Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc 11-12-14 minutes KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 12, 2014 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by Chair Jan Kimura at 9:09 a.m., at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in Meeting Room 2A/2B. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Jan Kimura Vice Chair Angela Anderson W. John Isobe Mr: Wayne Katayama ' Mr. Sean Mahoney Absent and Excused: Mr. Hartwell Blake Ms. Amy Mendonca The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Michael Dahilig, Leslie ' Takasaki, Ka' aina Hull, Kenneth Estes, Leanora Kaiaokamaile, Dale Cua; Office of Boards and Commissions — Cherisse. Zaima; Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung Guests: Mayor Bernard P. .Carvalho, Jr. CALL TO ORDER . . ... Chair Kimura called the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m. Chair Kimura suspended the rules to welcome Mayor Bernard Carvalho, Jr. to say a few words. Mayor Carvalho thanked' the members `of the Planning Commission for all they d% and expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to share the message he. had relayed to all Department Heads and Deputies in looking internally to plan. for the next four. years. He 'asked them to think about ways to be more efficient both internally and externally, and tasked each ' Department Head to look at the following four areas: I . How to improve service to the internal and external customer; how to be more responsive to co-workers, and the public as we mold our Administrative team. 2. Improve operational efficiency; and effectiveness; do it fasten and better, though we cannot be perfect we can get better every day. 31 Reduce personnel'costs; this did not mean`eliminating positions; but looking at alternatives such as consolidating, transferring, sharing fumctions between divisions. He acknowledged that many departments are working collaboratively to get the job done; freezing, downgrading vacant positions. Mayor Carvalho stated for example the Office of Boards and Commissions Administrator Paula Morikami has done an excellent job with her team in keeping the Administration informed, and kept abreast. every step of the way. Her leadership, along with her team members, has taken the Boards and Commissions' operations to a different level: However, one of the positions in that office will be eliminated, which required them to look at ways to consolidate, share responsibilities, and moving. people around in a more efficient and effective way to get things done. That is just one example of the transition that is currently taking place. 4. Recommendations must be realistic, and achievable, and legally permissible and acceptable to the unions. Mayor Carvalho stated he really wants the Department Heads and Deputies to hone in on their operations, and how they can manage their team in a more efficient way, and seeing what resources are available, and what can be brought it to make it better for the people we serve both internally and externally to move projects through in away that will really benefit the community. He noted that a team of internal staff members have worked together to come up with our mission and value statement, which he is ,encouraging everyone to follow through with. He feels we are on the right track with the right people. Mr. Isobe thanked Mayor Carvalho for the presentation, and asked for a copy of the four points just made. Mr. Isobe noted he heard on the radio. that the Salary Commission is considering increasing the salaries for the elected officials as well as the Department Heads, which he thinks is long overdue. He is assuming the evaluation process, is. still in place for these appointed official, and is assum appoiing the Mayor will be doing h s'part in evaluating these Department Heads, noting the Commission has a responsibility,to evaluate the Planning Director. Mr. Isobe feels those four points made on what the Mayor feels the Departments should be doing in improving customer service, effectiveness, and efficiency should be. embedded in the evaluation process, and wanted to reiterate the Planning Commission has a responsibility to ensure those things are carried forward. He asked to clarify whether it is the Mayor' s desire for the Commission to evaluate the Planning Director along those similar lines that the Mayor will be evaluating other Department Heads. Mayor Carvalho stated that is exactly right, which is why he is sharing those points with .all Commissions. He noted: as Mayor he 'is responsible for the daily:operations of the County, and he takes that very seriously.._ In turn, he will hold the Department Heads responsible, and is hoping the Commission can incorporate some of the things he has: brought up, Every Commission will be getting the same page to ensure everyone is on the same page, knowing it is , coming directly from the Mayor to the leadership team. Mr. Isobe asked to clarify that part of it would be the Commission looking at ways to reduce costs. within the Department to which Mayor Carvalho replied yes. Mr. Dahilig introduced the Planning Department' s new SMA Planner, Jackie Alvarez. Martinez, who will be handling many of the: SMA matters, is,trained by Jody Galinato and Dale Cua, and "I be supporting the regulatory team. ROLL CALL Planning Director Michael Dahilig: noted there were five commissioners present. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Dahilig recommended due to time constraints that the action and hearing on Item F.2, be handled toward the beginning of the agenda, followed by the Supplemental Agenda Item J. 1 ., and them move through the rest of the agenda as set. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to approve the agenda as amended, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Meeting of October 14, 2014 On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to-approve the minutes of the October 14, 2014 meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD Mr. Dahilig noted the following written items submitted for the record: • Testimony dated 11/10/14 firm Randy Francisco; Chamber of Commerce, in support of the MNS dba ABC Stores application • Testimony dated 11/11/14 from the Koloa Community Association in support of the MNS dba ABC Stores application • Testimony dated; 11/04/14 from Shioi Construction in support of the MNS dba ABC Stores application On the motion by Scan Mahoney and seconded by. Wayne Katayama to receive items for the record, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT New Agency Hearing. Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2015-5 and Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(Q-2015-3 to develop a commercial facility consisting of a retail store approx. 213 8 8 sg . ft., a restaurant, -a gasoline dispensing area and 112 off=street parking stalls on aparcel situated along the mauka side of Ala 'Kalanikaumak'a in Kukui`ula at its intersection with Po` itiu Road in the vicinity of the roundabout further identified' as Tax Map Ke;Vs 24-015 _009`&'2-6=004: — - 034, and affecting a rox. 2.678 acres of a lar er parcel = MNS Ltd , ABC Stores. LDirector's Report received -10/28/14.1 Mr. Dahilig noted there are three written testimonies received that will be included as part of the agency hearing for this item. The Commission received testimony from Bryan Miyake who is the owner of the property between Kukui`ula store and the subject property, and is: opposed to the rezoning as written. He is opposed to the filling station portion for the followin _reasons 1 . The obvious environmental effects. The ground a lot of lava tubes, and he is concerned it will affect the ground water. 2. When the area was originally rezoned for commercial use,:it was granted based on a low impact occupancy, and was allowed only one driveway to be shared by two parcels: Mr. Miyake's parcel, and the. subject parcel. He is asking the Planning Commission.to go back and look at the original zoning to see that there is a driveway access that: needs to be initiated to allow his piece to have a driveway. Mr. Kimura asked for clarification on Mr. Miyake' s second point about'the driveway. Mr. Miyake explained the original zoning, which included the subject property as well as the Yoman piece, and his own piece together applying for rezoning from residential to commercial, allowed for only one driveway to be shared.by all three parcels. The .current plan does not follow the original rezoning of that parcel. Mr. Dahilig stated the Department is prepared to respond with why they believe the application is in compliance with the zoning amendment recently passed. Mr. Miyake asked if the driveway will be more towards the roundabout, would they be allowed to have their driveway mauka of that to which Chair Kimura replied they will have to discuss that later. Mr. Dahilig reiterated when the Commission gets to the discussion portion, the Department is prepared to address that, they are aware of it. The Commission. received testimony from Louie. Abrams, President of the Koloa . Community Association, noting written testimony has been submitted to the Commission. He explained the process they went through with the applicant with regard to the project, which started in January of 2013 . The applicants received a bunch of feedback from the, Board.and the community, and returned with a revised plan that addressed many of their concerns; -the location of the gas station and two of the buildings have been moved based on concerns raised. In addition they acquired an additional lot next door to allow them to better site what they wished to do. All those measures were very encouraging to the Board, and they are giving the applicant their support. He noted the siting of the building on the street frontage will be done as in a ` typical historic town, which is supported in other parts of the General Plan, and other areas in KoIoa. The Commission received testimony from Melinda Yomen who lives right next to the project, .and provided Mr. Hull with the original rezoning application that they got when they. : rezoned their property, which is adjacent to this property. As Mr. Miyake stated, a common driveway was approved by the Planning Commission and the County Council as an Ordinance. When she viewed the plans for this project, it did not address that common driveway that is supposed to enter into their property as well. The applicant's proposed driveway is closer to the roundabout, and is not: entering into her property as it is supposed: to do. Additionally, she is opposed to the gas station that is right behind her house, which will create a lot of noise where a lot of noise already exists because of the shops at Kukui`ula. The noise starts at 6:30 in the morning when a leaf blower is going every morning, seven days a week. When she found out that the gas station will be open from 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. she became concerned about the noise generated during those hours. Ms. Yoman commented on the lava tubes that are located all through Po` ipu, noting that environmental aspect must be considered, and feels that a gas station is not needed in Koloa as there is already one in Koloa. A'gas station does not belong next to a residence as it creates fumes, noise, and security issues; they put up with a lot of things that go on late at night in that area, often needing to call the police. The -applicants are not aware of those things because they do not live there: ` She hopes they will not approve the gas station because it does not belong in a neighborhood next to residences. Ms. Yoman commented on the driveway issue, and asked if the Commission does approve this project that the applicant consider possibly putting up a wall to prevent the residents from having to deal with the noise, and security issues. The Commission received testimony from Ted Blake on behalf of the concerned citizens of K61oa, and Malama Koloa. He stated they met with the developers a little over a year ago when the development was first proposed, and had quite a number of comments and suggestions. The next time they met with them,- most of those comments and suggestions were incorporated into their plan. There are three things Malama Koloa looks for in the development of Koloa: Sensible, sensitive, and enhancing the quality of life. The developers have hit each of those points square on the head. They look to this developer as setting the standard for others, and they have been very cooperative in coming to the community to find out what they were concerned with, and tried to address that. His group totally supports this effort. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to close the agency hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote, Continued Public Hearin ZA-2015-2: A proposed ordinance to adopt the Llhu`e Community Plan Update and amend Chanter 10; Article 5 or the Kauai County Code which sets ',forth policies and recommendations for each of the three maior communities in the Lihu`e (L3hu` e,_ Puhi and Hanama`ulu) as well as to identify potential special planning areas for the Lthu`e District County ofKaua`i:PlanntUgDepartment. [Director' s Renort.receivedand hearing continued 10/14/14 Supplemental No. 1 Director' s Report received 10/28/14. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to close the public hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote, New Public Hearing"(None) CONSENT CALENDAR Status Reports (None) Director's Reports for Proiect s Scheduled for Agency. Hearing on 11 /25/14 Class. IV Zoniniz Permit Z-IV-2015-7 and Project Development Use Permit PDU-2015_6 to convert an existing warehouse into a general commercial/retail facilfty with 46 off-street arkin stalls on a Rarcel located along the western side of Koloa Road in Lawa`i situated approx. 500 ft. west of its intersection with Lauoho Road; further identified as 3540 Koloa Road or Tax May Key 2-5-004: 0067, and containing a total area of 35,152 sg. ft._= Tv E. & Ariana . M. Owen - Mr. Dahilig noted for the record Deputy County Attorney Jung will be recusing himself from this matter, and substitute counsel given at this hearing. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to accept the Consent Calendar; the motion . carried by unanimous voice vote. NEW BUSINESS (For action) Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2015-5 and Special Management Area Use Permit SMA -2015-3 to develo p a commercial facili1y consisting of a retail store approx. 213 8 8 sq. . ft. a restaurant a gasoline dis ensin area, and :112 off-street J24 rk u stalls on a varcel situated along the mauka side of Ala Kalanikaumaka in Kukui`ula at its intersection with Po`ipu Road in the vicinity of the roundabout further identified as Tax Map Keys 2-6-015 . 009 & 2-6-004• 034, and affecting anprox. 2.678 acres of a larger parcel MNS. L_ a. dba ABC Stores [Director's Report received 10/28/14.1, Staff Planner Ka' aina Hull read a`summaryof the Director's. Report into the record. (On file) Based on comments made during public .testimony. regarding the General Plan, Mr. Hull stated for clarification that the Department would recommend that the applicant consider using street frontage of the siting of the building to the roundabout as opposed to justPo` ipti Road, the reason,being; the General Plan_ specifically_ states: Buildings built up to the property line;with entrances directly from .the public sidewalk as well as a variety of small store fronts along the sidewalk creating an interestingpedestrian experience are necessary in creating a historic as well as vital commercial town core area. In addition to that the Public Works Department has a long litany of recommendations they are requesting the Planning Commission impose upon any consideration of approval in order to address safety concerns in and around the area. Mr. Katayama stated the Department of Water also had a list of items, and asked how that is being addressed. Mr. Hull explained the way agency comments are now handled, and stated though the Planning Department will take those DOW comments for the record, the actual conditions will be. worked out during the building permit approval process with the respective departments that have the authority to sign off on the building permit: He pointed out that in this case, DOW's Deputy Director specifically requested their conditions be included in the Zoning ' Permit application because some of the DOW's requirements were not specific of the rules and regulations Public Works has under the Kauai County Code, but were necessary to ensure the safety of the ingress and egress on the respective roads around the property. Mr. Katayama.' commented*it-becomes an issue for the Commission to consider how much transparency they require: ; Mr. Kimura asked for explanation on the right-of-way to the property. Mr. Hull explained the parcel currently before the Commission is actually comprised of two lots of record; two lots of record under single ownership constitutes a single parcel. The lot of record on which the retail store is being proposed, as well as two other adjacent lots of record were rezoned about six years ago from residential to neighborhood commercial. In that rezoning,package; the Commission under comments derived from Public Works and the County Council mandated any commercial 'development of the three lots of record must be done with a single driveway accessing the' site. There' s no proposal in this application for that single driveway. The reason the Department in conjunction with the County:Attorriey' s office found this application to be in compliance is,because technically the lot containing the access is a separate lot that did