HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc 8-12-14 minutes2 KAUA'I PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 12, 2014
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua'i was called to order by
Chair Jan Kimura at 9: 10 a.m., at the L11hu` e Civic Center, Mo `ikeha Building, in Meeting Room
2A/2B.' The following Commissioners were present:
Chair Jan Kimura
Mr. John Isobe
Mr. Wayne Katayama
Mr. Sean Mahoney
Ms. Amy Mendonca
Absent and Excused:
Vice Chair Angela Anderson
Mr. Hartwell Blake
The following staff members were present: Planning Department— Michael Dahilig, Dee
Crowell, Leslie Takasaki, Ka'aina Hull; 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: 10-a.m. so
ROLL CALL
Planning Director Michael Dahilig noted there were five commissioners present.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Mr. Dahilig requested that Item K. Committee Reports be moved before Item J.
Communications; and t6lake Item J. at 11 :00 when the County Engineer becomes available.
On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to approve the
agenda as amended, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
Page 1 of 19
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Meeting of June 10, 2014
Meeting of June 24, 2014
Meeting of July 22, _2014
On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Amy Mendonca to approve the
minutes of the meetings, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD
On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to receive the
items for the record, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Continued Agency Hearing (None)
New Agency Hearing
Class IV Zoning Perniit ZJV-2014-22 and Use Permit U-2014-20 for the installation of a
70 feet high stealth monopine tower and associated equipment on a parcel situated in Lawa` i,
situated along the mauka side of K61oa Road, 4pprox. 700 ft. east of its intersection with Mana
Hema Place, further identified as Tax Map Key (4) 2-7-003 : 021 , and affecting a 1 ,000 N. fl
portion of a larger parcel Mrox. . 4. 863 acres in size = New Cingular Wireless PCS (dba
AT& Tl. jDirector' s Report received 7/8/14, hearing deferred 7/22/14.1
On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Amy Mendonca to close agency
hearing, the .motion carried by unanimous voice vote. .
Class IV Zoning Permit Z4V-2014- 15 and Use Permit U-201444 for a development
containing a mixture of commercial use and multifamily residential units on a parcel located
along the western side of Po`. ipu Road in K61oa, situated just north of the K61oa Estates
Residential Subdivision and approx. 850 fL from its intersection with Lopaka Paipa Boulevard
further identified as Tax Map Key (4) 2-6-004: 032, and containing a total area of apgrox 63 ,815
sg . ft. =. Gwendolyn A. Macksing, et A [Director's Report received 7/8/14, deferred
7/22/14.1
The Commission received testimony in opposition from Raymond Duvauchelle.
Mr. Duvauchelle stated he is the owner of the adjacent property on Po` ipu Road, and is
also speaking on behalf of his mother Josephine Duvauchelle, who also owns an adjacent
Page 2 of 19
property on Po`ipu Road. He objects to commercial use on the property, noting he is a fourth
generation resident of Koloa, and that the properties surrounding the proposed project are all
residential. One of their major concerns is the parking on Koloa Road that will be required to
accommodate the four retail offices, eight other types of offices, and fourteen residential units,
which equates to approximately 48 parking spaces for the commercial 'offices, and another 28 for
the residential units; that creates a safety issue for Po `ipu. Having this type of development in
the middle of a residential area poses additional problems with noise from delivery trucks and
garbage trucks, and also creates safety concerns as retail establishments tend to have people
hanging out in the parking lot late at night. There are several elderly people living in the area,
including his mother, for which this creates a concern. ' Mr. Duvauchelle commented on
commercial establishments that are creeping into Koloa, pointing out the businesses in Old
Koloa Town as well . as the Kukui`ula marketplace. The area he lives in seems to be the last
purely residential area in K610a, and it seems odd to put a commercial development in the middle
of it.
The Commission received testimony in opposition from Brian Mamaclay who stated the
Commission has received copies of his testimony.
Mr. Mamaclay stated his grandchildren are part of the Duvauchelle family, and wanted to
emphasize that the use permit process is in place to consider specific uses, which he feels the
applicant failed to do. He noted the application only states the 'general term "retail space", which
can mean anything from a barber shop to a 7-11 store that stays open 24 hours; there's no
guarantee as to what will be operating there if there are no uses specified by the applicant for
which he feels the application should be denied.
A member of the audience stated she was the applicant's representative, and asked if she
was allowed to speak. Mr. Dahilig explained the Department is awaiting a response from the
State Historic Preservation Division, and suggested the agency hearing remain open until after
they have gathered more information. ` He stated the applicant's representative is entitled to
provide testimony, but noted that should agency hearing remain open, there will be no further
action taken on this item at this time.
The applicant's representative asked if she could display some plans, to which Chair
Kimura stated at this time the Commission would only be accepting comments and testimony,
and not entertaining the application. Mr. Jung explained the process of the agency hearing
portion of the meeting, which is mainly to allow testimony from the public, but given that the
hearing may remain open, the' applicant will still have an opportunity at a later time to address
the Commission; however, she can do so now if she wishes.
Mr. Dahilig further explained that the Commission cannot take action if they decide to
keep the agency hearing open. However, it does not mean the applicant is not entitled to speak
and provide testimony as part of the agency hearing process. The applicant's representative
decided to refrain from comment to listen to further testimony.
Page 3 of 19
Continued Public Hearing (None)
New Public Hearins
ZA-2014-9 : A bill for an ordinance amendin2 Cha ter 8 Kauai County Code 1987 as
amended, relating to Additional Dwelling Unit. The proposal extends the sunset date of the
Additional Dwelling Unit on other than residentially zoned lots and establishes an annual
recertification re uirement and fee = County o Kfaua `i Dg artment o Plannin Hearin
deferred 7/22/14.1
The Commission received . testimony from Jesse Fukushima who read his written
testimony into the record. (On file)
The Commission received testimony from Christopher Hayden.
Mr. Hayden stated he has made it his personal mission to communicate with the families
who possess ADU .facilities clearance forms, an estimated 350, to collect petition signatures from
them; at present he has collected 137 signatures. The petition is a request to make permanent the
ADU in Agriculture and Open zoned lands. In his experience, everyone has personal reasons for
making this request and for not yet building, and asks the Commission to seriously consider it.
Mr. Hayden. stated he has documentation available of the. 137. people that have signed the
petition, as well as documentation on how to identify those people by name and TMK, which he
obtained from the Real Property division.
The Commission received testimony from James Wise.
Mr. Wise stated he owns property in Wailua Homesteads, which he was forced to sell due
to a divorce; rather than lose. the whole property, he did a CPR. In the meantime, the economy
declined lessening the amount of work he once had, and he is requesting this deadline be
extended further.
The Commission received testimony from Patricia Lyons,
Ms. Lyons stated she has been a Kapa` a resident living on their farm for 47 years. She is
requesting the ADU clearance be extended indefinitely, explaining the history of her family
acquiring the property when she was five years old. Her father had always told them that they
could build an ADU on the property, but unfortunately passed away before he could seeahat
happen. She again asked that the ADU clearance be extended indefinitely so that she and her
family can fulfill their dream.
Page 4 of 29
The Commission received testimony from Judy Peckinpah.
Ms. Peckinpah requested the ADU law be extended, noting she has had property in
Ldwa`i for 37 years, and the last time the ADU laws were extended they began working on a
driveway. In the process, they were working on a trade with the property owners below them for
a different entrance to create a more easily accessible driveway. That property owner insisted it
be kept in land court, and signed all the paperwork up until the final land court document, which
resulted in work on the 'driveway coming to a halt, and requiring them to change back to the
original driveway entrance. They are currently working with a surveyor to draw up plans for it,
and then begin work on it. They need more time, and would be extremely grateful if the law
could be extended
The Commission received testimony from Francesco Garripoli.
Mr. Garripoli stated he has owned property on Kahuna Road for a long time, and feels
this is a wonderful process that allows the public to voice their concerns. He feels it is important
to note that everyone is trying to make it day by day, and though he owns this property, it is a lot
of work to keep up with their vision to build on it. He hopes the ADU opportunity can be
extended indefinitely because he feels the growth needs to happen in a natural way. If there is a
push to do it, only the people with money will rush in to build something, which does not
contribute to the organic flow needed on the island; building in a step by step fashion. For him,
it will take time and money to acquire what he needs to build his ADU, and if they are allowed
the time to do it naturally, they will be respectful of the environment, and what it means to live
here. Mr. Garripoli commented that he is paying his property tax today, as are many other
people, and his has quintupled the original amount, which he doesn't rnind paying. He
acknowledged that when he eventually builds his ADU, the property tax will increase again.
Because of that, he hopes the fees for the ADU will be reasonable for the average person so they
can afford to build in a proper, sensitive way.
The Commission received testimony from Larry Raithaus
Mr. Raithaus stated he purchased property in Kalaheo in 1992 on which a CPR was
created in 1993 . He has envisioned developing that second piece of property next to his home,
but in 2008 all of his money was invested in what turned out to be a Ponzi scheme, resulting in
the loss of his retirement fund. He is retired now, and still wants to develop the property, noting
his son who is currently at a university has had to take out unanticipated loans. Mr: Raithaus
would like to request an extension to continue the pursuit of developing the property.
The Commission received testimony from Diana Hayden.
Ms. Hayden stated she assists in finding the individuals who qualify for ADU clearance
forms, noting the stories they are hearing today are just a few of what they have come across.
She commented that it isn't that the people in the community don't want to move ahead, but they
Page 5 of 19
have had life circumstances that have prevented them from doing so.. She is asking the
Commission to allow these people to have hope, and not to take away their dreams. She
commented that her family has been residents there since 1971 , and have land they purchased
with hopes of building on it for their children, and passing it on to their grandchildren. It's
difficult to be able to acquire land here as many people cannot afford it, noting they allowed their
oldest son to build a principal residence on the property. Unfortunately, the economy went
downhill, and her husband suffered a back injury, and they were unable to move ahead. She
asked what their alternatives are if they are unable to move ahead considering it is Agriculture
zoned land, but no one is farming, except for their garden and fruit trees. She requested an
unlimited extension to the ADU clearance. Ms. Hayden added she feels the fee would also be
difficult, and noted the report states a department would have to be created to manage the
recertification process, which would require staff and resources. She feels that it should be
extended indefinitely, and the fee be reasonable, but does not think that a whole department
should be created to manage the 300 or so people who have these clearance forms_
The Commission received testimony from Bruce Smalling.
Mr. Smalling stated he echoes what everyone is saying, and felt that the last time it was
extended he was confident it would provide enough time for him to get something going. Yet,
the deadline is already here, and it takes .time to have all the right things in place to build, and is
financially stressful. He stated he feels there should be no window on land that should have
houses on it, and the fee should be minimal as well.
On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to close public
hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
All Public Testimony Pursuant to HRS 92
The Commission received testimony from Mark Braun in reference to Item F.2.b.
Mr. Braun stated he lives in Koloa on Emi Road, and feels the project will be a good
thing that will provide more jobs and: housing,
..
The Commission received testimony from Wilbur Mendonza in reference to Item F.2.b.
Mr. Mendonza stated his support for the project, and feels it will promote more jobs for
Koloa. He lives in Oma` o and used to work in construction, and feels this project will create
some jobs for the younger generation just getting out of school. Additionally, he is in support of
creating sidewalks for the keiki.
Page 6 of 19
The Commission received testimony from Britney Braun-Ferreira in reference to Item
F.2.b,
Ms. Braun-Ferreira stated she is a resident of Kploa, and believes building this
commercial space will bring revenue to Koloa: Additionally, having kids and numerous nieces
and nephews that attend Koloa School, the sidewalks would be very beneficial to them.
Currently, having them walk on the side of the road with no sidewalks is not good. She asked
the Commission to take into consideration that this project would be good for KOloa.
The Commission received testimony from Gary Adric in reference to Item F.2.b,
Mr: Adric is in support of the proposed project, stating he feels it is a good thing for the
community as it would provide jobs close to their homes.
The Commission received testimony from Toni Sutherland in reference to Item F.2.b.
Ms. Sutherland stated she is in support of the project, noting she has been looking for
retail space in the area for quite some time, and Kukui`ula is very expensive. She knows of
another development in Koloa Town, but this proposed project is right between Koloa Town and
Kukui `ula. She is looking to open a retail store supporting Kauaiana and Hawaiians products,
and this location would attract clients going between Koloa and Kukui `ula. She is in support of
this mixed use project.
The Commission received testimony from Sue Krissa (spelling?) in reference to Item .
F.2.b.
Ms. Krissa is in support of the project, and feels the area between Koloa and Po`ipd is a
perfect place for a natural foods market, and this new commercial building would be. exactly
what she is looking for. She feels it is healthy for the community, and would love to see it move
forward as quickly as possible.
The Commission received testimony from Suzie Gillette in reference to Item F.2.b.
Ms. Gillette stated she is a resident of Kauai, and is in support of the project for many of
the same reasons given in testimony this morning. She referenced an earlier testimony regarding
the adjacent neighbor, noting that upon driving by to look at the site to determine the feasibility
of the location for commercial and pedestrian use in the urban zoned area, she noticed and took
photos of the adjoining property. Ms. Gillette stated that along the property' s boundary the
adjoining neighbors have an imp pit, large heavy equipment, and have extended their yard into
the subject property with dog kennels and heavy machinery. Because of that, she stated she can
see why they are in opposition of the project as the developer is going to make sure that
Page 7 of 19
everything will conform to the County standards and guidelines. She stated her testimony is in
support of the project.
The Commission received testimony from Cheryl Duvauchelle-Ramos in reference to
Item F.2.b.
Ms. Duvauchelle-Ramos stated she was raised on the property, her mother is Josephine
Duvauchelle who resides on the adjacent lot. She acknowledged that they do have things on the
property, but noted that for the last 30 years, up until 2 years ago when her father passed away,
they were the ones taking care of the property; mowing and maintaining it. She is against the
project, noting traffic concerns on the already busy Po`ipu Road, and the resulting increases in
traffic from commercial businesses. Ms. Duvauchelle-Ramos stated she is okay with multi-
family dwellings, but commercial businesses raise safety concerns about what goes on in parking
lots at night. The parking lot for this project would be right next to her mother' s house, and she
does not want people hanging out next to her property, and does not want her mother to have to
hear loud trash and delivery trucks early in the morning. She is against the project, pointing out
that it is difficult because the applicants are family. She reiterated that she is okay with the
multi-family dwelling, but not the commercial use.
Ms . Suzie Gillette asked the Commission if she could testify again in response to the
testimony just provided by Ms. Duvauchelle-Ramos to which Chair Kimura stated she could
respond later.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Status Reports (None)
Director's Report(s) for Project(s) Scheduled for Agency Hearing on 8/26/14
Class IV Zoning Permit Z4V-2014-23, Use Permit U-2014-21 and Special Permit SP-
2014-1 to operate a farmer' s market and conduct tours within a parcel located along the southern
side of Kealia Road. situated approx. %4 mile mauka of its intersection with KUW6 Hishway.
further identified as Tax Map Key4-7-008 : 001 & 42, and affecting approx. 100 acres of a larger
parcel = Kauai Taro Company, LLC.
Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2015- 1 and Use Permit U_2015- 1 to allow establishment of
a group child care center facility on a parcel located along the western side of Ohelo Road in
Wailua Homesteads, situated at its intersection with Kuamoo Road, further identified as Tax
Map Key 4-2-009: 018, and containing a total area of 10,007 sq . ft. = % Kula Pano, LLC.
Page 8 of 19
Shoreline Setback Activity,Determination (None)
No action was taken on the Consent Calendar.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Subdivision
Nice Chair Amy Mendonca read the Subdivision Committee report into the record. (On
file)
The following Subdivision Extension Requests were approved 3 -0:
S-2006- 12 = Visionary LLC dba Lahu `e Land Company, Proposed 54ot Subdivision
S-2006-24 = D.R. Horton/Schuler Homes, Proposed 1154ot Subdivision
On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Amy Mendonca to approve the
Subdivision Committee report, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
(The meeting recessed at 9:59 a.m. for a caption break)
(The meeting resumed at 10: 19 a.m.)
During the presentation of the Subdivision Report, an error was made on the reading of
the subdivision extension deadline date.
On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to reconsider
the motion, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Sean. Mahoney to accept the
Subdivision Committee report with the clarification that the subdivision extension request
deadlines were set for March 28, 2017, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action) (None) '
NEW BUSINESS (For Action)
Class 1V Zoniniz Permit Z4V-2014-22 and Use Permit U-2014-20 for the installation of a
70 feet hi gh stealth mono ine tower and associated qquipment on a arcel situated in Lawa`i
situated alona the mauka side of K61oa Road approx. 700 ft. east of its intersection with Mana
Hema Place, further identified as Tax Map &Y (4) 2-7-003 : 021 ; and affecting a 1 ,000 sq. ft
Page 9 of 19
portion of a larger parcel av=x. . 4.863 acres in size = New Cingular Werele s PCS (dba
ATcBrT1. [Director's Re
gort received 7/8/14, hearing deferred 7/22/14
Staff Planner Ka'aina Hull read a summary of the Director' s report into the record. (On
file)
The applicant was not present.
On the motion by Wayne Katayama and seconded by John .Isobe to defer the item to
a future meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
Class IV Zoning Permit ZJV-2014-15 and Use Permit U-2014- 1.4 for a development
containing a mixture of commercial use and multifamily residential units on a parcel located
along the western side of Po` ipu Road in Koloa, situated just north of the K61oa Estates
Residential Subdivision and apgrox. 850 ft. from its intersection with Lopaka Paipa Boulevard
further identified as Tax Map &e 4) 2-6-004: 032 and containing, a total area of approx 63 ,815
sq . ft. = Gwendolyn A. Mocksinm et aL [Director' s Revort received 7/8/14. hearing deferred,
7/22/14.1
Mr. Hull read a summary of the Director' s report into the record. (On file)
Mr. Isobe asked what the recommendation for the Po `ipu/K61oa/Kalaheo Development
Plan is in reference to this particular use permit, and whether what is being requested is
consistent with what the development plan is proposing. Mr. Hull stated he has to check on the
proposed plan noting as of yet it is not a final plan, and has not been adopted by either this body
or the County Council. Mr. Hull commented that he knows that many of the properties in the
K61oa town core area are looking at liberating the regulations in order to allow mixed-use .
developments, but he has to double check on whether or not that pertains to this particular
project.
Mr. Hull stated the Department has been contacted by the State Historic Preservation
Division. Chair Kimura. asked the . applicant to step forward. SHPD is recommending that the
Commission defer action on this item until an Archaeological Inventory Survey can be
completed.
Ms. Suzie Gillette, representing the applicant, distributed sketches of the proposed
project, and stated she is the spokesperson of Gwendolyn and Lorraine Mocksing who flew in
from Oahu. Their family is originally from Kauai, fourth generation. Ms. Gillette lives on
Kauai with her husband and children for the past 28 years, and this is her first Planning
Commission meeting. Ms. Gillette provided an overview of the project as detailed on -the
application. She read excerpts from the Department's staff report. (On file)
Ms. Gillette stated that many of the small.mom and pop stores ,will be able to pass along
their products and. services at a. much lower cost to the local residents and clientele. She noted
that Kukui `uta shopping center is a few miles down the road, but their commercial space-is
Page 10 of 19
already sold out; there are a few upstairs units available. She stated they should improve
circulation within and around Kaloa Town by adding sidewalks, trees, and social areas.
Ms. Gillette referenced and addressed several sections of the Director' s report. She
stated they will not create any additional significant impact on the surrounding properties, noting
that the area already has a lot of traffic along Po`ipu Road as it is one of the three main roadways
to access Po`ipu and Kukui`ula. The proposed project is near schools and town, and will not
have any additional impact on the roadway. Ms. Gillette pointed out that the director's report
states that a street-front, mixed use operation with a designated parking area located behind the
commercial operation is appropriate, and their plans show that is what is being done.
Referencing historical design, Ms. Gillette stated their building supports local design of
neighboring properties both in old historic Koloa Town, and homes in the nearby area. She
pointed out design I details of the proposed structure. Referencing possible sustainable building
techniques, Ms:'Gillette explained the building will be constructed to LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) standards, and explained the many aspects in which they will
accomplish this.
Ms. Gillette explained that they are contributing to the Holo Holo 2020 vision:
Mr. Katayama asked for clarification that an STP will be installed to get the R-1 water to
which Ms. Gillette stated they will doing an anaerobic water system that will create the R-1
water. She added that everything- will conform to all the County codes and regulations.
Mr. Isobe asked if there is more specificity on the types of retail uses being proposed.
Ms. Gillette stated she is not exactly sure, except that there will be local, Kauai products sold in
retail shops on the first level, and plan to have small offices upstairs. Mr. Isobe stated for
clarification that it would essentially be a small shopping center to which Ms. Gillette stated a
miniaturized, localized shopping center. She added that the developer is planning to reach out to
the community to ask what they feel would be right for that location, noting that the: shops at
Kukui`ula are priced for tourists, similar to a small Lahaina. Ms. Gillette stated that this project
would be more of a local style center. She gave some examples of small, local businesses that
have expressed interest in being located there.
Ms. Mendonca stated for clarification the planner' s recommendation that at least 85
percent of the property owners within 300 feet be notified; and asked if that had been done to
which Ms. Gillette replied yes; pointing out that they delayed this hearing to ensure everyone got
notice. Ms. Mendonca asked if the Department received any responses to which Mr. Hull` replied
they did not receive responses from all 85 percent, but they were all notified,
Chair Kimura asked when the certified notifications go out, is the TMK number the only
thing listed to which Mr. Hull replied yes, the TMK is all that is required under Chapter 8 of the
Kauai County Code, along with the project description and layouit. Chair Kimura stated, in
general, when an applicant sends out a notification it should include the address, and it should
not be the neighbors' responsibility to look up the TMK. -Mr. Hull stated there is some
agreement with that; however, it poses a problem for some properties that have TMKs but no
Page 11 of 19
address. Mr. Kimura asked if that recommendation could be changed to which Mr. Jung
explained the County Code, which requires date, time, location, purpose and description or
sketch of property involved. Chair Kimura asked if they could request an address be included if
one is available. Mr. Jung stated that is the normal course, butit can be clarified in the CZO if
the Commission wishes.
Mr. Katayama asked what Complete Streets policy does this permit align with, to which
Mr. .Hull. stated, pedestrian facilities — the applicant is proposing including sidewalks -- as well as
a street frontage commercial development and its mixed use capacity. At the end of the day, it' s
the Commission's decision to determine whether the mixed use approach is compatible in this
environment. Mr. Katayama asked along with that, is there a definition of what allowable
commercial use is. Mr. Hull explained under the Kauai County Code, no outright ,commercial
use is generally permitted in the.R-10 district; however it is permitted via use permit, which is
the process they are at right now. Mr. Katayama asked how they can determine compatibility
within R- 10.under Complete. Streets policy, asking if the Commission approves the permit; are
there any boundaries or guidelines. Mr. Hull acknowledged that currently, it is a very open-
ended proposal, and that open-ended nature may allow for too many activities that impact the
surrounding neighborhood. There are different avenues the Commission can take instead of
outright denying it, like restricting it to certain types of commercial use, prohibiting some types
of commercial use, and hours of operations. Mr. Katayama asked if the Department has a
position on it to which Mr. Hull replied preliminarily no, it is not in their, recommendations, but
if the Committee feels they should look at,more. specific types of uses and/or hours of operation,
they can do so. Mr. Katayama stated. that based.on,this morning's public testimony, he feels it
would put people at ease.
Mr. Isobe referenced Mr. Katayama' s. questions, stating one of his concerns is the. open-
ended nature of the use. He noted .that one testifier pointed out that use permits typically have a
specific type of use, but in this case it appears to be a: small shopping center, - or commercial use
type, operation. His perspective is that this borderlines on whether a zoning application is more
appropriate, .or.whether it is truly a use permit application. His uncertainty is the reason he
questioned how the community development plan ties in noting that if it is done as a use permit,
but is inconsistent with the community development plan, it gives tacit approval that the
development plan should be amended to follow this particular use permit. -If they move forward
on this as a use permit, what kind of conditions would the department recommend to align it
more with a use permit as opposed to a zoning approval? He requested the Department look at
that prior to the application being considered again. Mr. Isobe asked the applicant what kind. of
commercial uses are they proposing, noting that a 24-hour convenience store is quite different
than a regular office .open from 9 — 51
Mr. Isobe asked for clarification on how this project ties into Po `ipu Road, and where the
ingress/egress.would. be located. Mr. Hull. stated the driveway will serve as the entrance/exit to
the shopping center as well as the multi-familyunits, and there will be .no on-street parking. Mr.
Isobe asked to clarify whether there is a proposed right/left turn storage lane to which Mr. Hull
replied no, pointing out. that.comments from the Department of Public Works do not currently
state that as a requirement. However, they may take a more in-depth look during the building
permit review. portion of the application. Mr. Isobe stated that depending on the kind of use,
Page 12 of 19
there is the possibility of a bottle-neck situation going into and out of this area; that is difficult to
evaluate without understanding what the uses will be. He requested that information be fleshed
out for the Conmission's information as well as the peace of mind of the neighboring properties.
Deputy Planning Director Dee Crowell explained the South Shore Development Plan will
be the Department's first look at form base code, but he will leave it to the consultant to provide
a presentation on that. He summarized that it would be about creating a street scape where uses
become less important; however, it may be different in residential zones. Under the current
zoning, there is a commercial building not far from this proposed project, next to the mortuary
that was originally permitted as part of a medical building in the 80's: Once a commercial
building is permitted in a residential zone it is difficult to revert back to residential use, : He
recommended the Commission think about how to deal with these kinds of commercial uses in
residential areas. He noted that the medical building was originally permitted for a certain use,
but years later the use was changed to allow more varied uses.
Mr. Isobe stated the prelirninary information he has received on that form based code
seems to make sense, but he questions whether that type of zoning goes all the way down to that
area, and where the cut-off is proposed. He reiterated that this is bordering zoning vs, use
permit. Mr. Crowell stated the commercial building he referenced earlier was a use permit, and
this application is basically the same thing. Mr. Isobe stated that the Commission needs to
determine whether this project is consistent with the long-term view of what is anticipated for
this area because it may be a driver for what comes in the future; you can't undo it once it is
approved.
Mr. Kimura stated his concern is not knowing what types of activities will take place
there, noting the amount of parking that will be required is dependent upon the types of
businesses that will be there. Mr. Hull stated it is the Department' s recommendation that the
Commission defer the application until an AIS is complete, or the applicant meets the
requirements of SHPD; however, it is at the Commission' s discretion whether or not they would
like to do so. Mr. Hull noted under Kauai County Code Section 8-3 . 1 the Commission has 60
days to take action on an application, and given the requirement for the AIS, the Department
requests the applicant waive that timeline in order to allow time for the study.
Ms. Mendonca stated her concern that they are juggling the fact that it is residential
though there are other commercial buildings nearby. She stated for clarification that the
Commission is asking what type of activity will take place, will there be enough parking; what is
the K61oa plan for development, rioting there are so many uncertainties right now. What she is
looking' at is because it is residential, she personally would hate to see a two-story building
abutting her property that detracts 'from her quiet existence. She would be more comfortable
making a decision if the existing residents gave an indication that they are'okay'with it as they
are entitled to what they bought into as a residential area. No matter how great the project may
be, it will take away the residents' quiet, private enjoyment:
Ms. Gillette distributed pictures of the property pointing out a fenced area'with apartment
buildings to the south, and a 70-unit condominium project on the opposite side. She noted the
people who testified this morning are on the north side of the property, and are taking up
Page 13 of 19
approximately 70 by 30 feet of space on the applicant' s property with debris,: dog kennels, imu
pit, etc. Right behind the property is a building that she has been told was a dry cleaner facility.
The two-story building the applicant is proposing does not exceed any height. in the residential
area. Ms. Gillette stated they could easily just go ahead with their multi-family project as it is
zoned for, but they felt they could better serve that growing neighborhood in Koloa with a
commercial type building, noting they do not wish .to put anything on the property that will be a
nuisance. It would be more along the lines of health food, bakery, or things that will enhance the
area for the people in that small community.
Mr. Kimura commented. that when permits have been issued in the past, after the building
gets sold the permit remains with the land, and is often turned into something it was not
originally approved for. The applicant's intent maybe great, but should they decide to sell years
down the line, new owners will still have permit; and will be free to essentially do whatever they
want. That's an aspect the Commission and the planner must think about .in protecting the.
community. Mr. Hull stated because the AIS study will take some time, the Department can
work with the applicant on possibly narrowing those focuses to ascertain the specific impacts.
Mr. Katayama asked if the applicant is willing to waive the timeline requirements to
which Ms. Gillette replied she does not. feel her capacity as a spokesperson for the applicant
gives her the authority to answer right this minute. She would need to discuss it with the .
applicant first. Mr. Hull suggested the Commission defer it indefinitely, and should the applicant
reject waiving the timeline it could be put on the next meeting' s agenda, but leave it .open"ended
for the department to work on it.
On the,motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Array Mendonca to defer the
application, the motion carried by unanimous. voice vote.
COMMUNICATION (For Action)
Memorandum (7/9/14) from Planning Commission Chair Jan Kimura to County of
Kauai Department of Public Works, County Engineer Larry Dill requesting Mr. Dill to appear
before the Planning Commission to discuss Planning Department office space allocation.
County Engineer Larry Dill explained the move for the Planning Department is part of a
larger effort for;the. County to look at all of its space needs. In 2010, an office space needs
assessment was completed to address the concerns of certain departments that had limited office
space. The Fire Department was the first candidate, and was provided with new office space in
the Piikoi building. ....When the Big Save space became available, it offered up new space to be
considered, but things were put. on hold when the County decided it would use the space for
something else. Since then, the.Big Save space has become available again as part of the overall
planning effort, a consultant is on board, and a notice to proceed was granted in June. The
consultant has begun to review the needs assessments done back in 2010, and they have visited
the Planning D.epartment' s facility and space to took at both their current space as well as their
projected needs for a 20-year planning horizon. All the county facilities and agencies will be
looked at as well .as the Civic Center's development and optimization of the building system
Page 14 of 29
services such as the air conditioning, and to ensure the infrastructure of the facility is done as
properly and efficiently as possible. The final phase of the project will be to prepare
construction drawings for improvements: The three agencies identified as top priority from the
previous needs assessment are Public Works Wastewater and Solid Waste, and Planning.
Currently, the plan is to move forward with drawings for tenant improvements, but updating the
needs assessment will provide new information about priorities:' By June V of next year they
should have the construction drawings ready to go out for bid. Right now there is no funding in
place for construction; which will be addressed in next year's budget.
Mr. Dill stated assuming monies will be appropriated by Council in FY 2016, they could:
go out to bid after that, with another 6 - 9 months to go through procurement and bidding; and a
year of construction. They are looking at improvements being constructed in early to znid-20171
Chair: Kimura stated;he was assured last year that .the Planning Department would have their
space by the end of 2015, and that after the Fire Department the Planning Department was next
in line. Is all of that being reassessed again? Mr. Dill reiterated the Planning Department was
listed among the top three priorities in the needs assessment. He does not disagree with the need
to do something for the Planning Department, but as the County Engineer it is his responsibility
to look' at things coherently as an overall plan and not piecemeal it. Chair Kimura stated he was
not aware of the Big Save space situation, but acknowledged that he understands unforeseen
things happen. He thanked Mr. Dill for the update, and encouraged him to keep things moving.
Mr. Isobe personally thanked Mr. 'Dill for being there,' and stated he is in full agreement `
with the approach the Engineering Division is taking. Having participated in the last .
consultant' s study, Mr. Isobe stated he is aware there are many competing uses by many
departments, and noted that even when he was still working for the County, they were providing
space within their own facility to other offices such as Parks and Recreation and the Planning `
Department. He understands the Commission's focus is only for the Planning Department, but
looking at the broader picture, he believes every department believes they should be a priority.'
He appreciates the approach being taken.
NEW BUSINESS (Tor Action)'
ZA=2014-9: A bill for an ordinance amending Chanter 8, Kauai County Code 1987 as
amended, relating to Additional Dwelling Unite The proposal extends the sunset date of the
Additional Dwellin a Unit'on other:than residentially zoned lots, and establishes an annual
recertification requirement and fee = County of%aua `i, Department of Planning. [Hearin
deferred 7/22/14.1 : .
Mr. Dahilig read the Director's Report into the record. (On file)
Mr. Isobe asked approximately how many outstanding permits does the Department
currently have to which Mr. Dahilig replied it. is estimated at about 300 total certificates. Mr.
Isobe asked why the Department feels an annual 'recertification is necessary. Mr: Dahilig stated
the annual recertification is meant as an annual check on the progress of'construction of the
dwelling, as well as a means of compelling a landowner to speed up the progress. Mr. Isobe
Page 15 of 19
asked for clarification on the reasoning behind wanting to compel the action, noting that no more
permits can be issued beyond the 300 currently outstanding, and though he understands the need
to verify or validate that number, that amount will not grow; it will in.fact decrease over time as
people build their ADUs and no longer need the permit. Once the 300 are catalogued, he does
not understand why ADU certificate holders would need to come back to the Department each
year; it seems like unnecessary administration. Mr. Isobe: stated. his other concern that the
County recently raised taxes on agricultural lands, which is where most of these ADUs are
located. These families are now paying greater property taxes in addition to a fee for ADU use.
He questioned why the increase in the property tax could not be used once to re-catalog all of the
permits, and from there maintain and update the database. . Mr. Isobe does not feel comfortable
charging the fee on an annual basis, and feels it is unnecessary, and not really fair considering
the property taxes have gone up for agricultural lands. He feels it. is greatly impacting local
families, noting the law was originally adopted to help: local families, and he does not want them
to lose sight of that. He cannot support the continuation of recertification and charging a fee, and
does not feel that burden. should. fall on these individuals.
Mr. Dahilig stated those things were taken into consideration. He explained ADU
certificates that have been signed off by the Water Department sit on a water meter that is not
installed and,: therefore, do not provide revenue to maintain, the : system the certificate is sitting
on. Another issue is the housing shortage on the island, and his philosophy is that it is better to
get the units up sooner than later. He evaluated the bill from the perspective of a compromise
since.it was not an open ended deadline, but still gave enough time for certificate holders to
financially plan for construction over a ten year period. That is the reason for his concurrence
with the bill'. s proposal. Mr. Dahilig explained there are two types. of fees they are allowed to
charge, one of which is an administrative fee such as in a TVR situation which covers the cost of
regulation, .the other of which is to compel an action. His recommendation is that the intent of
the fee be switched to relay to certificate holders that they are being allowed time to construct an
ADU, but they must be serious about saving money and planning ahead. to complete the ADU
within the ten-year period. He acknowledged the difficulties in putting together a plan and
presenting it to a bank for financing construction of a home, but feels there must be some kind of
financial incentive to compel that action. He added that with the narrowing of housing stock on
the island, these ADUs will be treated as a commodity, noting that is his temporal concern in
extending these certificates indefinitely. Mr. Dahilig stated ultimately it is the Commission's
decision in how to move forward, but he wished to share his perspective in response, to their
continents, which he feels are wholly valid. He posed the question of what, the end goal is,
whether to provide housing, or to provide an entitlement; his focus is seeing the housing stock.
Mr. Isobe stated he does not disagree in terms of the end result; however, he does
disagree with the methodology. He stated his understanding of the water situation, but noted it is
not the fault of the certificate holders that the County.Water Department is where they are. Mr.
Isobe pointed out that telling these certificate holders they are being given ten years to plan for
construction, the same argument can be made for the Water Department. He stated that the
County wants to regulate these owners, and the County is requiring the owners to pay for that
regulation; the owners have not asked to be regulated, but rather want to maintain the right to an
ADU. If the County has not kept up their database, it is not the fault of the certificate holders,
yet now: they are being asked to pay for it. Mr. Isobe stated if the County has failed to keep the
Page 16 of 19
database current, he feels the compromise would be the two parties sharing in the burden
possibly with a onetime fee to be used to update the database. He added that 300 names and
addresses in a database should not be difficult to maintain; and questioned the need for an annual
review; what would thatdo? He further stated that the money the certificate holder could be
using to plan and build their ADU now goes to the Planning Department to regulate them. He
does not see that as an incentive to build because the money for the fee could instead be put in
the bank for a potential down payment to begin construction. Mr. Isobereiterated he agrees with
the end- result, but not the methodology:
Chair Kimura acknowledged Mr. Isobe' s statements, and suggested the possibility of the
certificate holder paying the first year' s fee and nothing further unless they sell the property
without building anything, at which time the fees for all the years up to the point of selling the
property would need to be-collected. ` Mr. Dahilig stated in looking back on past legislative
research, he agrees with the fact that the last thing they want is to treat these ADU certificates as
a commodity that can be sold, bartered, or traded; that is not the intent of this proposal. When
this* bill was initially thought of back in the 80's, the intent was to provide housing,' which is the
solution he is working toward. He sees the value of those 300 units, and must figure out how to
get them built.
Mr. Katayama stated the conundrum is that the appeal for ADU extension is based on
individual need, yet the certificate is tied to the lands which is separate from the reason they are
addressing the extension. He would feel much more comfortable if they could connect;the two,
noting that he agrees with every testifier that came before the Commission in what they are
trying to do. He noted that ADU extension is tied to the land regardless of the situation. The
whole legislation is based on individual needs or situations that do not fit the current time
horizon. ` hopes that during discussion, they can tie together the technical aspects with the
legal and philosophical elements to try and resolve them and move forward.
Chair Kimura asked if the Commission approves the proposal, can they make a
recommendation that the certificate Holders cannot sell the, ADU for ten years. Attorney Jung
stated no, because they cannot impinge someone's right to sell their property. However,
Attorney Jung will research Chair Kimura' s suggestion oil the regulatory fee issue, noting he
sees the intent, but anticipates the difficulty in formulating it into law; he would need time to
look into it. Mr. Isobe stated it would work similar to the agriculture dedication law, which
states should the promise to dedicate be breached, there is a penalty with interest, that must be
paid. Attorney Jung asked if that is something the Commission would want to look at.
Ms. Mendonca stated she feels they should take amore in depth look at how the language
will be presented. She does agree with Mr. Isobe in that she feels it is a penalty for the certificate
holder to pay an annual fee as the right has already been given to build an ADU especially since
they will have a deadline of 10 years: Considering the intent of the ADU certificate and the
downturn of the economy, she feels the fee penalizes the owner, and is quite steep for those not
actually building. She.'compared it to applicants who come in for extensions on constructing
various projects, noting they are not charged a fee far extensions.' She feels they should
reconsider, and look at the proposal much more carefully.
Page 17 of 19
Mr. Dahilig stated. it has been close to a decade since the ADU. bill was cutoff, and while
he acknowledges all the testimony given is .valid, they do understand. However, in these past
eight years, just giving a deadline has not worked. His job. as a director is to point out the .
housing crisis that exists on Kauai, and he feels they need these units sooner than later, and the
past eight years has proven there has been no movement to construct these ADUs. He has been
unable to think of any other action in addition to just a deadline that would compel construction.
Ms. Mendonca stated that is why she feels strongly about pulling together and throwing ideas-
around. Mr. Dahilig acknowledged that this proposal may not be the best way to compel action
at the pace he would be satisfied with, but reiterated that it has been shown that simply setting a
deadline has not worked. However, he does acknowledge the human element of these situations.
Mr. Isobe followed up with Mr. Katayama's earlier_comments, asking if there is a way to
carefully look at his .cornments, agreeing that the intent of the law is one thing. Mr. Isobe .shared .
his perspective that in order to build a home, one must have money. He pointed out that if the
property tax is raised, and then owners are.required to pay an additional ADU certificate fee, :
they are then being forced to build a home..when the money they need to do so has.to be paid to
the County. He feels those two aspects work against each other. Mr. ,Isobe also. commented that
if we truly need to increase affordable housing stock, this is not the answer. To address :the
housing crisis, they would need to create subdivisions to build hundreds of thousands of homes.
These 300 ADUs will not take care of the island's affordable housing needs. It will take care of
individual families' potential housing needs, but not the needs of this island.. He noted if that is
something the County wants to do, they need to be serious about it, and focus on enticing people
to build affordable housing. That's not going to happen via this ADU ordinance.
Mr. Dahilig. stated he agrees that it is not the solution to the problem, but noted that in
order to build a housing stock this is just one small fraction of the larger equation. The island is
looking at a current housing deficit of close to 4,000 units that will .grow over the next 20 years,
and those are the long range issues they are trying to wrestle with. However, this is one small
part of the overall solution. He threw out the suggestion of possibly making the fee refundable
upon construction of the home. Chair Kimura expressed disappointment that they cannot just
allow those building for their families to do so, noting. a few bad apples that have used this ADU
certificate as a business venture have changed that, which is sad. HeTurther .expressed concern
that should they go forward with this proposal, those entitlements will be used to make a profit
on the property; the intent was to allow families to build homes for their relatives.
Mr. Dahilig stated what he is hearing from the Commission is that the ten year time span
is something they are generally comfortable with, but there are questions to whether there is a
way. to narrow the ability;for these entitlements to be. freely transferred during that ten year
period as a commodity. Ms. Mendonca asked for clarity when a certificate holder passes away
and the property is given to children who are minors. What happens. to the ADU certificate then?
Mr. Dahilig stated that is research the County Attorney will have to dig up.
Mr. Mahoney asked for clarification on the term "deadline", and asked if it means
without any restrictions or fees; is it the deadline no matter what happens? He would like to get
that cleared up as it is a very blunt term that means once the ten years is up, that's it for all
parties involved; it doesn't last forever. If they only have up to tern years, owners will have to
Page 18 of Z9
determine if they are unable to get everything done to build their ADU within that time, they
have to seriously consider other alternatives. He noted that any kind of construction takes a lot
of time and work, and feels they should come up with some kind of an outline to help determine
if it will be feasible to build within that time frame. Mr. Dahilig stated the Department will try to
address some of the concerns that have been brought up, and try to provide some clarity. He
suggested deferral to the next meeting to allow the attorney to compile some information.
Additionally, Mr. Dahilig will follow up with commissioners individually to obtain better
understanding of their concerns.
Mr. Isobe shared his perspective, noting he feels Mr. Katayama's comments are dead-on,
and that should be the issue they look at first and foremost. The other issues of fees and
deadlines are contingent upon getting the base intent. He noted that Ms. Mendonca's concerns
are similar to what the Real Property Tax division encounters with transfers of property; some of
those kinds of discussions have already happened within the County.
Chair Kimura asked the attorney if he feels the Commission will take action in two weeks
to which Attorney Jung replied they could at least put a preliminary concept on the table for the
Commission's discussion, and to try and fine tune language.
On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Sean Mahoney to defer the item
to the August 26, 2014 meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Topics for Future Meetings
Mr. Dahilig provided a handout listing items that will appear before the Commission in
upcoming months. (On file)
The following scheduled Planning Commission meeting will .be held at 9: 00 a.m., or
shortly thereafter at the L liu` e Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A-2B, 4444
Rice Street, Liliu`e, Kauai, Hawaii 96766 on Tuesday, August 26, 2014.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Kimura adjourned the meeting at 12: 10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
4G
Cherisse Zai
Commissiont ort Clerk
Page 19 of 19