Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 13, 2013 PC SDC Minutes KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING August 13,2013 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee of the County of Kauai was called to order by Committee Chair Jan Kimura at 8:31 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(entered at 8:55 a.m.) The following staff members were present: Planning Department—Leslie Takasaki, Kenneth Estes, Dale Cua; Office of Boards and Commissions—Cherisse Zaima,Paula Morikami; Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimura called the meeting to order at 8:31 a.m. ROLL CALL Staff Planner Kenneth Estes noted that there were two Commissioners present. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA On a motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Jan Kimura to approve the agenda,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES—Meeting of July 23,2013 On a motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Jan Kimura to approve the minutes of the July 23,2013,meeting,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD There were no items for the record. 1 PUBLIC COMMENT FOR LISTED AGENDA ITEMS There were no public comments on listed agenda items. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS There were no general business matters. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS (For action) Tentative Subdivision Action: S-2013-22=Cheryl Cowden Schenck Proposed Kuleana Relocation Mr.Estes read the staff report into the record. (On file) Mr. Texeira asked for clarification on Condition La. regarding the requirement for Title Insurance and asked if the"clean"title wouldn't be something that was already determined at the time of application? Mr. Cua explained that the purpose of the Condition is to ensure that the title of the Kuleana is clean. The intent is to trace the title back to its creation under the Kuleana Act, a provision created in 1850 under the Great Mahele enacted in 1848. If the title isn't"clean"then the title company won't insure. In the event a descendant questions the title of the property,the claim can be resolved through the title insurance company as opposed to the department. Mr. Cua explained the differences between a Title Report and Title Insurance. Mr. Kimura asked for clarification that there is a one-time subdivision request,which means the consolidation of the land would be considered as such to which Mr. Cua explained that it is a boundary adjustment where no additional lots are being created. It's considered a subdivision when additional lots are being created; however,this parcel starts off as two and ends up as two. Mr. Kimura asked if they are then just changing the size. Mr. Jung explained that there are two existing lots of record; one recognizes a Kuleana and one is a previously subdivided lot. The two boundary lines can be adjusted to relocate and consolidate,then re-subdivide in a different area. 2 Mr. Kimura asked how they got Lot 22B if the lot has not been subdivided before to which Mr. Jung explained that the Kuleana was created well before the larger lot was subdivided; it was a previously recognized lot of record. At the request of Mr. Kimura for appropriate lot numbers and further clarification that Lot 22B had not been subdivided before,Mr. Cua explained that prior to the action,the surrounding lot was identified as Lot 22B and the Kuleana parcel is called Exception 6. The designation of Lot 22B occurred prior to the adoption of the CZO (Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance). In response to Mr. Kimura's question on whether or not this is a CPR(Condominium Property Regimes)property and if it has ever been,Mr. Cua replied no,not at all. Mr. Texeira asked to clarify that no one has come forward all these years in regard to the Kuleana land to which Mr. Cua explained that the title company would be researching all of the parties related to the Kuleana, and until it's resolved no insurance will be given. Mr. Kimura asked if the owner of the kuleana land is different from the owner of 22B to which Mr. Cua replied it is the same owner. Michael Schenck,representing the applicant, stated he had no problems with any of the conditions proposed. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Jan Kimura to approve the tentative subdivision action for application S-2013-22 Proposed Kuleana Relocation,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Tentative Subdivision Action: S-2013-23=Roy K. Morita, Marvin M. Morita, Beverly S. Morita Proposed 8-lot Subdivision Mr. Estes read the staff report into the record. (On file) Mr. Texeira noted that in the tentative approval statement, it was mentioned that the Waiakea Road may require improvements,which he feels is an ambiguous statement and asked WHEN it would require improvements; why does it state MAY require improvements? Mr. Cua explained the applicant is proposing that all vehicular access will be taken from Kawaihau Road. When the applicant desires to take access from the unimproved portion of Waiakea Road, at that time the Department will require it to be improved to County roadway standards. 3 At the request of Mr. Texeira,Mr. Cua pointed out the exact location of Waiakea Road, and explained which properties' access would require the use of Waiakea Road. He elaborated on additional conditions requiring the applicants to also do improvements to the common easement areas of Waiakea Road. Dennis Esaki,representing the applicants,replied to Mr. Texeira's questions on access, stating there are provisions for interior roadway easements that will follow the County ordinance. Mr. Kimura asked for the sizes of the lots to which Mr. Esaki replied there are four 1-acre lots and four 4-acre lots. Mr. Texeira asked why this applicant is granted individual access to Kawaihau Road instead of just one access to get to the remainder of the lots along Kawaihau,noting that individual access is generally avoided to prevent traffic. Mr. Cua stated that in the past,the Department has recommended shared driveways for abutting lots; over the years the Committee members' concerns have changed. Considering the application is up for tentative approval,the Committee members can condition this requirement should they feel compelled to do so. Mr. Kimura referenced Lot 1 and asked what all the existing structures shown are and whether they are allowable on 1-acre,noting that five structures seemed like a lot. Mr. Cua replied that one of the structures is identified as a dwelling and they are all allowable as long as they've been properly permitted. Mr. Esaki explained that the one structure identified as a dwelling is not livable, and all of the structures are slated to be torn down; further suggesting the Commission could make that a condition. It is his understanding that the nursery on Lot 3 will be relocating. In reference to the access issue,they would be agreeable to reducing the access to shared access between the two lots. Mr. Kimura asked in reference to the four back lots,would the interior road have to be paved to which Mr. Cua replied that the Department is requiring it under Condition f. Mr. Kimura asked for a rough estimate of how much it would cost to put in an interior road for the four lots to which Mr. Esaki explained that it hasn't been designed yet but he would guess between$100,004200,000. (Mr. Blake entered the meeting at 8:55 a.m.) Mr. Texeira asked if two roadways for each abutting lot fronting Kawaihau would be put in to which Mr. Esaki replied there will be two driveway accesses and once they get onto the property,they will veer off to their own house. 4 Mr. Kimura stated for clarification that they are adding the conditions that the buildings are torn down as requested to which Mr. Cua replied that the staff report will be amended to include the following conditions: l.n. The removal of the existing buildings prior to final subdivision approval Lo. Requires the establishment of a common driveway access for Lots 1 &2 and Lots 3 &4 On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the tentative subdivision action with the recommended condition amendments for application S-2013-23 proposed 8-lot subdivision,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Tentative Subdivision Action: S-2013-25.lefrey Lindner Proposed 2-lot boundary adjustment Mr. Estes read the staff report into the record. (On file) Mr. Kimura asked whether the property will include any type of beach access to which Mr. Jung stated that none of the lots are adjacent to the beach and that there is a State parcel that fronts the beach. There is an existing access through Moloa'a Hui Lands which Mr. Cua pointed out on a map; it was noted, in response to Mr. Kimura,that this is the sole access to the whole length of beach. Mr. Texeira commented that it is a very long shoreline and asked if the State or County was looking into creating more access points to which Mr. Jung replied that there is a current access that goes through the Moloa'a Hui Lands 1 &2,which goes through the Lindner property into the State buffer lot fronting the shoreline. That would be the only access going down to Moloa'a Bay,which is an established trail easement within the Moloa'a Hui Project that includes parking. Dennis Esaki,representing the applicant, explained that this was a remnant of when the Moloa'a Papaya farms were subdivided out. There were conditions previously set on the subdivision as mentioned by Mr. Cua. Mr. Texeira asked if the property had been previously owned by Lihu`e Plantation or AMFAC at the time the subdivisions were created to which Mr. Esaki replied he believes it was part of Moloa'a Hui lands,which were then subdivided into smaller lots by a private party. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the tentative subdivision action for application S-2013-25 Proposed 2-lot boundary adjustment, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 5 Subdivision Extension Request: S-2008-16 Melvin Soong/Clarence Soong Proposed 2-lot Subdivision Mr. Estes read the staff report into the record. (On file) Mr. Kimura noted that this came before the Commission last year with the exact same report, further noting the applicant stated the project would be up and running by the last extension; it's on its fifth extension and still nothing has been done. Mr. Blake noted that Planning reported that progress is being made and questioned what kind of progress to which Mr. Cua explained that the applicant is in the process of resolving issues with other agencies,but the question of the extent of that should be directed to the applicant. Max Graham,representing the applicant, gave an update on the progress of the project noting that they are currently working on resolving the requirements of the Water Department; the construction drawings have been accepted by DOW, a contractor has been hired,the Facilities Reserve Charge has been paid for an additional meter,and the contractor is prepared to complete the work in the next 90 days. Mr. Kimura asked why this could not have been done within the last year to which Mr. Graham explained it has taken a year just to get the engineering drawings completed and approved. Mr. Kimura asked being that they are so close, could they complete it in six months to which Mr. Graham stated yes. On the motion by Herman Tegeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the subdivision extension request for application S-2008-16 Proposed 2-lot subdivision,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Subdivision Extension Request: S-2012-01=To.eioka Trust Proposed 2-lot Subdivision Mr. Estes read the staff report into the record. (On file) Yolanda Cabral,representing the applicant, stated she has no questions or concerns on the Director's report. On the motion by Herman Tegeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the subdivision extension request for application S-2012-01 Proposed 2-lot subdivision,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 6 Subdivision Extension Request: S-2012-14=Wailua Ranch LLC Proposed Mot Subdivision Mr. Estes read the staff report into the record. (On file) Yolanda Cabral,representing the applicant, stated she has no questions or concerns on the Director's report. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the subdivision extension request for application S-2012-14 Proposed 3-lot subdivision,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Modification of Requirement/Condition Action S-2013-20=Mlauea Ventures LLC Proposed 3-lot Subdivision Mr. Estes read the staff report into the record(On file) Lorna Nishimitsu,representing the applicant, stated there are no concerns on the Director's report and that she supports the request. She explained that this was not intended to be a residential project;purely commercial. However, as a condition of the approval,the County wanted four workforce housing units created,which turned it into a quasi-residential development. Another condition of the project approval was the establishment of the roadway lot,which was a condition imposed years ago on a previous developer. Under the circumstances of it never intending to be a residential development, and because the subdivision requirement was only triggered to provide formal access to the post office facility,they are requesting to amend the condition as proposed by the department. On the motion by Herman Texeira and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the amendment of Condition 5 of the Director's report for application S-2013-20 Proposed 3- lot Subdivision,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT Chair Kimura adjourned the Committee meeting at 9:25 a.m. Respectfully submitted by: Cherisse Zaima Commission Support Clerk 7 ( ) Approved as circulated(add date of meeting approval). ( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting. 8