys (4)-4-3-7-29 and 30, requesting the Planning Commission rescind or otherwise void a previous subdivision granted in 1980 for the above referenced parcels by way of a mutual agreement. a. Stipulated proposed Decision and Order Mr. Dahilig stated that the Department views the petition similar to a permit in the sense that if an applicant wishes to forfeit their right to the property, they can do so; however, the Commission has the final authority on whether or not to grant the rescission. Mr. Texeira asked to clarify that the Committee can make its recommendation, but the final decision would rest at the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to which Mr. Dahilig replied yes. Mr. Texeira asked for clarification on exactly where the parcel is located as he noted three subdivisions on the map provided. Mr. Dahilig explained that the map provided by the petitioner referencing Land Court Application 889 shows 3 lots; lots 3, 4 & 5. In 1980 Lot 5 was sub-divided into Lots 5a & 5b; the current request is to rescind the split of the two parcels. On the motion by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Herman Texeira to accept and recommend approval by the Planning Commission,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. « 2 NEW BUSINESS (For action) Tentative Subdivision Action: 5-2013-26=DWI Properties Family Ltd. Partnership Proposed 3-lot Subdivision Mr. Estes read the staff report into the record. (On file) Dennis Esaki,representing the applicant, stated the following: 1. In reference to Condition l.c. they propose to work with Public Works on the road widening, and also propose a reserve for consideration. 2. In reference to Condition I.g. there is already access from Mamaki to Waikomo and onto Weliweli Road and does not think another roadway needs to be established. 3. In reference to Condition I J. requested clarification on whether it means it cannot be farmed on, and stated that Condition I.I. contradicts I J. 4. Request for clarification on the Safe Routes to School concept. 5. Suggested that Condition 4. should simply state that the applicant will follow the Department of Health conditions as required. In reference to Condition I J. Mr. Estes explained for clarification that if and when the applicant chooses to re-subdivide the residential portion of the subject lot,the ag portion of this property shall remain in-tact and should not be subdivided along with the residential portion. In response to Mr.Blake's question referencing Condition 1.1., Mr. Cua explained that it is a standard requirement for any development within the State agricultural land use district; consistent with FIRS 205. Mr. Blake commented that this is an ag parcel right in the middle of a South Shore resort development and asked how this provision will compel farm use for the people living in the farm dwelling. Mr. Cua explained that based on that area within the agricultural district, it doesn't qualify for residential density as it is less than 1 acre; it is anticipated that this area will be rezoned at a later date. In reference to Condition 11 Mr. Blake asked if that is based on the desire to have a roadway or if it is a requirement, further asking if a roadway is expected to be put there. Mr. Cua replied it would be desirable to have a roadway and the applicant will have the opportunity to work with the respective agencies to determine whether or not a roadway is necessary. 3 Mr. Kimura asked whether Mr. Esaki's concerns have been addressed to which Mr. Cua replied that with respect to the Department of Health requirements, that is something Mr. Esaki can resolve directly with the Department of Health. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the tentative subdivision application, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Tentative Subdivision Action: S-2014-01=Tad T Miura/Caroline C. Miura Proposed 2-lot subdivision Mr. Estes read the staff report into the record. (On file) Dennis Esaki,representing the applicant, staked that the condition for the water line is currently being met by the Water Department and is under contract. Mr. Texeira stated for clarification that there are two single-family residences, each at 11,000 square feet, on the front lot and asked if that were permissible because it is zoned R6 to which Mr. Cua replied affirmatively. Mr. Texeira stated that because of the R6 zoning,which limits lot size to 6,000 square feet, you cannot include four lots on this property, only three. He asked if he were correct in stating that the back lot then could not be subdivided into two lots to which Mr. Cua nodded affirmatively. Mr. Cua noted that the particular area of the Houselots where these lots are located does not have connection to the County sewer system, and many of the lots are serviced by their own individual wastewater system. The Health Department requires that any lot that contains individual wastewater systems must be at least 10,000 square feet. The lot in the back cannot be further subdivided unless sewer becomes available in the future for this area. Mr. Esaki stated for clarification that one septic tank on a 10,000 square feet lot could serve two separate dwellings that have a collective total of 5 bedrooms. Mr. Cua noted that the Department of Health's rules and regulations allow an individual wastewater system to serve up to five bedroom-like rooms; a room that looks like a bedroom will be counted as a bedroom. Mr. Kimura stated that if he is not mistaken, there can be two septic tanks with one leach line for two homes on 10,000 square feet to which Mr. Texeira noted that in this case, you can have just one septic as long as it is big enough to accommodate five bedrooms. Mr. Blake asked if you have a home with a kitchen, living room, bath, and five or six rooms, of which two of those rooms are designated as offices, does the Health Department consider those offices or bedrooms. 4 Mr. Cua stated that he was unable to answer on behalf of the Health Department but past practices have counted offices as bedroom-like rooms to which Mr. Blake requested clarification that if it could be a bedroom, then it is considered as such. Mr. Cua stated that is what he has seen in the past,but the appropriate authority would be the Health Department who has the final authority to make that assessment. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the tentative subdivision action, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Tentative Subdivision Action: S-2014-02=HG Kaua`i Joint Ventures LLC Proposed 6-lot subdivision Mr. Estes read the staff report into the record. (On file) Mr. Kimura asked whether this was the same property that was before the Committee a while back to which Mr. Can stated yes, there was a previous application on this parcel that was processed in 1999. Mr. Kimura asked to clarify that they had problems with the Water Department back then with that particular parcel. MT. Cua replied, in that application there were infrastructure requirements related to the subdivision;road and water. In this application,the proposal has been scaled down from the previous submittal. Mr. Kimura asked if they are in possession of an infrastructure plan for this subdivision and if not, there may be a high possibility that the Water Department will not finalize their plans again. Mr. Cua stated no,there is no infrastructure plan,but the applicant has the option to either wait for the Planning Department to receive the requirements from the Water Department or talk with the Water Department directly. In response to questions posed by Mr. Texeira and Mr. Kimura, Mr. Cua explained that the previous application was for a 13-lot subdivision, with a separate application to petition the Land Use Commission for a district amendment; it is his understanding that the application was informally submitted to the Land Use Commission, and should they decide to pursue that it will be a separate action from this current subdivision application. In reference to Condition Lf. Mr. Blake asked if this whole parcel is ag. Why are only "A" and `B"portions subject to the agreement with the County to incorporate ag restrictions into the instruments of conveyance; does this give non-"A" and`B" soils a free ride? 5 Mr. Cua explained that by law they are required to identify"A"and`B" soils but based on the agricultural aspect of the property, it's subject to the same Chapter 205 rules. Brian Hennessy, surveyor for the applicant was present. Mr. Kimura asked if the applicant had an ag plan that is already drawn up to which Mr. Hennessy replied they had an ag plan prepared for the last subdivision,but that was several years ago; they will be updating that and submitting it. Mr. Kimura stated that he would feel more comfortable having that preliminary ag plan drawn up for the Commission before they give a tentative approval if the applicant is willing to waive the timeline. Mr. Hennessy stated that would probably be acceptable to which Mr. Cua explained that based on the timelines for this particular application,the Committee would need to take action by September 21. The waiver of the timeline would allow the Committee to take action on the application beyond that date; the next Committee meeting is scheduled for October 8. Mr. Kimura requested a motion to defer the item to the next meeting to allow the applicant to provide the preliminary ag plans, and hopefully receive the Water Department's comments. Mr. Hennessy stated that he believes the applicant is going to develop a private water system for the parcel and for the subdivision. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to defer the item to the October 8 meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Tentative Subdivision Action: S-2014-04—Jasper Properties LLC Proposed 2-lot Consolidation Mr. Estes read the staff report into the record. (On file) Roger Caires, Land Surveyor for the applicant, stated that there were no comments or concerns on the conditions. Mr. Texeira stated that it was mentioned that it would be required to install curbs and sidewalks on the Makai side of Kuhi`6 Highway, and asked if that was planned for the whole area in the future. Mr. Cua explained in the department's development plan it is a recommendation that there would be sidewalks on the Makai side; however these types of improvements will need to be coordinated with DOT (Department of Transportation),and would be included as part of the CIP (Capital Improvements Program). 6 Mr. Kimura asked if the Complete Streets program applies to this area to which Mr. Cua stated that Complete Streets extended the sidewalk requirement to the residential district. This property is already commercially zoned; therefore it is a standard requirement to include curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Mr. Cua further noted that they could build a sidewalk and meet the requirement; however,there are no sidewalks to connect to on the Makai side at this point in time. Mr. Kimura requested clarification on item a. under Modifications of Requirements to which Mr. Cua explained that it would defer the improvements to a later date,but it does not relieve the applicant from obligations to participate in the improvements. They would take care of their share when the improvements are warranted at the discretion of the Department of Transportation. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the tentative subdivision action, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Final Subdivision Action: S-2013-19=County of Kaua 9, One Diva LLC(Avi Zadok)Proposed 2-lot subdivision Mr. Estes read the staff report into the record. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the final subdivision action,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT Chair Kimura adjourned the Committee meeting at 9:12 a.m. Respectfully submitted�by: _ Cherisse Zaima Commission Support Clerk O Approved as circulated(add date of meeting approval). O Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting. 7