not come under that rezoning application. He pointed out the parking lot itself is a separate lot; and that is how the store is being accessed; it is in conformance with the original zoning amendment of the other separate lot; Mr. Kimura stated for clarification that ABC Stores has its entrance right near the roundabout, and asked if they will still be allowed access to the new driveway wherever the other two property owners decide to put the driveway in. Mr. Hull explained if the other property owners want to give an easement all the way over to the ABC Store they can then still use it; and it would function as a single driveway:' He further explained that the other two property owners currently have a .driveway;-ABC stores technically do not have a driveway access in conjunction : with the two other lots. - Mr. Dahilig further clarified that the area constituting the parking lot and the proposed gas station was already zoned commercial, and by right is entitled to have its own access ingress and egress either to Koloa Road or Ala Kalanikaumaka, which is What is currently inexistence. The parcel in question with the owner-initiated "zoning amendment had a condition that three parcels subject to the Council action were only supposed to have one driveway access: There still remains' only-one driveway affecting those three lots of record; and because of ingress/egress issues,-they had to evaluate whether an additional driveway was .being constructed*in violation of that zoning amendment. He reiterated that those three parcels of record still only have one driveway in conformance with the zoning amendment. Ms. Anderson referenced the parking lot where the proposed gas station is, and asked if that lot was: neighborhood commercial as well to which Mr. Hull replied yes. She stated it is her understanding that is low impact commercial, ' and asked whether there were restrictions or specifications on what constitutes neighborhood commercial. Mr. Hull stated there are specific uses, but the gas station is an outright permitted use under the County Code. Mr. Dahilig pointed out that the permits currently before the. Commission are a Class N Zoning and SMA permit, not a Use permit, therefore, they, cannot prohibit a use if it is outright permitted under County Code. However, they can impose mitigative conditions. Referencing the driveway, Mr. Isobe, asked given.that the current applicant has an existing driveway via another, lot, if and when the two other owners decide to develop their properties, must.they give consideration to ABC Stores in terms of placement of the driveway, or can they determine that without ABC being involved; can ABC demand access via the shared driveway, or are they now out of that old condition. Mr. Hull stated should the two other property owners maintain_the driveway they have now, nothing will change,;and they couldn't prohibit ABC from.using that single access driveway. However, .should.the other two-owners come in with a use proposal to change the driveway, it becomes an interesting legal question of whether or not they still must provide. access to all three lots, which would include ABC,, despite the fact they have access via another lot. Attorney Jung stated he does .not- have the ZA before him, .butwhen the evaluation was done, they only looked into the parking lot parcel being its own lot of record that would be allowed its own access. He would have to look at the specific . condition that stated the requirements for the three lots, and see what types of requirements .were there regarding the shared access. At the end of the day, each lot would have access; but it's a question of whether or not they would all agree to the location,. which may be identified in the ZA, but if it's. not, they would have to work it out. . Mr. Isobe stated looking at the comments from Public Works on the traffic; there's a possibility that ABC stores can now have two access points, which .would potentially change the traffic pattern as he assumes only one access point is currently being considered by Public Works. He is. trying, to gain an understanding of how Public Works comments have anticipated the possibility, that this development may have two points of access in the future.! Attorney Jung stated realistically he does not see that lot having a functional access because of the setback. requirements, and the way they have sited their structure on that lot, which would prohibit access anyway as they are. built right up to the ten foot northerly access boundary line. Attorney Jung stated the Commission could ask the applicant whether or not they would be willing to restrict access to that lot. Mr. Kimura asked if they could request the applicant give up their right to that access to which Attorney Jung state. d:they could ask. Mr. Isobe asked for clarification that as part of this Class IV Zoning. permit,-the applicant can say theydo, not anticipate, nor do .they want access via the shared driveway, and such ' condition: would override the ordinance. Attorney Jung stated .the condition wouldn't override the ordinance, but would be supplementary to the ordinance. The ordinance mandates one access to the three TMKs, should a condition for a Class IV, permit on a larger project on one of those TMKs state;the access point should not be on that particular TMK the other two TMKs can decide where that access will be. Mr. Isobe asked whether the Commission can impose mitigating conditions to which Attorney Jung stated yes. Mr. Katayama asked what interpretation of the rule is for protecting the other two lot . owners on this one driveway. Attorney Jung explained.because the' .are before the Commission on a proposal that has been approved by the Engineering Division to. have the access off the parking lot, the Commission could impose a condition that restricts access off the third TMK through the northwesterly boundary line. However that