Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc 1-8-13 minutes KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING January 8, 2013 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai,was called to order by Chair pro tern 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. Wayne Katayama Mr. Jan Kimura Ms. Camilla Matsumoto Mr. Caven Raco Mr. Herman Texeira Absent and excused: Mr. Hartwell Blake Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Chair pro tern Kimura called the meeting to order at 9:22 a.m. ROLL CALL Planning Director Michael Dahilig noted that five commissioners were present. SELECTION OF SUBDIVISIION COMM TTEE ENT OT CHAIRPERSON,VIC CHAIRPERSON AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS., Chair pro tem Kimura nominated Commissioner Katayama as Chair for the Planning Commission. There were no further nominations. On the motion by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Caven Raco to close nominations, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Commissioner Kimura thanked the Commission for their support while he was Chair for the past year. 1 VA2013 Mnster Piies\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2013-1-08 Planning Commission Minutes FEB 12 2013 Commissioner Raco nominated Commissioner Kimura for vice chair of the Planning Commission. There were no further nominations. On the motion by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Caven Raco to close the nominations, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Chair Katayama appointed Commissioner Kimura as chair of the subdivision committee, and appointed Commissioners Texeira and Blake to the subdivision committee. Commissioner Texeira stated that he is willing to serve until new members are appointed to the Commission. MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission Regular Meeting of December 11 2012 On the motion made by Herman Texeira and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto to accept the regular minutes of the December 11, 2012 meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD There were no items to receive. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Continued Agency Hearing Class IV Zoning Permit Z IV 2013-7 Use Permit U-2013-7 and Special Permit SP 2013- 2 to allow establishment of a grohip child care home faelht on a arcel located within the Waila a Subdivision alon the western side of Walla a Road situated a rox. 1,700 ft. makai of the Kuhio Hi hway/Wail aoa Road intersection further identified as Tax Mao Key 5-1-005: 015 and affecting a portion of aoorox 22.10 acres —13rianna & Cynthea rear, . [Director s Reoort received 11/13/12 deferred 11/27/12.1 Mr. Dahilig requested that the Commission continue the public hearing and defer action until posted, due to posting requirements. There was no public testimony. 2 V:\2013 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\Minutcs\2013-1-08 Planning Commission Minutes On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto to defer until the posting requirements are met,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. New Agency Hearing ecial Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2013-3 to construct a new commercial office building and parking for 13 stalls on a parcel situated along Ohio Highway in Hanalei Town a rox. 700 it. east of the Aku Road/Kuhio Highwa intersection further identified as Tax Map Key 5-5-010: 079 and containing a total area of approx. 10,977 sq. ft. =Halelea Investment Company. Joel Guy, President of the Hanalei to Haena Community Association, stated that they have submitted written testimony from the community association. They have worked over the years to protect the rural nature of Hanalei. He thanked Keola Sheehan for being open and communicating with them from the start and incorporating their recommendations into his design. They submitted their letter in May 2012 and in addition would like to encourage the Commission to allow construction of the office building to the rear instead of the front of the parcel to help continue the rural character of Hanalei as well as maintain the walkway out front. Commissioner Texeira stated that he did not think that continuing to support and encourage commercial development was trying to protect the rural character. Mr. Guy stated that their board has a long history of not supporting development. It is rare that they have strong partnership with the developer. The collaboration has been a good process. Commissioner Texeira stated that the association is an influential body and he believes Hanalei to be a special area. It is a great responsibility for the group to try to protect the area as much as they can. Beau Blaire stated that she has an adjacent business to the projected building. They are in a very old traditional Japanese building called the Hanalei Town Center. She is also on the board of the Hanalei-Haena Community Association and supports the interaction they have had. Hanalei has available areas for development and businesses. They feel that in contradiction to what the Planning Department recommended, they support moving the structure to the back of the property. It keeps an open frontage. If they do a storefront building style, they will run into the next building and narrow the visual line of sight and the traffic that comes in. The further back the more residential and traditional it would appear. On the motion by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Caven Raco to close the agency hearing for SMA Permit SMA (U)-2013-3, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Continued Public Hearing (NONE) 3 V:\2013 Master Files\Commissions\Plam\ing\N4inutes\2013-1-08 planning Commission Minutes New Public Hearing(NONE) All Public Testimony Pursuant to HRS 92 There was no other public testimony. CONSENT CALENDAR Status Reports (NONE) Director's Report(s) for Projects) Scheduled for Agency Hearing on 1/22/13 (NONE) Shoreline Setback Activity Determination Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2013-10 and Shoreline Setback Deternination SSD-2013-27 for a shoreline activity determination, Tax Map Key 2-8-019: 004, Koloa Kauai for acceptance by the Commission=John Zihla. On the motion by Caven Raco and seconded by Jan Kimura to accept the consent calendar items as presented, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. EXECUTIVE SESSION (NONE) GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS (NONE) COMMUNICATION (For Action) (NONE) COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision Commissioner Texeira noted there were three items for tentative subdivision action. The following were approved 2-0: S-2013-05, Kenneth A. Souza Trust/Kenneth Souza Jr., TMK: 2-7-006:006, 129 S-2013-06, Jasper Properties, LLC, TMK: 4-5-012:019, 044 4 V 92013 Master Piles\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2013-1-08 Planning Commission Minutes 'The following was approved 2-0 with modification of requirement: S-2013-07, Kukuiula Development Company (Hawaii) LLC, TMK: 2-6-019:032 Commissioner Texeira noted that condition 2B was eliminated that required sidewalks, gutters, etc., fronting the subdivision in Kukuiula. It was a remnant subdivision and the developer felt the condition was not needed. Lindsay Crawford from Kukuiula Development Company stated that he requested a modification requirement for one of the conditions for approval, specifically eliminating the condition for curb, gutter, and sidewalk in the 13 lot residential subdivision. That requirement is typically for commercial and resort developments and residential developments in which the zoning is 10 units or higher. This particular subdivision has less than four units per acre and their desire is to not require curbs, gutters and sidewalks to make it more like the other subdivisions in the project. He believes the requirement was placed upon this subdivision because it happened to straddle the resort zoning area. It is a regular residential subdivision and they are requesting that the requirement be modified, waived, or removed. Mr. Dahilig stated that the County Attorney has advised the staff that if the condition is not incorporated in the preliminary approval, it would need to be done through what is equivalent of a variance and public hearing to accommodate the change in the normal requirements. At this point it is appropriate not to require variance proceedings pursuant to the Code. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that the role of the Commission is to review the subdivision committee's action. If the Commission concurs,they can ratify the report and it becomes the final action for tentative approval, or they disapprove and reopen the matter before the full Commission. At the time of preliminary subdivision, if there is a modification of any of the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, they can ask to modify the term. They are at preliminary approval, so if the Commission concurs, they move forward and approve the tentative subdivision approval. Chair Katayama questioned the Department's position on the condition. Staff Plarmer Dale Cua stated that the modification request is similar to a variance permit. The standards are the same. Part of the consideration is to evaluate the request to determine if it is unique, if there is a special circumstance that is applicable to the property. Although the property is zoned residential, it is actually being developed to a lesser density. For the entire Master Plan area, the applicant has incorporated a trails master plan throughout the entire development encouraging pedestrian movement from mauka to makai. There are areas in the project identified as part of the trails system. The applicant would like to be held to the trails system and have the pedestrian movement in those designated areas. The Department was able to consider the applicant's request and approve it. On the motion by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Jan Kimura to approve the subdivision committee report as presented,the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 5 V 92013 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2013-1-08 Planning Commission Minutes UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action) Zoning Amendment ZA-2013-2: Amendment to Sections 9-2.3 & 9-2.11 of the Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 9 of the Kauai County Code 1987), as amended to allow for multi-modal transportation principles for