Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-8-14 PC Minutes DRAFT KAUA'I PLANNING COMMISSION- . REGULAR MEETING April 8, 2014 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua'i was called to;.order by Chair Kimura at 9 : 13 a.m., at the Llhu` e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha. Building, in meeting room 2A.. 2B. The following Commissioners were present: Mr. Jan Kimura - Ms, Amy Mendonca . Mr. John Isobe ; Mr. Hartwell Blake Ms. Angela Anderson Mr. Wayne Katayama The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Michael Dahilig, Leslie Takasaki, Marie Williams, Lee Steinmetz, Jody Galinato ; Office of Boards and Commissions Cherisse Zaima; Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimura called the meeting to order at 9: 13 a.m. a. ' ROLL CALL Planning Director Michael Dahilig noted that there were six Commissioners present. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Dahilig recommended that Item I. 2. Lzhu`e Town Core Update be taken after the . hearings and public comment section for Item F. On the motion by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Amy Mendonca_ to approve the agenda as amended, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. MINUTES of the meetine(s) of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 11 , 2014 Special Meetings of March 19, 2014 (8: 13 a.m. and 8:42 a.m.) On the motion by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Wayne Katayama to approve the minutes of the meetings, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote, RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Hartwell Blake to receive items for the record, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Continued Agency Hearing There was no continued agency hearing. New Agency Hearing Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2014-5, to allow construction of two (2) single-family residences on a parcel located along the makai side of Kaumuali` i Highwa�in Makaweli, situated approx. '/< mile west of the Makaweli Post Office facility, further identified as Tax Map Key 1 -7-006 : 012, and containing a total land area of 8.38 acres = Randall Sinclair Weir, Trustee, et al. On the motion by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Amy Mendonca to close agency hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Continued Public Hearing There was no continued public hearing. New Public Hearing To consider the adoption of an additional chapter to the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Kauai Planning Commission relating to the Commission' s personnel management of the Planning Director, including selection, hire, evaluation and dismissal. On the motion by Wayne Katayama and seconded by John Isobe to close public hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Lihu` e Town Core Update Staff Planners Marie Williams and Lee Steinmetz presented a Power Point slideshow on the annual update of the Lihu` e Town Core Urban Design Plan. (On file) Mr. Blake asked what the expected time frame is for the town core plan to be realized. Mr. Steinmetz stated it is a long term project. County infrastructure improvements are already starting to be implemented. However, the economic development component is based on the market making it difficult to determine how long that portion will take. Mr. Blake asked what will be the first thing the public will see completed to ensure something is happening. Mr. Steinmetz explained the Hardy Street improvements will be the first thing, and will be starting soon; tied to that will be the Eiwa Street improvements. Should Council approve the CIP (Capital Improvement Projects) budget, they will start to see improvements on Rice Street in the coming fiscal year. Mr. Blake asked if there is a public relations program in place to inform the public of what to expect. Mr. Steinmetz stated there is a Rice Street task force consisting of County staff who are developing the public information program for that project, and will be disseminating information via community meetings. Press releases and public information meetings are on- going for the Hardy Street improvements. In response to Mr. Blake, Mr. Steinmetz stated so far the Department has had positive partnership with County Council, and have received their support. Mr. Katayama asked how transient traffic commuting east to west, and vice versa, as well as the harbor and airport traffic will be handled as it currently seems to funnel through Llhue. Mr. Steinmetz stated these improvements are part of a much bigger transportation picture. There are many improvements going on concurrently such as the current construction on Kuhio Highway, which is causing temporary detours to some local streets. However, once those improvements are complete, Kuhio Highway going past the airport as well as Nawiliwili Road, which are considered major routes, will most likely again be utilized for freight and transportation to and from the harbor. Additionally, the Department is looking at possible improvements to Haleko Road to make that a better connection. They are looking at the whole network of roads as well as specific streets. In response to Mr. Katayama' s question on the design capacity of the above mentioned roads, as well as the roads within the Llfiu`e town core, Mr. Steinmetz replied since the community plan is ongoing, there needs to be a more thorough analysis of the traffic