would be a question for the applicant, noting their proposed structure is on that lot, and by the looks of the plans will predominantly cover the whole lot area outside the setbacks. Attorney Jung does not foresee any particular access going in there. Mr. Katayama 'asked if the other two lot owners decide to' improve their lots, how is their one driveway access being protected? Attorney Jung stated that would need to be worked out between the two other lot owners should access be restricted to the third lot owner. Mr. Dahilig asked in anticipation of the development of a condition concerning ingress/egress to this third party, whether it is the Commission' s inclination to ask the applicant if they would be willing to forfeit any interference in negotiating and siting any access to Koloa Road should the other two lot owners choose to intensify use on their property. Mr. Katayama stated his first choice would be not to encumber the current applicant if they could protect the remaining lots with proper access. (The meeting recessed at 10:02 a.m.) (The meeting reconvened at 10: 14 a.m.) Milton Arakawa of Wilson Okamoto Corporation, who is one of the consultants to ABC Stores introduced the following people involved in this project: Paul Kosasa, President ABC; Grant Sumile Architect; Leeann Nakaishi and Ella Garcia — ADM Retail and Architecture; Terrence Arashiro, Traffic Consultant -- Austin, Tsutsumi, and Associates. Mr. Arakawa presented a Powerpoint slideshow of the proposal. (On file) Ms. Anderson referenced the property layouts, and asked to clarify whether they have included a wall, or if they will be putting a wall between the adjacent property on the rear side where the gas station will be located. Mr. Arakawa stated there are current plans to install a six foot wall along that property liner If the Commission wishes to include a condition to that effect, the applicant is happy to comply: Ms. Anderson asked what material will be used for the wall to which Mr. Arakawa replied they are looking at a CMU wall. Ms. Anderson would like to include that as a condition. Mr. Katayama commented that wouldn't predicate how to resolve the access issue. He agreed that some kind of buffering would be appropriate. Mr. Katayama asked whether ABC has developed other projects like this. Mi. Arakawa replied yes, noting that there is another project-in Waikoloa similar to Island County Marketplace, and a project`on Maui in Kapalua in which an existing store was renovated, but is similar in concept. Mr.' Katayamaasked if ABC will be the operator of all activities presented in, the application to which Mr. Arakawa replied' yes. Mr. Isobe referenced the discussion about the ingress/egress, and asked if the applicant has any objection to not involving this particular project in the single driveway issue. Mr. Arakawa stated they are happy to work with Public Works on the driveway that is shown in the plans. They do not anticipate asking for any more driveway accesses on Po`ipu Road, and do not see themselves affecting anything the neighboring parcels would do with their access. They will need to work with Public Works on where their .access will be, and do not anticipate anything that will access the ABC project. Mr. Isobe stated ABC ,does not really need that shared driveway to which Mr. Arakawa stated no, they are not looking to have another driveway. Mr. Hull stated should the Commission entertain approval of the application concerning the ingress/egress off of Po` ipu Road, the Department would recommend the following . condition: With regards to parcel 34, should the primary structure be sited on Parcel 034, the applicant shall not: claim any right to a driveway pursuant to Condition 3 ofPN-2009-389. Further, pursuant to the applicant 's agreement, the applicant shall not contest the location of the single driveway location onto Po `ipu Road for parcels ,4 and 59. Mr. Arakawa stated the applicant concurs. W. Hull explained for clarification that the condition just read ultimately states that the ABC owners waive any right to the access mandated under the Zoning. Amendment. Though the ordinance mandates the three parcels must share one access, the applicant is waiving their rights to that single access. That single access is to be determined by the remaining two property owners. Ms. Yoman pointed out the zoning amendment from 2009 to which Chair Kimura stated this condition will change it, Ms. Yoman stated she. knows, but asked for clarification that ABC Stores will not contest where they put their driveway, even.thoughthe ordinance is still valid. Mr. Kimura reiterated that yes, the applicant waived their right to it. Ms. Yoman then asked if they can put the driveway anywhere, even on ABC' s property to which Mr. Kimura stated no, it has to be on their own property, which is something they' ll need to work out with Public Works. They still have that one access into the property,. but the remaining two owners will have; to agree where they want it. Mr. Dahilig clarified that the front of the flag lot will still be entitled to access, and ABC will not lay claim to using that access, or contesting where that access will:be put. . Mr. Dahilig stated the Department will incorporate the proposed condition as part of their. recommended conditions. Mr. Hull read the proposed Condition 12 for the wall into the record: The applicant shall install a six foot high wall between parcel 34 and parcels 4 and 59. Mr. Kimura asked what material would be used for the wall as it needs to b.e something solid. Mr. Dahilig stated the characterization of things that are impervious and solid as opposed to a chain link fence allow much more flexibility than specifying a specific type of material such as concrete masonry. Mr. Kimura noted that in the past the Commission has asked for a wall, and the result was a green wall of trees. Mr. Hull noted for the record that the Commission desires a solid wall, and will work with.the applicant to ensure one is installed:. Mr. Isobe moved to approve the permit applications, including the two new conditions, one relating to the wall, and the other relating to ABC's waiver of the use of the shared driveway access. Mr. Mahoney seconded the motion. Ms. Anderson stated she would like to request an amendment to the hours of operation for the gas station from its originally proposed timeframe of 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Mr. Kimura stated he starts work early, and though he is not saying it is right for the neighbors, he appreciates that there are service stations open at 6:00 a.m. Ms. Anderson asked whether the gas station hours are the same for the retail stores to which Mr. Arakawa replied yes, explaining that the two are connected because if someone wanted to pay cash for their gas, they would have to pay the cashier in the store. Mr. Katayama stated he hopes the buffering would ease much of those issues, and if the applicant is required to erect. a wall, it should give them the flexibility of operating at whatever hours they choose. Based on testimony about residences in the area and security issues, Ms. Anderson would like to see a limit on the timeframe for the gas station, and suggested a closing time of 8:00 p.m., noting that the gas station in Kilauea closes at 8 :00. Mr. Kimura commented that in his experience, ,that is too early to close, and feels 10 :00 is reasonable. Mr. Kimura asked what time the other businesses in that area stay open until to which members of the'public commented 9:00, restaurants included. Ms. Anderson stated she feels having that time limit would help address some of the security issue, but she is willing to amend it to 9:30 p.m. to allow patrons of nearby businesses to fill up their gas on the way home after a restaurant has closed. Mr. Dahilig suggested the Commission ask the adjacent land owners what time they feel would be acceptable for the gas station to close. (The meeting recessed at 10:53 a.m.) (The meeting reconvened at 11 :04 a.m.) Mr. Dahilig suggested the Commission ask the applicant if there is any objection to limiting the hours of operation for the gas station, and what their suggestions are. Mr. Arakawa stated upon discussion with the owner, they are willing to limit the hours for the gas canopy itself to 9:30 p.m. Looking at operations` at their other outlets; it tends to °slow down laterr at night. It is an impact to the business, but not a large impact, noting if it a problem for the neighbors, they are willing to 'set the limitation to 9:30 p.m. Mr. Hull read the condition into the record: While the retail restaurant operation may operate as-represented from 6:00 a.m, to 11: 00 p. m., seven days a week, the fueling service station shall not 'operate later than 9:30 p.m. Attorney Jung informed. the Commission that because a motion and second have already been made, if this condition is imposed, they must make a motion to amend the original motion to include the additional condition. Mr. Arakawa pointed out that the property next door is zoned neighborhood commercial, and in the event they do change to. commercial use, would it be possible for this condition to be automatically deleted. Attorney Jung explained there is a procedure under the rules to allow for modification. of conditions, so that is always an option. However, they have never tried to build it in to the permit process before. Mr. Dahilig stated that should a motion be made to amend the original motion to include the addition of the condition to limit hours of operation, he would suggest it should reflect the intent for the record that the applicant may come in to request modification of the permit should the adjacent land owner be granted commercial use. Mr. Arakawa agreed to that. Mr. Isobe stated for clarification that they cannot impose a condition that would automatically eliminate the time restriction, and the applicant would have to come back before the Commission. Mr. Hull added another reason it may not be advisable to automatically trigger the removal of a condition is because at this time neither the Commission nor the Department knows what type of commercial operation would go into the adjacent.properties. There may be commercial operations that may have to come before this body for a Use permit, and the Department may potentially impose restrictions on hours of operation to a lower level, while at the same time automatically moving this project to a higher level. Ms. Anderson stated her concerns regarding the time frame have to do with the residential use, the plans for this 'area to be a mixed use area, and trying to find a balance between the two Attorney Jung stated if the impact is to residential use, which you are trying to mitigate, theoretically a condition could be installed to state should the residential use on whatever parcel cease, and a new commercial use come in, that condition will be alleviated. However, it could also be done the other way where the applicant can come in and request that depending on the type of commercial operation that may be coming in the future. Mr. Isobe stated he has no objections to the limitations because of the conflicts that currently exist with the residential use, he is just concerned.that as the applicant. stated, the area is designated and planned for neighborhood and commercial use. What they are.going to :be doing is telling the .applicant, who has already agreed to waive their. right to the driveway, and agreed to a sound barrier wall, now has to jump through another hoop to ask for the removal of a condition that is being imposed because of the residential use, even though the County has already recognized this area for neighborhood commercial use. . He is trying to eliminate the need for. the applicant to have to. jump through this additional hoop. The reason for his.question is the only reason he would agree to limiting the hours. of operation is because of the. existing residential use; if that use goes away, he does not believe the applicant should have to come back and go through the process again, which requires time and cost that he does not feel is necessarily needed, or fair. He would like to allow the applicant to extend the hours until 11 :00 if the conflicting use goes away. Mr. : Hull stated the issues with this area that would make that ambiguous, and difficult to implement is the intent for this area to be mixed use, which would have both residential and commercial. Mr. Isobe asked what if they said if the proposed uses of the surrounding properties were non=residential uses the condition would be lifted or eliminated. In that case, they should be allowed to operate as. a commercial use. Mr. Arakawa stated in the interest of trying to come to a resolution, the applicant is happy to just comply with the latest draft of the conditions. Mr. Katayama commented that he is of the same philosophy of Mr. Isobe in that the applicant is in a zoned commercial property, which went through a ZA, and we've asked the applicant to buffer the residents of the adjoining lots, and now we are asking them to limit their ability to operate their business as they see fit. He is very conflicted about that, but to move the process along, and get some resolution, he is willing to vote in favor of it. However, if there were any push back by the applicant, he would support that. He noted as we move into the Complete Streets concept, they are going to face this time and again, and feels as part of the vision for their community they must provide the proper framework for their commercial activity to support the kinds of economy we need. Mr. Kimura suggested they take back the motion to amend and the second; and state that if there is ever a time that the adjoining property is no longer residential, and it becomes commercial, that will eliminate Condition 13 . Mr. Katayama stated if the applicant is willing to accept the condition, he is willing to support the motion. However, philosophically he has an issue with it' Mr. Isobe agreed, but given the fact that the applicant is agreeable, he does not have a problem voting for the motion as it stands. On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Wayne Katayama to amend the current motion to include a limitation on the hours of operatiou, of the gas canopy until. 9:30 p.m., the motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. On the motion by Sohn Isobe and seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve the Class IV and SMA permit as`amended, the motion' `carried by unanimous roll call vote. COMMUNICATION (For Action) Letter to Jan Kimura: Chairperson, dated November 5, 2014, from the Department of Public Works: Engineering Division; requestine a modification to Conditions l a and b of Class IV: Zoning Permit ZJV-2009-7 Zoning Permit (Hokulei Village)„regarding off-site improvements to several cross-walks on Nuhou and Kaneka Streets Letter to Jan Kimura, Chairperson dated November 6 2014 from Laurel Loo Esq ., representative of Hokulei Village, indicating it has no opposition to the request for modification to Conditions 1 . a, and b. of Class 1V Zoning Permit Z-1V-2009-7 Hokulei Village) re ardin off-site improvements to several cross-walks on_Nuhou and Kaneka Streets Deputy County Engineer Lyle Tabata, and Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi- Sayegusa were present. Mr. Dahilig asked Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa if it were her opinion that the submittal given by the Public Works Department, as well as the concurrence of Ms. Loo indicating no opposition is in conformance with the Rules of Practice and Procedure of Chapter 12 of this Commission. Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa replied when this issue initially came up it :was a joint request by the applicant, and Public Works to make this change, It' s more to delete the conditions; they will not be adding to any of the conditions or the entitlement that was already done back in 2008 , Based on more recent studies and analyses that roadway warning lights were not as effective as previouslythought as well as recent .issues regarding maintenance since then, it was a joint request pursuant to Chapter 12 of the rules to take care of that condition. As she understands, a Condition 13 was imposed to Safeway' s zoning permit that allows: the Planning Commission to delete,conditions to mitigate unforeseen impacts the project may create: . Under that condition, they feel they are in conformance to that, and there is good reason to takeaway that condition. . :Laurel Loo, attorney. for the applicant was present. Ms. Loo stated for.clarification that the lighting has already been purchased and received, and they are ready to install it when . construction reaches that point shortly, However it is up to the Commission, and they have no objection to the request. On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded., by. Scan Mahoney to approve the request. for amendment to the Class IV Zoning permit, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote, GENERAL BUS2 ESS MATTERS Zoning Amendment ZA-2014-6,, Amendments to Chanter 8 of the Kauai County Code 1987, as amended, relating to the incorporation of non-zoned lands into the County of Kaua` i Agriculture Zoning District. These amendments identify lands not currently zoned by the County of Kaua` i and re-desi ate them within the Awiculture Zoning District = Coun o Kaua `i. Hearing closed, PC action: recommendation to Council that subject lands be zoned to agriculture 5/27/14. 