subdivisions=Planning Department Supplemental No. 1 Director's Report pertaining to this matter. Mr. Dahilig noted that this item was brought up for public hearing on December 11, 2012 and was closed, and action was deferred until this meeting. Staff Planner Marie Williams stated that the initial report was presented on December 11, 2012 and action was deferred because they needed to iron out some issues with Public Works regarding the fee in lieu of how the sidewalk construction fund would work. Since then, they have met with Public Works and have developed language that helps to clear the path for the fund to be-administered and used. The language has been incorporated into the amendment (version 2 of the Bill attached to report.on file). Section 3 of the draft Bill in subsection B names the fund and clarifies how the County Engineer can expend the money in the fund. He will have to submit a request to the Mayor and Planning Director, and upon approval, the Finance Director will be authorized to release the fund. Commissioner Raco questioned if the request would also need to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dahilig noted that it would be strictly for expenditure out of the special fund. The monies would be deposited into the special fund and in terms of the expenditure it would be upon release of the Planning Director and transferred by authority of the Mayor to Public Works. Commissioner Raco questioned why the Commission would not be involved. Mr. Dahilig stated that in his understanding of special fees and funds, the Commnission has not been involved in the expenditure; however, if the Commission feels that is appropriate to be abreast of the special fund, language can be added. Ms. Williams noted that the language was adopted from how the Parks fund is administered. Based on the foregoing it is recommended that the Zoning Amendment be approved subject to the Department's proposed amendments as illustrated in version 2 of the proposed Bill. On the motion by to by Caven Raco and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto to approve Zoning Amendment ZA-2013-2 based on the proposed amendments by the Department as illustrated in version 2 and included in the packet, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 6 V A2013 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2013-1-08 Planning Commission Minutes NEW BUSINESS (For Action) Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2013-3 to construct a new commercial office building and parking for 13 stalls on a parcel situated along Kuhio Highway in Hanalei Town approx. 700 ft east of the Aku Road/Kuhio Highway intersection further identified as Tax Map Key 5-5-010. 079 and containing a total area of approx. 10,977 sq. ft. =Halelea Investment Company. Staff Planner Kaaina Hull read the Director's Report into the record (On file). He noted that in keeping with the character and vitality of Kauai and the Hanalei historic design and to further facilitate pedestrian activity and walkability within Hanalei town, a street frontage building with a designated parking area located behind the operation may be more appropriate. Commissioner Texeira questioned the statement"may be more appropriate". Mr. Hull stated that ultimately the recommendation of the Department concludes that it is more appropriate to have the building located towards the front. While the Department is in agreement with the applicant's concern that street frontage buildings create corridor-affects, in order to stimulate commercial development of that designated commercial area, the use of street fronting parking has been used throughout the past 20 years. The Department with the Complete Streets Resolution as well as the proposal with the Subdivision Amendments is attempting to move away from that sprawl within the town core centers. Suburban development is occurring on Kauai, but in the town centers, there is an attempt by the Department to encourage pedestrian growth as well as multi-modal transportation and stimulate the town core. Keola Sheehan, representing the applicant, stated that he was pleased that the Department is recommending approval. Their concern is that they are proposing to place the building at the back of the lot, but the Department is recommending that they place it in the front. He noted that adjacent businesses have parking in the front and there isn't a real standard for parking versus building siting in the town. It is basically based on the parameters of the parcel itself and the requirements for the square footage,use, and lot size. This particular lot tapers from the rear to the front and has some existing vegetation and landscaping that creates a natural area for a pedestrian walkway. Regardless of the siting, it wouldn't change the desire for a walkable path or the location of the path, but would force construction of a two-story building at the front of the lot in order to get the 2,500 square feet that they are proposing in a single story at the back of the lot. His desire would be a single story, rural plantation looking building at the back of the lot than a two story building at the front. Mr. Sheehan and Marc Ventura, the architect for the project, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation. (On file) Commissioner Matsumoto stated that in one of the photos there appears to be a dip along the road. She questioned the drainage in the area when it rains. Mr. Ventura stated that they have a civil engineer on board. Once they get an approved concept,they will be looking at it. He believes there is a swale that runs along the highway that they will probably tie into. 7 V_\2013 Master Filos\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2013-1-08 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Matsumoto questioned how it is handled in town. Mr. Sheehan stated that the rain saturation drains pretty well which is the reason they would prefer to use grass Crete to have an absorption area. Commissioner Matsumoto questioned the end of the sidewalk. Mr. Sheehan stated that it ends in a drainage ditch. Mr. Ventura noted that there is not a continuum that runs straight through. Mr. Sheehan stated that one of the challenges is that there isn't uniformity to walkability. This is the last vacant parcel in town and everything else has already been built out. If they get redeveloped, they may be able to have more continuity. Currently it dead ends. Commissioner Raco questioned the right of way through the alleyway if-the building is in the front. Mr. Sheehan noted that it is an access agreement that hasn't yet been recorded, but his understanding is that the form has been approved. Commissioner Raco questioned if it is a draft or in the works. Mr. Sheehan stated that his understanding is that it is a shared access agreement. He would be happy to make sure that it is in recordable form as a condition of approval. Commissioner Matsumoto stated that parking in Hanalei seems to be scarce and she gets the general feeling that people are accommodating if you park your car somewhere and chose to walk the town. She questioned if it was a community agreement or an unsaid understanding. Mr. Sheehan stated that his personal feeling is that when someone is forced to do parking, they should try to provide as many stalls as they can. Most of the commercial parcels have already been developed. He agreed with making each of the parcels more connected and accessible so that no matter where you park you can make your way through town in a safe manner. Commissioner Kimura felt that having the building in the back and the parking in the front changes Hanalei. He questioned what the building will be used for. 8 V:\2013 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2013-1-08 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Sheehan stated that Hanalei Land Company is a real estate brokerage and property management business that is providing property management and project management for the applicant. He is relocating his office which is in one of several temporary buildings that have been there since the hurricane. A bunch of buildings need to be deconstructed and relocated into a properly zoned area. Commissioner Kimura stated that he could understand if it were going to be an office building and storage for stores out front. Mr. Sheehan stated that it will be for personal offices and storage. Commissioner Kimura questioned if the parking will be available to the public. Mr. Sheehan stated that they will probably catch the spillover from the Quicksilver Store. Commissioner Kimura questioned if it will be open to the public for any other businesses in the vicinity. Mr. Sheehan stated that they have no plans to secure the parking at night. Commissioner Kimura noted that some other businesses frown on other people using their parking lots. Mr. Sheehan stated that people in town have gotten to the point where they realize there is not enough parking for everyone who is coming to enjoy the town. That is one reason they wanted the walk way. He personal feeling is that it is more rural in nature and there is already existing landscaping with mature trees on this property which is why he would rather put the building in the back. Commissioner Kimura questioned what kind of guarantee the applicant can provide that the office space will be used in the manner that it is intended. He questioned if the Commission could provide a recommendation that if the building in the back would be just for office space and not a retail store. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that it would depend on what the permit is for specifically. He noted that there are multiple uses allowed under cormuercial districts. Commissioner Kimura stated that if it is intended for a retail store,then he would like to have the building upfront. if it is just going to be for office space and storage for spaces already rented out, then he can understand the building being in the back and parking in front. 9 V:\2013 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\MinutesY7.013-1-08 Planning Commission Minutes Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that he will reserve the question for the Planning Department as it becomes a philosophical issue about smart growth principles versus rural character issues. Commissioner Kimura stated that he can understand parking in the front if offices are in the back,but if it will be retail, he would rather have it up front. He questioned if there could be some kind of commitment that it will be used only for office space. Commissioner Matsumoto likes the idea of parking in the front and the building in the back because if it will have to be a two story building up front, it would seem imposing, and tourists may completely miss the parking lot. She noted some north shore Oahu businesses that are up front with parking lots in the back that have been empty for years because nobody knows they is parking there. She likes the idea of the parking lot up front and a one story building in back. Hanalei is a small area and there is already a feeling of closeness. Chair Katayama stated that the applicant is presenting two plans; one with the structure up front and one with the structure in back. Mr. Sheehan stated that they have a preferred plan with a single story building in the back. If forced to put the building up front it would have to be two stories based on the setback and the way that the lot tapers. Chair Katayama stated that right now the Commission is only covering the applicant's presentation. The discussion is pointing out that there are several details that need to be firmed up. Mr. Dahilig stated that valid concerns have been presented. The County has passed a Complete Streets policy that was not necessarily embraced by everyone, but it is a policy that whenever they have the opportunity from the Planning standpoint, they try to be less car centric and less vehicle centric in looking at how they design spaces to facilitate safe routes, safe walking, and multi=modal transportation. Car driven development has given rise to a lot of the intense development that there are visceral reactions to. "Sea of parking" is a phrase that is heard when talking about Costco or Home Depot because parking has a visual impact on the community. Whether parking is appropriate in the front or the back is a legitimate debate in this particular circumstance. The applicant has pointed out businesses that are more frontage in nature and businesses that are more setback in nature. Ching Young Village has parking out front. Tahiti Nui has parking in the back. The car culture that we are accustomed to seems by the Complete Streets policy to be something that the County wants to shy away from. It is a legitimate concern for everyone. Regardless of whether it is a store frontage use or office use there is still foot traffic. Complete Streets promotes the idea of things being a hop, skip, and a jump away versus things being setback from the main thoroughfare. In discussing the permit, he concurred with the planner's recommendation of having the building up front. As that Chair mentioned, it probably warrants further discussion with the applicant. There may be solutions to achieve less massing, more parking, and the kind of store frontage element that they think is more in concert with the character of Hanalei town. He noted the old Hanalei School where there is a lawn out front with parking set to the side. The best planning at practice at this point in time as they understand it is the Complete Streets policy. The would ask for a deferral to the next meeting to discuss with the applicant some other options that have not been discussed and maybe they can come back to the Commission with something that everyone is satisfied with. 10 V:\2013 Master Files\Commissions\Plamiing\Minutes\2013-1-08 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Texeira asked how parking in the back would impact walkability. Mr. Dahilig stated that from what he understands from the Complete Streets policy, when you narrow and focus driveways versus frontage parking, it actually encourages more transit along the frontage. When there are multiple entries along the thoroughfare where cars can come in and out, it gives the perception of the walker or biker that there is traffic going perpendicular to the road which in some cases inhibits the feeling of comfort of walking or biking along that thoroughfare. Commissioner Texeira questioned if there was more than one ingress and egress in the original submittal. Mr. Dahilig stated that there was one proposed for this parking lot. He stated that one element is to focus the ingress and egress. Another element is visual. Rural character can be ascertained in a number of ways. There are many valid points and he did not want to dismiss any perception that a setback with trees in the front and a lawn is not rural. Whether something is more or less rural is a discussion the Commission should have. Their recommended desire is what they think comports with what is already existing as well as what would facilitate the Complete Streets and walkability principles that are now the policies of the County. The best siting seems to be a low massing structure along the frontage. Commissioner Texeira stated that there wouldn't be a_low massing structure on the front. It would be a two story structure. Mr. Dahilig stated that the discussion on whether something has to be two stories or not is up for debate. The developer believes from a maximization of his resources, he would want a two-story structure. From a regulatory standpoint,the Department looks beyond whether it has to be a two story structure. Commissioner Matsumoto clarified that she is not promoting the car culture by preferring the parking lot out front. In her perfect world,the parking lot would be on one end of town behind something, where everyone could walk. She wasn't trying to make it more convenient for the car drivers, she was thinking of the safety of pedestrians walking the town. She initially felt that a parking lot out front would be a place where people could walk to avoid the puddles and dips and thinking about_a complete community. Mr. Sheehan appreciated the comments. He felt they vetted it as much as they could to provide the maximum number of parking stalls. It is less than 11,000 square feet and doesn't leave a lot of options. They have made it most efficient as possible by providing access through an existing driveway that they have control over and can do fairly easily. If they are forced to do the building up front, and they would have to bring their own driveway in, it would be a lot different. His opinion is that what they have laid out is as efficient and as rural as they can come up with. They would prefer not to do a two story building. They felt there is no detriment to providing walkability and they are not taking away from that initiative. He felt they are complimenting it. 11 V:A2013 Master FilesVCommissions\PlanningA Minutes\2013-1-08 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Hull questioned the height on the two story ultimatum. Mr. Ventura stated that they would need to keep it in a max 25. It is a tight lot and they don't have a lot of options with parking. They have looked at concepts of centering the building, front, back, and because of the size and narrowness of the lot, it has been a challenge to have an efficient layout. The only way they could really make anything work was to either go front or back. Because the parcel tapers, one story in the front would substantially decrease parking. With the parking issues in town, they want to maximize what they can provide. It is a small lot and they have looked at many possibilities. They won't be able to consider a side parking concept. Commissioner Kimura questioned the amount of permanent structures that would be destructed by the plan. Mr. Sheehan stated that their office which is in the urban open zone adjacent to the parcel which is operating on a use permit would relocate into the new building. Quicksilver which is an inventory and storage room would relocate. They would have space to lease to a chiropractor or another office user. Commissioner Kimura clarified that it would be one permanent structure that would be replaced. Mr. Sheehan stated that if they can eventually redevelop the kayak shop area, those existing tenants would be able to go back into a structure from the existing trailer and portable containers. Those buildings are proposed under another application a year or two from now to be deconstructed and redeveloped. It is just their building that will be affected. Commissioner Raco asked for clarification on the zoning. Mr. Hull stated that it is commercial. Commissioner Raco clarified that the applicant would be allowed to go up to the property line with the building. He questioned if the front property line is 59' and the single story building is 52' there would still be enough setback to meet one side if they put the building on the property line on the other side. Mr. Hull replied both on the side as well as on the front. Commissioner Raco stated that the single story would still work from a design standpoint and they would have to adjust the footprint, but it wouldn't be impossible to still stay with a single story. Maybe the building would be deeper and not as wide. 12 V:A2013 Master FilesV Commissions\PlanningAMinutes\2013-1-08 Planning Commission Minutes Mr. Hull stated that it would be ultimately up to the applicant how they want to design their building within standards that they have to meet, but there is room to maneuver the building closer to the side property line as well as the street frontage. Mr. Ventura stated that they would want to propose some landscape buffer. There is also a fire code issue. If they were at zero lot line, they could do it per the zoning, but the fire code wouldn't allow any windows or penetrations. To get the rural character as well as for an office type space, they don't want to wall off with fire rated walls along the side property lines. They are holding the side yard setbacks for those reasons. The fire code kicks in and would impact what they can do with the walls if they go up to the property lines. Commissioner Raco stated that he wasn't stating that they need a fire rated wall along the property line. He was saying that the building maybe wouldn't be as wide as deep. There is still 10 feet to play with if the building were more rectangle and not as square. From looking at the plans, he agrees with some of the other Commissioners that the building should be up front, but it is unique that the driveway is not off of the highway. He thinks the building should be more of a rectangle and not as square being that the lot is deeper. Mr. Sheehan noted that they are trying to accommodate the existing buildings that are there. They probably could legally push the building closer to the front but they would be burying the buildings to the west and as you come into the town their building would be popped out further to the front than most of the existing buildings, based on the fact that the DDT used to require a 10 foot road widening dedication. They are voluntarily giving themselves a bigger setback to keep that line of sight similar to the existing buildings. Beau Blair stated that she did not understand why those who live in Hanalei and have adjacent businesses all feel that it would be more rural and beneficial to not squeeze buildings up to the roadway front if they are going to still allow for walkway and to keep things green in Hanalei and as low key as possible. Shoving the buildings up to the roadway would seem more like Kapaa or somewhere else that is not Hanalei and doesn't seem as user friendly. They are trying to build a small office building, not a big commercial building that needs the visual frontage, and allow room for the existing trees that are 50-100 years old, and maintain the rural character. She works out of a rural old house next door that houses four businesses. The applicant is proposing another small house type building. That seems much more in line in keeping what Hanalei is about. Her parking lot is gravel and is constantly filled by people that use other businesses and they use the green area under the tree to eat lunch. That is more valuable to her than having a building up front and a parking lot out back. If it will be developed and it is not a commercial area, she would like to see it done as tastefully and gently as possible. Joel Guy reiterated that the community association did unanimously support the project. When you come into Hanalei, if the definition of rural character is that of Haleiwa, it will change the look as you come into Hanalei. There would be a building there instead of something off to the back. If it can be out of sight you would see the same trees that were always there. The building across the street was a major change that affected the look of the town. This proposal is the least impactful to the sightline as you come into Hanalei. Patsy Sheehan stated that she thinks Smart Streets is important as a concept, but Hanalei has transpired and grown a lot. The visitor that comes still feels that it is a small rural place and 13 VA2013 Master Files\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2013-1-08 Planning Commission Minutes they walk. Having a building set back and parking in the front helps at night. There are a lot of restaurants in Hanalei and people walk. There is a secure feeling that they can park close to the road and walk across to the restaurant that usually does not have enough parking. Parking in the back is scarier. Bigger communities can aspire to Smart Streets, but people are already walking in Hanalei. What they need to do is connect the buildings and the access to the buildings and it will take time. Imposing a Smart Street concept in one little area isn't enough to create what the administration is after. She thinks that the intention and the concept for this project is for an office building and the office building does not need to be up front. It needs to be removed where people can do their business and not have everyone walk back and forth. Being in the back and not taking up road space is a better concept in this instance. Mr. Dahilig stated that given the representations of what the parking is intended for, he questioned if the applicant would be amenable to a sign indicating public parking if the lot was proposed in the front. The applicant replied sure. Mr. Dahilig stated that the Department would still request two weeks. There are more things to add to the discussion to look outside the box to achieve certain objectives. There is a feeling of wanting-the building in the back and at the same time the Department maintains its position with what they think is consistent. Commissioner Kimura questioned if the applicant would be part of the decision making if the Commission grants a deferral. Mr. Dahilig started that he hopes to come up with a supplemental report that provides an alternative recommendation. Chair Katayama stated that rather than negotiating the recommendations for the Commission, the desire is for the Department to sit with the applicant to get a list of recommendations that are acceptable to both parties and then the Commission can move for action. Commissioner Race, stated that if the Department entertains parking up front, he questioned the probability that the applicant might have access opened to Kuhio Highway in the future. Mr. Dahilig stated that it may be something they want to address. Commissioner Raco questioned the future conditions or impacts if the access to the parking lot is allowed through the two existing trees. Mr. Dahilig stated that they will look into it. 14 V92013 Master Files\Commissions\Plaiming\Minutes\2013-1-08 Planning Commission Minutes On the motion by Jan Kimura and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto to defer this agenda item the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT Chair Katayama adjourned the meeting at 11:10 a.m. Res ctfully submitted b Duke Nakamatsu, Commission Support Clerk 15 VA2013 Master Piles\Commissions\Planning\Minutes\2013-1-08 Planning Commission Minutes