needs and how it will be accommodated within the region. Though he did not have any specific answer at this time, Mr. Steinmetz ensured those factors are being looked at. Mr. Steinmetz further noted that the multi-modal land transportation plan approved by Council last year encourages mode shift to accommodate growth and traffic by shifting short trips, and commute trips, to transition to bicycle and pedestrian travel. In addition to looking at roadway capacity for cars, they are looking more comprehensively at infrastructure improvements for all types of transportation, not just cars. Mr. Isobe commented the plans presented are terrific, and asked if an economic analysis has been done. Assuming certain amounts of money will be government invested, what are the costs associated with those investments, and the benefits that will be accrued by both the government and the community. For example, if the government is investing a dollar, will there be a dollar' s worth of real property tax revenue increases to off-set these costs, and also allow continued maintenance of the improvements. Ms. Williams stated if Mr. Isobe is referencing a Return on Investment (ROI) summary, a report like that has not been conducted as part of this particular plan; however, that is something that will be examined in the future. Mr. Steinmetz added there have been a lot of general studies that show how intensifying this type of development reduces infrastructure investment, compared to a more traditional sprawl type development, while at the same time increasing property tax revenue per acre by increasing density. Though there has not been specific analysis on this particular plan, there is much evidence from similar plans elsewhere that show a significant return in future revenue versus the county investments. Mr. Isobe stated it would be helpful for the Commission to see those numbers, noting that the plans presented are segments of a larger plan making it difficult to understand the totality of the impacts and its cost benefits. He feels these are excellent plans, but it is important to see whether the community can continue to maintain any improvements. An ROI analysis is critical to show how the improvements will be maintained over the years, and how additional improvements will be funded if necessary. Mr. Katayama commented they need to identify what kind of economic engines they want to encourage in the Lihu` e Town Core plan so planners can institute the proper changes as sprawl, rural use shifts to a more mixed, high-intensified use. This will be helpful in dictating zoning changes, building codes, or infrastructure necessary for the long term vision. In order to plan smarter, there must be an understanding of what is being planned for. Mr. Blake asked how many roundabouts will be in the Lihu`e area to which Mr. Steinmetz replied it' s something they are still working on, but the roundabouts currently in design are for Hardy and Umi Street, and one associated with the Safeway project at Kaneka and Nuhou Street. Other potential locations have been discussed, but no final decision has been made; some of those are on HDOT property, which would come under the State' s jurisdiction. Mr. Blake asked if the State DOT has any preferences for or against any of the roundabouts. Mr. Steinmetz stated the DOT is fine with the roundabouts on the county roads, though there has been some resistance at the Honolulu DOT level to the roundabouts on HDOT property. The Department is still discussing, and working through some of those issues. Mr. Steinmetz further stated that resistance to roundabouts has been a state-wide issue, but noted that he feels they move traffic much better than a signalized intersection, and could alleviate much of the congestion we currently see on our island. Mr. Steinmetz is unclear as to why that has not been the thinking at the State level. Ms Mendonca asked for clarification on the mixed use zoning on Rice Street, noting that there are numerous different types of commercial entities: restaurants, offices, car lots, etc. She asked if there are any plans to narrow down the type of use to make Rice Street more compatible, specifically referencing car lots_ Ms. Williams replied that the car lot use will be phased out, and is no longer allowed under the provisions of the SPA (Special Planning Area) , Ms. Mendonca asked for clarification that based on the plan presented, someone purchasing the property can live upstairs and have a business below to which Ms. Williams replied that is the intent, and the framework for that type of project is already in place. No action was taken on this item. CONSENT CALENDAR Status Reports There were no status reports. Director's Reports for Project(s) Scheduled for Agency Hearing on 4/22/14 Class 1V Zoning Permit Z-IV-2014- 10 to allow after-the-fact improvements that includes the conversion of a garage into an additional dwelling unit and additions to the existing residence, and Variance Permit V-2014-2 to deviate from Section 8-4.3 of the Kauai County Code (1987), as amended, relating to setback requirements within the Residential (R) zoning district, located on property located at the Kealoha Road/Makaha Road intersection in Kapa`a. further identified as Tax Map Key 4-5-001 : 018, and containing a total land area of 7,305 sq. ft. = Lorraine Newman. Shoreline Setback Activity Determination There was no shoreline setback activity determination. On the motion by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Amy Mendonca to receive the consent calendar items, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. EXECUTIVE SESSION (NONE) GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Appointment of Member to Subdivision Committee On the motion by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Angela Anderson to defer the item, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. COMMUNICATION (For Action) (NONE) COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision Subdivision Committee Chair Hartwell Blake read the Subdivision Report into the record. The following Subdivision Extension Request was approved 2-0: S-2013-05 = Kenneth Souza Jr. and Kenneth A. Souza Trust, Proposed 3-lot Subdivision The following Final Subdivision Action was approved 2-0: S-2008-01 = Stanley B. Narramore, Proposed 3-lot Subdivision On the motion by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the Subdivision Committee i ttee report, the motion carried by unamous voice vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action) (NONE) NEW BUSINESS Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)-2014-5, to allow construction of two (2) single-family residences on a parcel located along the makai side of Kaumuali` i Highway in Makaweli, situated approx. % mile west of the Makaweh Post Office facility, further identified as Tax Map Key 1 -7-006 : 012, and containing a total land area of 8.38 acres = Randall Sinclair Weir, Trustee, et aL Staff Planner Jody Galinato read the Director' s report into the record. (On file) Ms. Anderson asked for a description on the issue of public access for this particular lot, noting the report states the neighboring lot must have a 50 foot easement; where would that easement be located. Ms. Galinato pointed out the access area on the map. Ms. Anderson asked if that lateral access was a requirement to which Ms. Galinato explained one of the things they look at in the SMA is to provide public access, and an extension is what is necessary in this application to allow that. Mr. Dahilig noted they would discuss the conditions once the applicant provides his presentation. Max Graham, representing the applicant, stated for clarification that Randy and Gail Weir, Catherine Weir who was present along with her daughter Melissa Kelekoma, and Judy Weir-Cook are the applicants. Randy, Judy and Cathy are siblings, members of the Robinson family, and owners of this particular parcel by way of the Robinson. Mr. Graham provided a detailed overview of the information contained in the Director' s report, using a map of the property as a reference to point out specific details. Mr. Kimura asked if there is a current right-of-way from the highway to the jetty. Mr. Graham replied it is a condition of the Kapalawai project permit, so should that project go forward there will be parking, public facilities, and an improved walkway down to the beach area. However, there is currently no official right-of-way; the Robinson Family Partners have allowed access along that pathway since 1973 . Mr. Kimura asked if the Robinson family can stop that access at any time to which Mr. Graham replied theoretically they could stop it, but his understanding is they have no intention of stopping access. Mr. Kimura stated he would like to guarantee a way for the public to have a right-of-way to the jetty. Mr. Jung stated, looking at the two lot designations, the lot in the proposal is located farther east; the current access that' s being used is on the other adjacent lot. Mr. Kimura stated his concern is even if the applicant' s allow access from their property, there is no guaranteed access from the highway to the property. Mr. Jung replied the Commission attempted to tackle that issue when they imposed the requirements for the Kapalawai project. He acknowledged the concern is that if that project does not get approved there will be no access; however, potential recourse could be taken to try and establish an access. Mr. Isobe asked if it would be proper for this particular application to create an access from the highway to the ocean. Mr. Jung replied if the Commission wants to discuss land acquired by dedication, he would advise going into executive session to discuss when the County can do a "land-grab" through a SMA (Special Management Area) permit. Looking at the declaration of recreational use, HRS allows for land owners to be immune to liability if they voluntarily give up their property for use of the public; in this case the applicant is willing to do this if the permit is approved. In this particular area, the current mauka to makai access goes to the river/stream area where there is a sandy embankment that could be used to walk along the beach access corridor along the rocks to get to the adjacent beach. The area of land that currently has a break in the wall, and a grassy area that goes right around the jetty would be an easier way for the public to get to the beach. Mr. Isobe stated he understands the lateral access, but stated the connection from the highway to the beach is still questionable; what good is that access if you cannot get from the highway to the ocean. Mr. Jung reiterated the Kapalawai project has required access, and if the project does not move forward, they will look at alternative options of discussing with Robinson Family Partners about possible easements from the County; however that is separate from this particular permit. Mr. Isobe asked' if it would be proper to address that access issue in this application by adding a condition that states should the Kapalawai project not go forward, the applicant will create an access on this particular property. Mr. Jung stated to answer that question will require going into executive session because there is a litany of new cases referencing County and State land grabs. Mr. Dahilig added the conditions recommended by the Department are generally based on whether there is a nexus to do some type of exaction for full mauka to makai access. He would also suggest the Commission go into executive session should the Commission wish to discuss this further. Mr. Isobe stated for clarification that the Department has made a determination that this project isn't large enough to do a mauka to makai access to which Mr. Dahilig replied yes. Mr. Graham added that the access requirement is part of the zoning amendment in the General Plan, and he is sure the Robinson Family Partners would not give up the zoning of their property if they had to balance that with giving an easement for access. The permit goes beyond providing access by saying they will also have to provide improved pathway parking facilities. He feels there is very little chance the actual right of the public to access the shoreline across the Kapalawai project will be lost. Mr. Isobe stated all he is asking is whether or not these particular kinds of projects would allow for that significant amount of access, and he feels the Department has answered his question. Ms. Mendonca asked whether the Pakala surf area has an easement access from the highway to the beach. Mr. Kimura stated that is what they are currently discussing; however that particular easement comes from the west side of the property on the other side of the stream. Ms. Mendonca asked how the surfers are currently accessing the beach. Mr. Jung pointed out on the map the route usually taken to access Pakala, noting there is already a, historically used trail. Ms. Mendonca stated for clarification that if the other developers do not go forward, it becomes a questionable access right-of-way to the beach to which Mr. Jung replied yes. Mr. Blake commented that the property owners allowed public access to that beach long before they ever heard of Kapalawai. Ms. Anderson requested to look at whether or not the access is tied to the actual change in zoning. Mr. Dahilig circulated a copy of the original zoning amendment that addresses that condition; it is part of the zoning. Mr. Katayama asked if the CPR is established to which Mr. Graham replied not yet. Mr. Katayama asked to clarify that the applicant will go for a CPR after construction of the two dwellings. Mr. Graham stated if they receive the permit approval, they will submit the declaration for the CPR. Mr. Katayama asked if any members of the trust have any relationship to the Robinson Family, LLC that' s developing Kapalawai. Mr. Graham restated that the three children, who are the applicants, are members of Robinson Family Partners who owns all of what was formerly known as the Gay & Robinson, Inc. lands. Robinson Family Partners owns all the lands, the agriculture lands are leased to G & R, Inc., and there is an arrangement between Robinson Family Partners and the developer of the Kapalawai project for the lease of that property. Ms. Anderson asked if there is agriculture use currently going on at the residential unit that is already constructed to which Mr. Graham replied no, explaining that these three dwellings, which are occupied by members of the Robinson Family Trust, satisfies the definition of what a farm dwelling is because of the farming activity taking place on the 29,000 acres of land being leased by G & R, Inc. from the Robinson Family Trust. However, should the permit be approved, they are proposing to undertake some agricultural activities on the property itself. Ms. Anderson stated as part of the SMA analysis, it would be helpful to have an idea of the proposed agricultural use to assess if there will be issues of concern associated with the use. Mr. Graham stated his understanding is that these details will be resolved at the time of zoning permit approval because the objectives and policies of the SMA do not include agricultural activities. The time to deal with landscaping and view plain issues would be when the building permit is issued. Mr. Katayama asked how granting a special use permit followed by a subsequent CPR of the property affects the farm dwelling status. Mr. Dahilig replied once a CPR happens, the applicant is required to comply with all the submittals and documentation for farm dwelling units on SLUC agriculture designated lands. In addition, they would be required to fill out a farm dwelling agreement, and provide everything necessary for an over-the-counter permit. He noted because the property is entitled to three units based on the density, it would be treated as a normal, over-the-counter permit. Mr. .Katayama rephrased his question, asking how this is different from the applicant just doing a CPR. Mr. Dahilig replied because CPR lines are not recognized by the County as a subdivision of land, the development of more than one dwelling unit triggers the SMA development law. If the applicant had done the CPR first, they would have been required to come in for an SMA permit if they wanted to develop an additional unit on the property. Mr. Dahilig added he thinks the applicant' s choice to do the CPR first is largely based on the siting of the units; should the Commission approve the permit, they will draw the CPR lines between the units. However, whether the CPR happens before or after has no effect from an approval standpoint. Mr. Katayama asked for the TVR status of the existing building to which Mr. Dahilig replied the current TVR status will remain the same, but the two additional units will not have TVR rights because the existing house was grandfathered under the TVR law. (The meeting recessed at 10: 39 a.m.) (The meeting resumed at 11 :02 a.m.) Mr. Katayama asked to clarify that the conditions do not include a requirement for a farm dwelling agreement to which Mr. Dahing replied it was not required because at this point it is purely an SMA analysis. He stated the analysis for a farm dwelling agreement would take place at a Class I/Class II zoning level, further noting the SMA rules outright permit agricultural use, and is not considered development under this law. Mr. Katayama asked whether the State classifies this land as agriculture to which Mr. Graham explained the existing house was built in 1974 before the creation of the State Land Use Commission districts, which is why there is no farm dwelling agreement. The two new homes will require that; however the land itself is categorized as E land; the worst categories of land. Based on the IAL (Important Agricultural Land) analysis, it will not be considered IAL. The applicants will make their best effort though it is very difficult land to use for agriculture purposes. Ms. Anderson asked for clarification on whether the parties could withdraw the declaration for recreational use, and what effect it would have on maintaining the lateral access. Mr. Graham explained the intent of the declaration is that it will be in perpetuity. In addition, he has also prepared a declaration of Covenants Conditions and Restriction that incorporates conditions of approval for the permit, which have the requirement for recreational use. This declaration will run with the land, and states that the County conditions of approval cannot be amended without the County' s consent. On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the special management area use permit, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. To consider the adoption of an additional chanter to the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Kauai Planning Commission relating to the Commission' s personnel management of the Planning Director, including selection, hire, evaluation and dismissal. Mr. Jung noted upon further review of the Rules, he noticed a small typo procedurally with regard to how they operate under Sunshine Law. He is requesting a clarification amendment to Exhibit 2 Section I. Step 2. (a) 1 . He explained that a PIG (Permitted Interaction Group) must be less than quorum. This Commission requires a quorum of four, so any more than three members would not be allowed on a PIG. Also, having only two members would not allow for a tie-break scenario. Where it states a minimum of three, he proposed striking the word "minimum". This amendment will not affect the rules itself, but would clarify the implementing procedures behind the rules. On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the clarification amendment, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. On the motion by Wayne Katayama and seconded by John Isobe to adopt an additional chapter to the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Kauai Planning Commission, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Blake acknowledged former Commissioner Herman Texeira's contribution to the work done by the select committee on these amendments. ANNOUNCEMENTS Topics for Future Meetings Mr. Dahilig provided a heads-up to the Commission on several items of note that will be appearing on future agendas: Cell phone towers Contested Case hearing Variance application for public hearing Mr. Blake requested a map showing all the currently existing cell phone towers as well as possible future tower locations. Mr. Dahilig stated the Department will provide that at the next meeting. Mr. Isobe stated it is his understanding there are limitations on the Commission for denying cell phone tower requests. He requested the staff report make clear the Commission' s limitations on authority so that the public is well aware of what the Commission can take into consideration as a basis for denial. A previously noted public concern regarding health and safety cannot be considered by this Commission as a basis for denial. Mr. Kimura requested an update on a specific contested case involving a cell phone tower in Kilauea. Mr. Blake noted the Commission had also previously requested a map of existing permitted interior helicopter landing spots; he would like to see that as well. The following scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter at the Llhu`e Civic Center, Mo` ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A-2B, 4444 Rice Street, Lihu`e, Kauai, Hawaii 96766 on Tuesday, April 22, 20140 ADJOURNMENT Chair Kimura adjourned the meeting at 11 : 19 a.m. Respectfully submitted by_ Cherisse Zaima Commission Support Clerk ( } Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval). ( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting.