HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc D1 6-10-14 minutesKAUA'1 PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
June 10, 2014
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua'i was called to order by
Chair Kimura at 10:03 a.m., at Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting room 2A-
2B. The following Commissioners were present:
Chair Jan Kimura
Vice Chair Angela Anderson
Mr. John Isobe
W. Wayne Katayama
Mrc Sean Mahoney
Ms. Array Mendonca
Absent and Excused:-
Mr. Hartwell Blake
The following staff members were present: Planning Department Dee Crowell, Leslie
Takasaki, Jody Galinato, Dale Cua; 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 10:03 'a.m.
ROLL CALL
Deputy Planning Director Dee Crowell noted that there were six Commissioners present.
Mr. Crowell announced that Item F.2.c will not be heard today as the applicant did not
meet the notification requirements; the hearing will be rescheduled.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Amy Mendonca to approve the
agenda, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
Page l of 13
MINUTES of the meeting(s), of the Planning Commission (None)
RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD
On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Angela Anderson to receive the items
for the record, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
The Commission received testimony from Brooke Hemingway who stated she and her
husband have been living on Kauai for eight years, in Kilauea for the last four years, and have a
child that attends the current My Growing Place preschool. However, he will be of pre -K age,
and there are no longer any pre -K programs available through the DOE. Ms. Hemingway
expressed her appreciation for the My Growing Place preschool, noting they do a wonderful job,
are educated and involved, and the children attending school there are very happy. She feels this
is a wonderful opportunity that would benefit many families in the community.
The Commission received testimony from Simon Van Neste who stated he is not a
parent, but he is a Big Brother to two Little Brothers. He has been taking them. to My Growing:
Place for the last couple years and have seen them flourish there. He acknowledges and .
appreciates the hard work of Deanna and Patricia, and urged the Commission to approve this
proposal to ensure there is the opportunity for children to receive this educational benefit during
this critical stage of their development. He is in support of.this proposal.
The Commission received testimony from Felicia Cowden in support: of My Growing
Place, noting she lives in Kilauea right across the street from another child care facility where
pick up and drop off happens in front of her house. While it impacts her a little, it does not
bother her at all as she feels it is important to allow facilities like this in small communities that
help everyone, and is a sustainable way to take care of our communities. She is in support of this
proposal. She commented that her own children attended a child care facility just down the road
from this proposed site, and there were never any pick up /drop off issues.
The,Commission received - testimony from Dustin Barca who urged the:Commission to
support. this school, noting that his child currently attends the program in place now. It is an
amazing program that is operating in a residential area, and they make an effort to work with
their neighbors to beep a good relationship. With the pre -K program missing from the schools ,. .
parents are left with a gap in child care, and this is a great option to resolve that. There is a high
demand and not enough schools, and he is. in full support of this proposal.
Page 2 of 13
The Commission received testimony from Jennifer Luck who has a child currently
attending the My Growing Place preschool. She expressed her support for the proposal to
expand the existing preschool by adding a second location for the pre -K program in Kilauea
town. She noted the importance of early childhood education to the health and well -being of
children, and its contributions to their educational careers, which ultimately give back to society
as a whole. She stated that Kauai, specifically the North Shore, does not have enough schools to
meet this demand, especially with the recent closing of another child care facility in the
community, and the new State law that requires children to be 5 years old by July 31 in order to
attend Kindergarten. That leaves a large group of children with no place to go during that gap
between preschool and Kindergarten. Ms. Luck commented that My Growing Place= -is an
outstanding preschool that focuses on conflict resolution, child - directed learning, nurturing the
whole child, and social responsibility, which will continue to create empathetic, compassionate
children who will contribute to their community. She thanked the Commission for all the work
they do, and asked them to support this proposal.
The Commission received testimony from Brandy Davoudian whose son Julian is on the
waiting list for My Growing Place preschool. She is in support of this proposal not only for her
child, but for all the children. She stated studies have shown that pre-K is incredibly vital to
children's education, and education should always be the priority. She urged the Commission to
support children's education.
The Commission received testimony from Ric Cox, a volunteer for the Rotary Club
Hanalei Bay who has been working with Trisha Padilla at the preschool for the past year. He
stated that Ms. Padilla is a very determined individual who does things right, and'does things
well. He urged the Commission to support her proposal.
The Commission received testimony from Matt Hayden whose four year old son is on the
waiting list for the preschool. He stated the approval of this proposal will directly affect his
family's ability as a two- income household; he does not have family hereto help with child care.
It is very important to him that this proposal be approved.
Continued Agency Hearing (None)
New Agency Hearing
Class N Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2014 -13 and Use Permit U- 2014 -12 to allow establishment
of a group child care center facility on parcels located along the mauka side of Oka Road in
Kilauea Town, situated approx. 150 ft. north of the Oka Road/Momi Street intersection further
.3-:17__3 -- T---.A A__. Tr 1___ /Al L M AI A_ Artt o c n nn. �_ -.. , - . . _ . ,. _. r
Page 3 of 13
Mr. Jung noted that testimony has already been received for this application, and once
this hearing is closed, it will move into another section of the agenda where it will be considered
for action.
In response to Mr. Kimura, Staff Planner Jody Galinato stated all agency comments are
included in the Director's report.
On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Amy Mendonca to close agency
hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice-vote.
Class N Zoning Permit Z -N- 2014 -14 and Use Permit U- 2014 -13 to convert existing
residence into a commercial operation for shipping_ printing and storage services, on a parcel
located alonk the makai side of Kuhi6 Hiahway in Kapa`a Town, situated approx. 100 ft north
of the Panihi Road/K0hi6 Highwqy Highway intersection further identified as Tax Map Ke 4 4 -5 -003:
016, and containing a total area of approx. 11.250 sq. ft. = John & Catherine Gillen. Director's
Report received 5/27/14.1_
Staff Planner Dale Cua noted all agency comments are included in the Director's Report
with the exception of SHPD as they.did not have any concerns.
On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to close agency
hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA - 2014 -6 to allow construction of an
additional dwelling unit LAM on a parcel located along the makai side of Hoona Road in
K51oa, situated approx. 200 ft. east of its intersection with Lawa`i Road further identified as Tax
M4p Ke y 2 -6 -006: 021 and containing a total land area of 9.910 s . ft. = Tom W. Stirling.
The Commission received . testimony from Cecelia Fern. Ms. Fern stated she is.the owner
of a,property from which their view would be blocked as a result of this proposed 2 °d floor ADU;
not directly, but the view from the side. She noted they purchased the property in 1985, and now
that she is retired they now have the opportunity to build on it, which has been a long awaited
dream come true. Because they have already paid for plans to build their house, and the process
has already begun, she feels that along with the fact that their view will be obstructed should be
taken into consideration.
Mr. Cua stated as noted in the Director's Report the Department has received comments
from the various County agencies as well as the State Department of Health; they are awaiting
comments from Public Works.
On the motion by,Sean Mahoney and seconded,by Amy Mendonca to t;lose agency
hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
Page 4 of 13
Continued Public Hearing (None)
New Public Hearing (None)
CONSENT CALENDAR
Status Reports (None)
Director's Report(s) for Proiects(s) Scheduled for Agency Hearing on 6/24,/14"
Class IV Zoniniz Permit Z -IV- 2014 -16 and Use Permit U- 2014 -13 to establish a visitor
and a diMlay Plantation House and associated improvements on a parcel situated in Kaloa.
along the western side of Maluhia Road and immediately across Anne Knudsen Park further
identified as Tax Map Key 2 -8 -006: 001 and containing a total area of 18.867 acres = Kaloa
Rum Corporation.
Class IV Zonis Permit Z -IV- 2014 -17 and Use Permit U- 2014 -16 to establish operations
involving food track vendors on a parcel situated in K61oa, along the westem side of Maluhia
Road and approx. 350 ft. north of its intersection with K61oa Road further identified as Tax Man
Key 2 -8 -006: 025 Portion with a land area of 8.63 acres = Dr. Afichael & Valerie Murphy.
Class IV Zonm -2 Yermlt Z- 1V- 2014 -18 and Variance Permit V- 2014 -_4 to deviate from t
requirement noted in Section 8- 9.2(c)l of the Kauai county code (1987)irelating to
minimum lot size within the Open (0) zoning district: involvingia 2 -lot subdivision ofa parcel
located in Moloa`a along the makai side of Kuono Road and approx. 500 ft cast of its
002, and containing g total area of 47.899 acres = Moloa `a Bay Co. LLOV4mbell- Murphy
Investments. LLC.
Class IV Zoning PermitZ -IV- 2014 -19, Use Permit U- 2014 -17 for development of the
V- 2014 -5 to deviate from the lot coverage requirement within the Residential (R -1) zoning
district located on Rropegy along the makai side of Kaumuali`i Highw4y Highway in PAL at its
intersection with Nuhou Street, further identified as Tax Maw Key 3 -3 -003: 043,_fPor), and
_.
containin g a total area of 7.133 acres= Kauai Ph.ilippine Cultural Center.
Page 5 of 13
Shoreline Setback Activity Determination (None)
On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Amy Mendonca to accept the
Consent Calendar, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
EXECUTIVE SESSION (None)
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTIE11k(None)
COMMUNICATION (For Action) (None)
The following Tentative Subdivision Actions were approved 3-0:
S.-201402 = HG Kaual Joint Ventures, LLC, Proposed 6-lot Subdivision
S-201416 = Sensuke & Chiyo..Ueunten, Proposed 5-lot Subdivision,
S.72014-17 State ofHasok'L, Proposed 2-lot Subdivision
The following Subdivision Extension.Requests were deferred.3-0:
S-2006712 Visionary LLC dba Lfhue Land Company,
.y.Prop sed-5-lot-Sub.division
....S-2006-24 D.R.: Ho.rtonlSchuler Homes, Proposed 1154ot Subdivision:,
The fa owigg Subdiv ision Extension Request was. approved 3-0:
S-2012-06 ' Lindsay Cra�vfor&Ku6i`ula Development "Company 'ik'a'wai;.'i)LLCI
Proposed 4-lot Subdivision
ThefibHowing Final Subdivision Action was approved .3-0...
S-2.014-.09=,Oiigi4teM..Kusto,. Pro ppsfd2-lot:BoundarvAdiustnent
On the motion by'Wayne.Katayama and.. seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve the..
Subdivision Committee; report, the motion-carried by-unanimous voice vote.
Page 6.-o.f.23
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action) (None)
Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2014 -13 and Use Permit U- 2014 -12 to allow establishment
of a groqp child care center facili on parcels located along the mauka side'of Oka Road in
Kilauea Town situated avvrox. 150 ft. north of the Oka Road/Momi Street intersection further
identified as Tax Ma Keys 4 5 -2 -014: 021 & 5 -2 -015: 079 and containing a total area of
approx. 18,469 sci. ft. = Patricia & Gabriel Padilla. [Director's Report received 5 /27/141
Ms. Galinato read a brief summary of the Director's Report into the record. (On file)
Applicant Patricia Padilla was present along with Deanna Kaneha; owners of My
Growing Place Preschool, Inc. -
Ms. Padilla' provided a brief description of the proposal, noting that due to the DOE's
elimination of Junior Kindergarten as well as the closing of the Natural Bridges preschool, they
currently have a waitlist of approx. 80 children. There is a great need for a junior kindergarten
program, and children of that age are the main concern, and who they are trying to
accommodate. They strongly feel that this school will provide a great foundation for their future
as they go through their last year of primary brain development before they enter into primary
education.
Ms. Kaneha stated that about half of the students attending the current My Growing Place
preschool on Wailapa Road are of age to go to the proposed new location: Therefore, this
proposal would not only provide a place for Junior Kindergarten students, but would also open
up spots for more 2 and 3 year olds at the current preschool. There are many families on that
waitlist as well as they are one of the few and only preschool on the North Shore that accepts
children as young as 2 years old; most want them at least 3 years old and potty trained. They are
in high demand because of that, and there are many families that need a place' for their children.
Ms: Padilla pointed out there are only three preschools in: Kflauea'currently: My Growing
Place, Kauai Christian Academy, and Head Start. She noted that Head Start is geared toward
low income families who have first priority; they also have a waitlist. There is no support for
working families, and nowhere for the children to go. Ms. Padilla. stated if they do not create a
place that is permitted and licensed, there will be an influx of facilities with less licensing
requirements around the community to try and meet the need. Her goal is to create a place that is
legitimate, and high - quality to help further these children's education as well as to support the
working families.
Ms. Mendonca stated that being a licensed facility, she would hope there would be a
nurse on hand at all times. Ms. Padilla explained it is,not a requirement of the Department of
Human Services to have a nurse on hand for early childhood education. However; every teacher
has met all DHS qualifications, have taken health and safety classes, and are CPR trained. Every
teacher, director, and aide has gone through the required classes.
Page 7 of 13
Ms. Mendonca asked how many children are currently enrolled at the other school to
which Ms. Padilla stated they are currently licensed for 18 children at one time. However, they
offer a part-time program that allows them to reach more families; they have 18, children at any
given time, but they are on a staggered schedule, which accommodates 45 families. Ms.
Mendonca asked how many adults are there for supervision to :which Ms. Padilla replied there
are 3 adults to ,18 children, which exceeds the. DOH licensing standards;: the standard is 12
children to l adult. Ms. Padilla reiterated they want to maintain a high :quality program to really
prepare them as opposed to just getting as many kids as they can.
Ms. Mendonca asked if these adults are teachers or volunteers. Ms. Padilla stated they
have a co- teaching team that consists of two.teachers who teach together as well as a teacher's
aide.
Mr. Kimura expressed his concerns about cars parking on the street during drop -off: time
when the tam- around area is full. He commented that another preschool in the area has had cars
parked in the road unattended when parents are dropping off their kids. He asked if that has been
taken into consideration. Ms. Kanehe explained that from 8:00 a.m.. - .9:00'a.m. is the transition
time from outdoor activities to indoor, and this allows for a staggered drop -off time. Rather than
have one set time for dropping, off children, parents have a more relaxed time frame that helps
with traffic flow with parents. coming, and going at:different times within that hour. Theyalso
find that. it's best for the children to not have everyone come in at the same time, which creates
tension. That has been working well at the current location, and they expect to do the same at
the proposed Iocation. The same staggered timeframe applies at the end of the day for pick -up
between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00_ Additionally, they plan on potentially having after school care to
accommodate families for an extra hour. There is also a drive.. through drive - way that is being
proposed though they do not anticipate any cars jamming up:
Mr. Kimura asked if they have considered. scheduling the.parents:to specific assigned
drop- off/pick -up times. Ms. Padilla replied they:are open to considering that, but they haven't
needed to. do so, at this point: as the -staggered drop- off/pick -up -time has allowed that -to happen
naturally. Ms. Padilla noted they have considered the physical aspects of the property to create a
parking plan and drop- off,area. Her sister -in -law owns the neighboring property and has allowed
access to the -open lot on her property, which the applicants will maintain. The applicants are
working on a plan that will have the least traffic impact., Mr. Kimura reiterated his concem. .
about cars parking in the street, and stated he will-be, requesting a review should there be enough
legitimate complaints about parking on the street,
Ms. Padilla stated they make the time.to;have parent meetings, communicate directly
with the parents, and express to them how important it is to respect the neighbors, and everyone
around them; they will continue to do that. Mr. Kimura asked if they have talked to all the
neighbors in the area to which Ms. Padilla. replied no, not directly, but they have talked a lot in
the community, and recently went to, a Kilauea.Neighborhood Association meeting to ensure
KNA was aware of what they were proposing: Everyone, was very. supportive. .
Page 8 of 13.
Mr. Kimura asked if the County sent letters out to which Ms. Galinato replied the
applicant sent letters out to all the neighbors within 300 feet with no negative responses.
Ms. Kanehe stated along with the letters, they included some information on who they
are, and what their plans are as well as a letter from a neighbor explaining the low -key, positive
impact the current preschool has had. She noted that they maintain direct communication with
parents to ensure they keep disruptions to a minimum as well as teach the children to be aware of
other homes around them. She is confident they can maintain that positive - impact at the
proposed site. At the KNA meeting they expressed the importance of maintaining the positive
impacts.
Ms. Padilla added that the letter to the neighbors included a personal letter from them as
well as contact numbers for information to encourage people to contact them with any issues.
They have not heard a single negative thing about this proposal, but rather have been met with
excitement by parents and community members.
Ms:: Galinato read the additional Condition 8 into the record
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Commission a biennial status report to
address compliance with permit conditions. Additionally, the status report shall address any
traffic impacts and concerns raised by the community. The status report shall be submitted every
two years from the Planning Commission date of approval to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Padilla asked for clarification that the Commission is asking the applicant to provide
a report every two years to which Ms. Galinato replied yes. Mr. Kimura added that if there are
enough complaints,_ the applicants would have to come back before the Planning Commission,
Mr. Kimura asked how many adults will be on staff at the new proposed preschool. Ms.
Padilla replied they will have a Director, a co- teaching team, and an aide: 3-4 total. Mr. Kimura
asked- how that will impact the children if there are 30 of them to which Ms. Padilla replied the
children will be of Junior Kindergartenage, which changes the student - teacher ratio :She added
that the program is to prepare them for what's to come in a DOE classroom that will have 30-
plus children. The ratio of 3 adults to 30 children is a really good ratio, which they will also
maintain at the current preschool for the younger age group as they need a bit more help.
In response to Mr. Katayama, Ms. Padilla pointed out the location of the physical
structure in Exhibit I, and provided an explanation of the house plans in Exhibit D. Ms. Kanehe
explained how to read the list of existing child care facilities in Exhibit G, and the area the list
encompasses.
Ms. Galinato read the Department's' recommendations into the record. (On file)
Mr. _Katayama. stated. there is an easement on the adjacent property that is, included in this
Use Permit, and asked should that property want to be developed and the easement is
extinguished, how does that affect the permit. Mr. Crowell stated the use becomes constricted by
the absence of the easement, and may be grounds for re- review of the permit. ` Mr. Jung asked
whether the easement for the off - street parking on the neighboring parcel is in perpetuity, or was
Page 9 of 13
there a designated time limit. Ms. Padilla stated the owner is a family member, and has no plans
to sell or make changes; she is in full support of what they are doing.
Mr. Katayama asked what happens should the owner want to sell, or there are plans to do
something else with that property. Mr. Jung stated it would.depend on what the easement
document says. Ms. Padilla stated her sister -in -law is open to allowing the applicant to doing
whatever they want with that easement, even offering to try and sell it to them.. Mr. Katayama
would like. something on record to make it clear that the owner of the adjacent property, is
granting use. of the easement in perpetuity. Mr. Jung stated Condition 1 of the use permit states
"as represented ", and if the easement would be taken away, the applicant would have to return to
the Commission to seek a modification of the permit. Mr. Katayama expressed concern about
accommodating growth of the school as :well to which Ms. Padilla;:rephed the maximum allowed
by DHS is. 30 students based on the square footage; they would not be able to: grow very large-.
Additionally, there is room in the driveway area in front of the house that could accommodate.
cars for staff.
Mr. Kimura asked if the applicant has spoken to the Department of Health regarding the
wastewater system noting that according to the Department of Health's comments, the applicant
will have to apply for a variance for an individual wastewater system. Ms. Padilla stated the
property has aseptic system. Mr. Kimura stated he just wants :the apphcant:to be aware of the.
wastewater issue so . they can resolve it. Mr. Kimura asked that when construction of the
driveway is underway the applicant asks the construction company to drop off their machinery,
and park their trailers elsewhere as.there, is not enough room there for the. trailers.
W. Katayama asked whether Condition 8 is part of the original: proposal to which Ms.
Galinato replied it's an amendment. Mr. Crowell verbally incorporated the amendment into the
Director.'s, report.
On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Mr. Katayama to approve. the CIass
TV ZoningPermit and Use Permit as amended, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote. -
(The meeting recessed at 11 :18 a.m.)
(The meeting reconvened at 11:33 a.m.)
Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2014 -14 and Use Permit U- 2014 -13 to convert existing;
residence into a commercial operation for shipping, printing and storage services on aparcel
located along the rnakai side of Kuhio Highwa y in Kapa`a Town; situated: approx l 00 ft north
of the Panihi Road/Kuhia Highway Highwqy intersection further identified as Tax Map Key 4 4 -5 -003:
016. and containing a total area of approx. 11,250 sq. ft; John & Catherine Gillen.. [Director's
Report received 5/27/14.1
Mr. Cua read a summary of the Director's Report into, the record; (On file)
Page 10 of 23
Applicants John & Catherine Gillen were present.
Mr. Kimura asked for clarification that the property is right next to a stop light, and asked
whether it would be right turn only-to enter and exit to which Mr. Gillen replied yes. Mr.
Kimura asked if that has been documented.to which Mr. Cua replied as noted, the Department
has not received comments from the State DOT Highways Division yet; however, as a condition
of the approval, they are recommending the applicant work closely with DOT to coordinate the
ingress and egress for the property.
Mr. Cua read the Department's recommendations into the record. (On file) A Condition
10 that was inadvertently left out was added to read:
An environmental impact assessment fee based on the number of required off - street
parking stalls shall be paid at the time of building-permit application.
On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Wayne Katayama to approve the
Class IV Zoning Permit and Use Permit, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(U}, 2014 -6 to allow construction of an
additional dwelling unit (ADU) 'on a parcel located along the makai side of Hoona Road 'in
K61oa, situated approx. 200 ft. east of its intersection with Lawa`i Road, further identified at Tax
Map Key 2 -6 -006: 021, and containing a total land area of'9,910 sg. ft. = Tom W. Stirling
Mr. Cua read a summary of the Director's Report into the record. (On file)
. Mr. Kimura asked if this house is right on the beach to which Mr. Cua replied yes, it is
right on the shoreline. Mr. Kimura questioned the setback being only 40 feet. Mr. Cua
explained' based on the depth of the parcel from the shoreline to the road, the minimum setback is
40 feet. Mr. Jung provided an explanation of how they calculate the shoreline setback. Mr.
Kimura asked what the setback would be if the applicant had a 5,000 square foot lot to which
Mr. Jung stated it depends what is being proposed and where.
In response to Mr. Kimura, Mr. Cua stated this ADU is being built on top of an existing
unit, and that unit is currently being used as a TVR. This ADU is intended as a residence for the
property owner.
Avery Youn, representing the applicant provided some Exhibits for the Commission's
reference. He stated the bottom floor is an existing 2- bedroom ADU, and the upper floor is a I-
bedroom, single family detached residence for the owner. He commented this process began two
years ago, and at that time they were informed by the Planning Department that they were
exempt because the cost of building the upper floor was under $400,000. However; .once the
plans were developed. and presented to the Planning Department, they were informed that they
would have to go through the public hearing process. He requested clarification as to why they
are required to come before the Commission. Mr. Jung stated ordinarily when someone comes
in for a'second home in a Special Management Area it triggers the requirement for an SMA°
permit. The question of whether that would be an SMA major or minor permit is based on the
Page 11 of 13
price threshold; however, if it's in a particularly sensitive area, the Director can require a full
SMA major permit.
Mr: Isobe asked if this area is considered particularly sensitive to which Mr. Jung stated it
is right on the shoreline, and if there wasn't an existing home the setback would be significantly
greater. Mr. Isobe asked for clarification that if the:applicant had:proposed to build a two -story
home, that residence would have been set further back from the shoreline. Mr. Crowell stated
the existing structure was built prior to the shoreline setback law. Mr. Isobe asked for
clarification that if there were no structures currently on the property, and the applicant was
proposing a two -story dwelling, would the. applicant have had to apply for-,,,,a variance because of
the configuration of the lot. W. Crowell pointed out separate sections of the map, one of which
would require a variance, one. of which would not. in response to Mr. Isobe, W. Jung explained
the proposed ADU does not require a variance because the new construction falls behind the 40
foot mark.
Mr. Isobe asked for clarification on what the use permit is for. Mr: Cua explained the use
permit is for construction of the second residence on the property. Mr. Isobe stated for
clarification that if all the applicant wanted to do was build a second story on the existing
residence they would not appear before the Commission. Mr. Cua stated in a situation where the
second story would fimction like a house addition;, they would still have to, conform with the
current shoreline setback requirements; however, it would not trigger the SMA permit. What is
triggering the SMA in this case is the ADU; the.use, not the building itself_
Mr. Youn stated he does not want to prolong this any further, but he wanted some
clarification on the exemptions to avoid having future projects come before the Commission
unnecessarily. Mr. Jung stated for clarificatioathat this proposal is not exempted because it is
the development of a second density on a single lot of record. It still triggers the. SMA permit,
but the question is whether or not it. takes a Department issued SMA minor permit or a Planning
Commission SMA use permit.
Mr. Youn provided some background on the existing structure, and detailed the various
aspects of the proposed construction. He acknowledged the objections received on blocked
views; but mentioned that lot is not visible from the applicant's property. He pointed out this is a
permitted use that qualifies for an ADU, has an approved facilities clearance form, has been.
designed to meet the CZO requirements for a single - family detached building, and meets all the
requirements of the shoreline setback ordinance. The TVR on the lower level is in compliance,
is registered, is current with all requirements. of the TVR ordinance, and meets the flood
ordinance. He noted that all the residences on the makai side of Hoona Road are two -story .
structures; with the exception of one guest cottage.: Additionally, a vast majontyof dwellings on
both sides of Hoona Road are already vacation rentals. - The existing site, residence, and sea wall
all complied with requirements at the time of its construction, and. the proposed ADU use is an
allowable use, which has been.designed in compliance with all current codes, setbacks, and CZO
requirements for a single- family detached building.
Mr. Youn noted that Condition 3 of the Director's: report requires the applicant to forfeit
his TVR should this ADU use be approved, the reason being the proposed structure is a multi-
Page 12 ;of 13
family unit; the applicant is not willing to do so. Mr. Youn stated, by definition, this is not a
multi - family unit and qualifies as a single - family detached unit under the CZO, further noting
that if they were proposing two, separate single -story houses it would be approved. They are
forced to design it as a second -story unit because of the current shoreline setback.
Mr. Youn requested the item be deferred for closer scrutiny of the application,
specifically the ADU designation as a multi - family unit, which the applicant states it is not, or
that Condition. 3 be amended to read:
The applicant shall not use the ADUfor TVR use on the subject parcel and any such use
would be grounds for cancellation or forfeiture of TVNC -1191. (the current TVR on the bottom
floor).
Mr. Jung stated he would review Condition 3 with the Planning Director to determine the
rationale behind its proposal.
On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Sean Mahoney to defer the item to
the June 24, 2014 meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Topics for Future Meetings
Mr. Crowell distributed a list of items that will appear before the Commission at
upcoming meetings.
The following scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., or
shortly thereafter at the L-ihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha June 24, 2014.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Kimura adjourned the meeting at 12:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Cherisse Zaima
Commission Support Clerk
() Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval).
() Approved as amended See minutes of meeting.
Page 13 of 13