1 - Mr.. Dahilig noted this matter was sent up to Council; however, as part of the approval, the Department needed to submit new zoning maps, This action does;not require an additional public hearing, but requires an amendment to the transmittal that goes to Council relating the incorporation of the maps. Staff Planner Estes read his evaluation of the Director's report into the record. (On file) On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to approve the amendments, the motion carried; by unanimous voice vote, CONSENT CALENDAR Status Reports 2013 Annual Status Report for Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U)-2006-5 Project Development Use `Permit PDU-2006-7 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-1V-2006-10_ Tax Man Key 4-3 -007: 027, Waipouli, Kauai = Coconut Plantation Owners, LLC (formerly Coconut Plantation Holdinw, LLC) Director's Report(s) for Projects Scheduled for Agency Hearim on 11 /12/14 Class IV Zoning _Permit Z-IV-2015-5 and Special Management Area Use Permit SMA -2015-3 to develop a commercial facility consisting of a retail store a ' rox: 21388 s . ft. , a restaurant, a gasoline dispensing area, and 112 off-street parking stalls on a parcel situated along the mauka side of Ala Kalanikaumaka in KukuPula, at its intersection with Po` ipu Road in the vicinity of the roundabout, further identified as Tax Map Keys 2-6.015: 009 & 2-6-004 . 034; and affectiM-qyyrox. 2.678 acres of a lar er mcel = MNS Ltd dba ABC Stores. The Commission received testimony from Rayne Regush regarding Item G. La. Coconut Plantation: She noted that in looking at the Director' s report, she asked whether that report could include the date of when the clock started for the SMA permit. Even though the permit was granted in 2007, and litigation concluded in June 2010, she feels it is important to ensure everyone knows the date of when the clock starts: She feels this is helpful and appropriate to explain if the project is meeting its SMA conditions along with HRS 205x. She noted that it states once the permits are issued substantial progress as determined by the Director must commence within two years, or the permit shall be deemed to have lapsed, or no longer be in effect. She feels this information she is sharing is important; and would like to see it reflected in the Director's report. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the Consent Calendar, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. COMMITTEE REPORTS {None) NEW BUSINESS ZA-2015-2: A proposed ordinance to adopt the Lmu` e Community Plan Update and amend Chapter 10, Article 5 or the Kaua` i County. Code which sets forth policies and recommendations for each of the three ma or communities in the Lihu`e L4hu` e Puhi and Hanama`ulu as well as to identify potential special planning areas for the Lihu` e District. County ofKaua `f Planning Deaartrnent (Director' s Report received and hearing continued 10/14/14 Supplemental Na I Director' s Report received 10/28/14. Staff Planner Leanora Kaiaokamaile along with Cheryl Soon of SS1i M International provided an overview of further refinements and amendments to the plan. Ms. Kaiaokamaile read the highlights of the Supplemental report into the record, and distributed pages of the plan that contain changes, refinements, or amendments. (On file) Mr. Isobe thanked Ms. Kaiaokamaile and Ms. Soon for the work they put into the plan, noting it is excellent,. and very well done. He commented on the urban edge boundaries, noting one of the things he would like to ensure in the plan is that the whole notion of an urban edge boundary is noted, and highlighted as something the County should do. The reason being is it pictorially illustrates. what is being contemplated in the current, and future planning area of Lihu` e. It also clearly shows where the focus should be in terms of urban. development of the Lmu`e area, which will help guide future commissions, future councils, and future developers as to how growth should happen in. this region. This :will provide a better. understanding of.what the County is contemplating in terms of how the area. should grow in the future. He understands it is a new concept, but noted the Lil►u`e Community Plarr, provides_the perfect area to begin the discussions in this process considering there are. limited: landowners at this point,; which will encourage fruitful, fulfilling discussions. Mr: Isobe noted two more points about the urban edge boundary; .. . 1 . Have the County begin to look at the real property implications where properties that fall within the urban edge boundaries,, he believes, should be of higher value because they are recognizing it for future development. Those areas: outside of the urban edge boundary should:be given relief because they are being "slated for longer term consideration in terms of development. 2. The properties that fall within the. urban edge boundary should be given fast-tracking abilities to get permits and approvals as they move forward, where those. properties that may necessitate development outside of the urban;edge.boundary would be scrutinized more closely, and the rationale for any proposed development, should.be more thorough in explaining why this area should be developed, if at all. Mr. Katayama commented the plan is very well done, and proposes many challenges as they need to change the way their currents Iles and regulations are stated. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to approve the proposed ordinance to adopt the Lihu`e Community Plan update, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. ANNOUNCEMENTS The following scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.in.,. or shortly thereafter at the Ldiu`e Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A-2B, 4444 Rice. Street, :Lihu.`e, Kauai, Hawaii 96766 on Tuesday, November 25; 2014. ADJOURNMENT Chair Kimura adjourned the meeting at 11:46 a.m. Respectfully submitted by: csY+2J Cherisse Zaima Commission Support Clerk () Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval). () Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting.