Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc D2 6-24-14 minutes KAUA'I PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 24, 2014 The regular meeting of the PIanning Commission of the County of Kaua'i was called to order by Chair Kimura at 9: 19 a.m., at the L3hu` e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in Meeting Room 3. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Jan Kimura. Vice Chair Angela Anderson Mr. John Isobe Mr. Wayne Katayama Mr. Sean Mahoney Ms. Amy Mendonca Absent and Excused: Mr. Hartwell Blake The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Michael Dahilig; Dee Crowell, Leslie Takasaki, Ka' aina Hull, Dale Cua, Kenneth Estes; 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: 19 a.m. -ROLL CALL PIanning Director Michael Dahilig noted that there were six Commissioners present. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Dahilig requested that due to his recusal from Item F.2.a, all hearings be taken up under Item F, with the exception of the above mentioned item; and Item F.2.a. and any corresponding action be taken immediately after the public testimony period and before the Consent Calendar, Mr. Katayama noted he would like to recuse himself from Item F.2.d. Page ! of 24 e � AUG ; 22014 On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to approve the agenda as amended, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission Regular meeting of f May 27, 2014 On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Angela Anderson to approve the minutes of the meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD On the motion by Scan Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson 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_Permit Z-IV-2014.17 and Use Permit U-2014-16 to establish operations involving food truck vendors on a parcel situated in K61oa along the western side of Maluhia Road and gRRrox. 350 ft. north of its intersection with K51oa Road further identified as Tax Ma Key 2-8-006 : 025 (Portion) with a land area of 8.63 acres = Dr. Michael & Valerie Murray. f Director' s Report received 6/10/14.1 Mr. Dahilig noted for the record the Commission received testimony in the form of a petition from Cushnie Construction in support of the application. The Commission received testimony from Kathy Sheffield who stated she has been a resident of K61oa Town for seven years. Ms. Sheffield stated the food truck has been in operation, and a second truck parked on that property for a couple of years She questioned why they are allowed there since they drive across the street to Knudsen Park to operate, and noted that K61oa Town proper now has three. food trucks, which she is totally against. She feels the visual impact of these trucks is destroying the nature of the plantation town environment and is not appropriate. Ms. Sheffield pointed out there are two food trucks behind the community center-that have permanent electricity in place, but inadequate bathrooms and parking, and are a total eyesore for the community; it is not the way they want the entrance to their city to be represented. Page 2 of 24 The Commission received testimony from Elaine Yadao who stated any opposition to the food trucks in that area is an overreaction, noting they are mobile regardless of permanent electricity; they can be unplugged and move on. She feels the trucks serve their purpose quite nicely and conveniently, and is definitely not an eyesore as the whole area is so well maintained by the Muirays, She does not see any reason for objecting to this application; it is on private property and the property owners are seeking the necessary licenses and permits. Ms. Yadao stated she is in full support of this application. 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 Z-1V-2014- 18 and Variance Permit V-2014-4 to deviate from the re uirement noted in Section 8-9.2 c l of the Kauai CogM Code 1987 relating to the minimum lot size within the Open (0) zoning district involving a 2-lot,subdivision of a parcel located in Moloa` a along the makai side of Kuono Road and Approx. . 500 ft east of its intersection with Moloa` a Road further identified as Tax Map Kg s 4-9-014: 006 & 4-9-009 : J. 002, and containing a total area of 47.988 acres = RMoloa `a Ray Co., Investments, LLC. [Director's Report received 6/10/14 J Mr. Dahilig stated for the record the Commission has received testimony in opposition from Debra Boiser. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by John Isobe to close agency hearing, the motion carried byunanimous voice vote. Class IV Zoning Permit Z_N-2014-16 and Use Permit U-2014- 13 to establish a visitor center facilLty with accessory commercial uses that includes a Production Facili /Administration Building, Tasting Room. Caf6 Interactive Garden, a construction of one (1 ) Farm DwelliniaUnit and a disnlav Planation House, and associated improvements on a parcel situated in Koloa along the western side of Maluhia Road and immediately across Anne Knudsen Park further identified as Tax Man Key 2-8-006 : 001 , and containing a total area of 18. 867 acres = Kaloa Rum_ Corporation. [Director's Report received 6/10/14.1 Mr. Dahilig stated for the record that the Commission has received testimony in support from Mr. Cushnie of Cushnie Construction, Charlie King; Chipper Wickman, and Mark Hubbard, The Commission received testimony from Wesley Kanahele who is currently employed by the K61oa Rum Company, and has been working there for about two and a half years, noting what he likes about the company is that they are very family-oriented. He stated that the company is bringing back aspects of the sugar-cane industry, which is no longer in operation in Hawai` i. Page 3 of 24 The Commission received testimony from Keaka Canute who is currently employed by the. K6loa Rum Company, and has been working there for a little over a year. He expressed his support for the proposed project, and feels it will do a lot of good for everyone in the community_ He feels it will bring in a lot more tourists to the area, and goes back to the old plantation days when there was a lot more sugar production; an industry we do not have any more. Mr. Canute pointed out this proposal is not just about alcohol, but about the history, and knowledge of our island. He reiterated his support of the application. The Commission received testimony from Adam Killermann who stated he has been involved in the sugar industry since 1979, noting that up until the closure of McBryde Sugar in 1996) they were farming in those particular fields in the area. This field is where the Koloa Plantation Days event originated, and at that time included seed cutting contests that many plantation seed cutters participated in. W. .Killermann stated this project will bring sugar back, noting that about 10 acres of cane have already been planted throughout both K61oa and Kaumakani.. The gateway to K61oa will once again include about 12 acres of cane which is planned to be used for the rum production; it will not be burned like it used to. Mr. Killermann explained they will be exporting products. out of Kauai, and will also be growing guava for their jelly operation in Kal'heo. He sees this as a good opportunity to learn about new crops, and how to grow sugar cane just as he did. He feels this is a valuable project that will enhance the gateway to Koloa.with the planted sugar cane, and with Dr. Murray's property just below that area, which has been cleaned by the Murray family, The Commission received testimony from Kathy Sheffield who stated that she doesn't . understand how a distillery was permitted on land that is zoned agriculture, and is now asking for commercial rezoning. She stressed that this is truly. a commercial project, just like the Hawaii Dairy Farms. She stated she has no problem with the K51oa Rum Company, but noted they have a showroom at Kilohana, and.plenty of room to develop the entire project on Grove Farm land there. She questioned the attractiveness. of sugar cane, and pointed. out the huge traffic impact that will be created by the 48,000 square foot building and tasting room on that road, which is not;a proper use, noting there is a ball field directly across it where children recreate. Ms, Sheffield stated the Commission.needs to take a good. look at planning, and the overall impact. to the community. She reiterated that she has no problem with the project itself, but feels it is the . wrong place for it. a The Commission received testimony from Randy Francisco of the Kauai Chamber of Commerce who read a letter of support into the record. (On file) The letter highlighted the numerous awards received by the Koloa Rum Corporation, and their numerous successes and community giving. He pointed out the project' s plan to grow sugar cane, which goes back to the island's rich sugar history that will be part of the visitor's center and tasting room: experience; brought back to life in the place where the industry was founded over 150 years ago. Page 4 of 24 The Commission received testimony from Elaine Yadao who stated she is not being paid by a billionaire to be there, therefore, her testimony will be different. She noted for the record that Rupert Rowe, who is responsible for the restoration of the Kaneioluma complex in Po`ipu, was unable to attend today, but wanted to express his adamant opposition to the proposal. Ms. Yadao stated the logistics of the project are not defined in the Director' s report, and she is unable to find any additional information on it. However, it seems there will be more facilities, stores, and commercial activities that will occur on the property; more so than actual farming. She stated that if the report to designate Important Ag Lands has not been completed yet, this proposal should be put on hold to be considered IAL. There are numerous concerns associated with this operation such as the pungent, volatile components used; large mechanical harvesting machines; processing of the sugar cane, which she questions will be actually produced there. Ms. Yadao asked where they intend to dispose of effluent, and explained the steps of rum processing. She noted a wastewater analysis done by the EPA found toxic pollutants present in the effluent as well as high levels of organic compounds: lead, iron, copper, zinc, etc.; high bio- chemical oxygen demand, and chemical oxygen demand. The analysis found that rum effluent is harmful to the.manne environment and contributes to fish kill, reductions in marine microorganisms, planktonic organisms and hetero-tropic organisms as the effluent contains high levels of organic. carbon compounds: Ms. Yadao reiterated that it has not been mentioned where the effluent will go, and further pointed out this is not an accepted agriculture use on Class B ' agriculture land. Of all the proposed uses under Chapter 25, there is nothing remotely similar to this proposal listed as permitted use on agriculture land. She insinuated possible arrangements with the Koloa Rum Company regarding the bypass may push the Commission to pass this proposal, but urged them to consider that it is not accepted use on. agriculture land. She pointed out that it is across from youth activity, and there are enough accidents with drunk drivers and tourists that don't know their way around, which caused her to question the moral, ethical message that is being sent. The Commission received testimony from Dr. Michael Murray who stated he feels there are many positives surrounding this project such as the concept of fruit, sugar, and employment, which he supports. However, the alcohol aspect is what is of concern to him, noting he has spent 34 years trying to get people to NOT drink excessively. He questioned whether there was a way for the Commission to lessen the rum component of the project, noting it will be directly across the park where youth play various sports. The location relative to the youth is the main sticking point, is of great concern to him, and is the only issue he has. Dr. Murray also pointed out that the current bottle of Koloa Rum included a picture of the Koloa Sugar Milt, which he feels is somewhat offensive. He asked if any permission was given by former sugarcane workers that made Koloa what it is to use that picture on bottles of rum. As a physician, he must caution the public on the consumption of alcohol. The Commission received testimony from Sharon Buse, President of the Old Mill Camp Condominium Association; the condos will be directly backed up to the proposed project. The residents there are greatly concerned about the noise, traffic that will be created in relation to the commercial activity associated with it, and the effluent produced. She noted 'she read up on the effluent produced by another rum distillery in another country, which she described as abhorrent; Page 5 of 24 the smell is awful. The application only states that waste products, and waste water will be taken care of, but it does not specify how that will be done. She described what other similar facilities do, noting she lived in a sugar beet town in California, and has personally experienced those bad smells. She. asked whether.there will by any borders along the stream to prevent people from wandering over to their property, a concern that has not been addressed in the application. She reiterated her concerns with the noise, the smell, and overall traffic that will be created by this project. On the .motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to close agency hearing, the motion carried 5-0. (Katayama recused from vote) New Public Hearing Zonin& Amendment ZA-2014-8 : A bill for an ordinance amendin ChM ter 8 Kaua` i County Code 1987, as amended, relating to Special Treatment Districts. The purpose of the bill is to create a new Special Treatment Mixed-Use District to jRrovide authorily to the S ecial Development Plans to identify and designate unique urban areas and apply form-based code principles = County of Kauai. On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Sean Mahoney to defer the item, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. All Public Testimony Pursuant to HRS 92 The Commission received testimony from Warren Buse related to the Koloa Rum Corporation. He noted one concern he has with the application is that the map used in the application does not even show the Old Mill Camp Condominium Association's homes, where he resides,• there are eight houses there. He stated if the project is approved, he would like to see high-fencing along. the stream to block any access onto their property. The Commission received additional testimony from Elaine Yadao relating to the K61oa Rm Corporation. She surmised that the .owner purchased the property with full intent to go forth with a distillery. She commented the applicant assumed approval would be received, or was possibly told approval would be received, but the applicant should move this operation elsewhere as she feels the area is inappropriate, and the project is not a permitted agricultural use. She questioned that because it is over 15 acres, does the applicant not have to also go before the Land Use Commission. The Commission received testimony from Michelle Penn relating to the food truck vendors. She stated what Jolene does at the Waihohonu Mill with her food truck, and the history. she perpetuates for the area is fabulous. The area is always left better than it was; Jolene cleans it well; feeds people, and lets people experience. the true spirit of Aloha, and she should be Page 6 of 24 allowed to continue to do business there. Ms. Penn stated she has driven through Koloa Town many times and had never stopped at the mill site, nor knew its history until she stopped at the food truck to have lunch where she was given a pamphlet, and provided with a history of the sugar mills and their importance to the State. She received an education from simply having lunch there, and visiting the'site. Ms. Penn pointed out many visitors do not know the history of the sugar plantations here, but they learn about that from Jolene who does not just do her business there, but also shares the history of the island. There are numerous reviews on TripAdvisor and Yelp from visitors expressing the wonderful experience they had with Jolene. Ms. Penn does not see a negative impact to that area from her business, noting that though the food truck is bright orange, it provides a fun experience, which she hopes others can experience. Jolene was bom and raised here, and comes from a local family who know what the spirit of Aloha means, which is a great thing to share with locals and visitors alike. The Commission received testimony from Danny Good relating to the Koloa Rum Corporation. Mr. Good stated he is the producer of Koloa Rum as well as the jams and jellies for Hawaiian Fruit Specialties. He explained they are strictly regulated by TTB (Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau), and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Additionally, a chemical analyst visits their facilities every three months unannounced to check all the chemicals used as well as what goes out; no chemicals go out into the land, everything is destroyed. Referencing noise concerns, Mr. Good stated there are eight to twelve families currently living around the property from which they have never received any complaints . They make it a point to work hand in hand with the neighbors to ensure noise is kept to` a minimum. The sugar cane will be juiced using the rhum agricole process, and only the juice will be brought back to the factory, which will not create any smell. The cane will then be mulched back into the ground, He noted many of the concerns raised will not be present at the site. Mr. Good noted Koloa Rum has always worked closely with the neighbors, and takes the initiative to have inspectors come in and. ensure they meet all the necessary requirements. The Commission received additional testimony from Sharon Muse relating to the Koloa Rum Corporation. She noted that production will occur 24/7 and assumes there will be large trucks coming in and out of that area. She wants the noise issue to be considered. She stated that they can hear the games and the music coming from Anne Knudsen ballpark, which they do not complain about, and the proposed production facility will be that much closer to them; there are numerous houses down the road from them that will ikely also be affected. She urged the Commission to consider the traffic, and noise that will be created. Class IV Zoning Permit ZJV-2014-19. Use Permit U-2014-17 for development of the Kauai Phili ine Cultural Center that includes an Administration Buildin-g containiniz offices,a commercial kitchen & an assembly hall and Main Hall for ublio gatherings, and Variance Permit V-2014-5 to deviate from the. lot coverage requirement within the Residential R- 1 zoning district, located, onpropertyalong the makai side of ,Kaumuali` i Highway_inPuhi at its intersection with Nuhou Street, further identified as Tax Map Key 3-3-003 043 (Por hand Page 7 of 24 containing a total area of 7. 133 acres Kauai Phili i2ine Cultural Center. irector's Report received 6/10/14.1 Mr. Dahilig recused himself from this item due to a conflict of interest. Deputy Planning. Director Dee Crowell resumed the meeting, (The meeting recessed at 10:04 a.m.) (The meeting reconvened at 10: 16 a.m.) At the request of Chair Kimura, Mr. Jung explained the Planning Commission meeting was moved into this room due to health and safety issues arising from a situation that occurred earlier that morning. He noted that the meeting is not being televised, but that minutes are being recorded and will be transcribed. Mr. Cua read a summary of the Director' s report into the record. (On file) Mr. Jung noted that Item F. and M. have been combined for this application. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Amy Mendouca to open agency hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. The Commission received testimony from Jose Bulatao, Jr. of Kekaha. . Mr. Bulatao provided a history of the Filipino community on Kauai, and the planning and designing of a cultural center as a place for all. He provided a history of his experiences with'.the Kauai Garden Island Arts Council for ethnic dances, putting together a dance troupe made of many different ednicities. He expressed the importance of the special and unique: cultural blend that is Kauai. He feels this is opportunity for Kaua`i :to be the first to design a place .of such stature and significance created by the Filipino community where ANYBODY can go . Though there are other venues on the island, they cannot always accommodate every event. Mr. Bulatao stated this center will allow future generations to have contact with the richness of their past, which is our shared kuleana. The Commission received testimony from an unidentified speaker who shared that her family consists of many different ethnicities and reiterated that we are a place for all. The Commission received testimony from Millicent Wellington who stated she had submitted written.testimony, Ms. Wellington stated she is an advocate for the cultural center, and something she would like to pass on to her children as well as her students. This center will meet a lot of needs for meetings, exhibits, for learning, and will be an outreach for not only residents, but also visitors to the island. Ms. Wellington stated there: is so much to pass on to the children, and they are mi a place where the histories of how they were raised are being lost. She urged the Commission to give support to all the efforts made as it will benefit all. Page 8 of 24 On the motion by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Sean Mahoney to close agency hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Lorna Nishimitsu, on behalf of the applicant was present along with Lester Calipjo, President of the Kauai Philippine Cultural Center. Ms. Nishimitsu explained aspects of the lease agreement, the zoning of the parcel, part of which is licensed to the YMCA for public events. She further explained that the proposed facility would provide an opportunity for people to have an event space for community use in addition to what is already in existence such as the Veteran's Center or Convention Hall. In addition, they will allow the office space, meeting rooms, commercial kitchen and existing basketball court to be used. Ms. Nishimitsu noted the basketball court was built by Chiefess Kamakahelei Middle School for use by the students, but is not on the school's property. As time goes on the Board will focus on determining the type of offices that would best suit the facility, what types of events will be allowed, and what charges will be involved. Ms. Nishimitsu trusts that those decisions will consider the needs of the community of Kaua` i. She described several technical aspects of Phase I and Phase I1 of the project. Mr. Calipjo stated KPCC planned to build this years ago, and looked at building something that would provide services to help the community. He asked the Commission to please grant the use permit. At the request of Ms. Anderson, Architect Ron Agor explained the different phases of the project, and how the design of the building will work with the neighboring areas by pointing out different portions of the project on a map provided.' (Due to. the speaker moving away from the microphone and utilizing a map, much of the explanation was inaudible, and visual indicators were used.) Ms. Anderson asked whether the Complete Streets guidelines -for multi-modal access have been incorporated. Mr. Agor pointed out the walkways on the map provided. In response to Mr. Katayama, Mr. Agor explained the access driveway to the cultural center will be adjacent to the basketball court, and is separate from the school's access to the court. Students at CKMS_will not have to enter KPCC or YMCA property to access the courts. Mr. Katayama asked if YMCA uses the basketball courts for any of its activities to which Mr. Agor stated they had intended to; however no program has been developed at this time. Mr. Kimura asked if the basketball court was fenced off to which Mr. Agor replied yes. It was noted that the entrance to the courts is through the school, which was pointed out on the map. Any activities the YMCA wishes to have on the basketball court will have to be worked out between them and CKMS. In response to Mr. Katayama, Mr. Agor stated the YMCA has looked at the traffic flow, and they have provided a letter in support of the concept of a shared access. Page 9 of 24 Mr. Cua read the Department's recommendations and conditions into the record. (On file). Mr. Katayama asked if the conditions reference the license agreement with the County to which Mr. Cua stated, no not at this time. He explained in order to qualify as an applicant, it must be demonstrated that they hold a lease. Mr. Jung further explained that there are provisions built within the license for any default, and the County as the land-owner could remove the permits if necessary; there are safeguards built in to the license to deal with situations and entitlements. On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve the Zoning Permit, Use Permit,•and Variance Permit, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. (The meeting recessed at 10: 51 a.m.) (The meeting reconvened at 11 .09 a.m.) CONSENT CALENDAR Status Reports (None) Director's Re ort s for Projects(s) Scheduled for Agency Hearin on 7/8/14 Class IV ZgWgg Permit Z-IV-2014-20 and Use Permit U-2014- 18 to construct and operate a roadside fruit stand within a parcel located along Hanalei Plantation Road situated approx. Y4-mile east of its intersection with Lei O Papa Road in Princeville further identified as Tax MW Key 54-004: 054, and affecting_a portion of a larger parcel containing 5 .058 acres = Ed Ben Dor. Class IV Zoning Permit Z-N-2014-21 and Use Permit U-2014- 19 to construct a farm dwelling with garage, lanai, and associated improvements on Lot 12 of the Seacliff Plantation Subdivision in K71lauea, further identified as Tax MaR Key 5-2-004: 085 and containing a total area of approx. 5.259 acres = David Wilmot & Olivia Collin s-wdmat Shoreline Setback Activity Determination (None) No action was taken on the Consent Calendar, EXECUTIVE SESSION (None) GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS (None) Page 10 of 24 i COMMUNICATION (For Action) (None) COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision Vice Chair Amy Mendonca read the Subdivision Committee Report into the record. (On file) The following tentative subdivision actions were approved 3-0: S-2014-19 = ,State of Hawai Y, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, Proposed 2-lot Subdivision S-2014-20 = Marilyn H. Planas/Frances Finau, Proposed 2-lot Boundary Adjustment The following final subdivision action was approved 3-0: S-2014-08 = County ofKaua `i, Department of Water, Proposed 2-lot Subdivision On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to accept the Subdivision Report, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action) Special Management Area Use Permit SMA(LT)-2014-6 to allow construction of an additional dwelling unit (AD on a parcel located along the makai side of Hoona Road in Koloa, situated apnrox: 200 $: east of its intersection.with Uwa` i Road further identified as Tax Ma Key 2-6-006: 021 and containiniz a total land area of 9,9 10 s . ' ft. = Tom W!- Stirlin ` - Mr. Dahilig noted this item was deferred from the last meeting. Mr. Cua provided a recap of what was discussed at the last meeting, noting there were concerns with the TVR use. A memorandum addressing that concern was distributed, and a Condition 12 was created, and is being proposed as read: The ADUshall not be used as a Transient Vacation Rental. 'If the ADUis used as a TVR penalties as described in CZO Section 8-17. 11 Enforcement Against Illegal Transient Vacation Rentals shall apply. Should the applicant be found in violation of this condition penalties ` 1. including potential revocation of this permit may be levied as a penalty by the Department and the Commission. The applicant further agrees that advertising showing the dwelling unit subject to this application is available for TVR rental is prima facie evidence of TVR use. Page 11 of 24 In response to Mr. Kimura, Mr. Cua explained that the ADU is often referred to as the `Ohana dwelling, and the primary intent was to address the housing shortage and allow help for family members. Mr. Kimura asked whether that ADU can now be used for anything, even to rent out to which Mr. Cua stated the Department has come across applications where an ADU is not being utilized for members of family. Mr. Kimura asked to clarify that Council has already stopped the applications for ADUs to which Mr. Cua replied primarily within. the Agriculture and Open zoning districts. Mr. Dahilig informed the Commission that a bill to extend the ADU sunset deadline will be coming before the Commission at the end of July. (The meeting recessed at 11 : 15 a.m.) (The meeting reconvened at 11 : 17 a.m.) Avery Youn, authorized agent for the applicant, was present. Mr. Youn stated the amended condition looks fine, and thanked the Department for considering it. Mr. Katayama asked how the applicant will ensure that the ADU unit will not be used as a TVR. Mr. Youn stated he wrote an alternate condition for the Commission' s consideration which he feels is a little stricter than what the Department proposed, and will address the Commission' s concern. The proposed condition reads: . The Additional Dwelling Unit can only be used as a private residence and shall not be used for Transient Vacation Rental purposes. Any such use shall be grounds for immediate termination of the existing TVR unit use; TVNC #1191 of the existing unit below. The applicant shall provide such an agreement prior to issuance of the ADU building permit. Mr. Youn noted the agreement will be similar to what the Department currently has,' except this one will be specifically for not using the ADU as a TVR. He feels that requiring that. prior to the issuance of a building permit will give the Department some leverage should it be violated. . Mr. Jung .stated that the South Kauai Development Plan is proposing to put that area into the VDA, and should the Council change the maps. to allow for that, this ADU could potentially be used as a legitimate TVR, and not a non7confortni119 use, He noted the condition proposed by the Department is more general in terms of what can be done under the current TVR regulations. Mr. Jung explained. the distinction between the Department' s and.the applicant' s proposed conditions. The Department' s condition opens the door to future use should the VDA come in; however, the applicant' s condition places a specific restriction on TVR use altogether, and.not in conjunction with the code section itself: . Mr. Katayama asked,if the latter case would require the. applicant to come before. the Commission to request a modification of that condition to which Mr. Jung replied yes, it would be procedurally required, and the use issue would have to be evaluated. again. Mr. Katayama stated for clarification that if the area. is part of the VDA the issue becomes moot to which Mr. Jung replied not necessarily because the condition reads specific prohibition on TVR use whether. inside or outside the VDA. Page 12 of 24 Mr. Youn added that all of the houses from the applicant's property all the way to Whaler's Cove are TVRs, except maybe one. Mr. Jung explained that is the reason the Department was looking to include that area in the VDA to allow fixture TVR use. Mr. Dahilig stated that is a discussion more appropriate for when the plan comes before the Commission. It' s premature to presume that is the policy recommendation that will come before this body. Mr. Kimura asked whether the aforementioned TVRs are legal, and whether there are any illegal TVRs. in that area. Mr. Dahilig replied there are a number of TVRs adjacent to this application that are legally operating in conformance with Chapter 8, and the Department has not received any complaints or found any to be illegal at this point. Mr. Dahilig stated the Department would not have any objections to incorporating Mr. Youn's recommended condition. Ms: Anderson requested the language from the proposed Condition 12 referencing the prima facie evidence be included in Condition 3 . On the motion by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve the condition as read, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. No motion or second could be heard on the recording; however a vote was taken to approve the special management use permit as amended, and passed 6-0. NEW BUSINESS Class IV Zoning-Permit Z-IV-2014- 17 and Use Permit U-201446 to establish operations involving food truck vendors on a parcel situated in Koloa, along the western side of Maluhia Road and apl2rox. 350 ft. north of its intersection with KoIoa Road further identified as Tax Ma Key 24=006: 025 Portion with a land area of 8 .63 acres = Dr. Michael & Valerie Murra . j.,Director' s Report received 6/10/14.1 Staff Planner Ka'aina Hull read a summary of the Director' s report into the record. (On file) Applicant Dr. Michael Murray was present. Ms. Anderson asked for clarification on the status of the cesspool, if there are plans to upgrade in that location, and what the current facilities are available for customers. Dr. Murray replied there is no cesspool in the specific area where the trucks will be, explaining that public bathroom facilities are available in Koloa Town; there will be no Port-A-Potties on the site. Mr. Hull noted the Department of Health generally makes those recommendations. Ms. Mendonca stated she does not have any objections to Ais proposal, but questioned whether there are already 4 trucks in that area. Dr. Murray stated there are three in operation that he knows of. two by the community center, and one at Knudsen Park. The truck currently at the park will be one of the trucks on Dr. Murray' s property. Ms. Mendonca expressed concerns for the amount of traffic, and the dangerous traffic conditions due to the narrow road. . She also Page 13 of 24 expressed concerns for the other businesses in the area, noting that it has always been her impression that food trucks primarily serve areas that lack the conveniences of food establishments such as parks and beaches. Koloa Town already has established businesses and two other food trucks. . Ms. Mendonca stated she is skeptical of the need for two more tracks, especially considering the overall ambiance of the town is already being threatened by the numerous development. Dr. Murray stated he has spent the last several years clearing and. cleaning the proposed site, creating a park-like area. There is only one food establishment in the area that offers seating for patrons. Therefore, the majority of those patrons are directed by those establishments to Dr. Murray' s property to sit and eat, which they are welcome to do. The town and its patrons have benefitted from Dr. Murray's efforts to.provide an area to sit, which he also cleans when.people leave their.rubbish. Ms..Mendonca stated she is not ignorant of Dr. Murray'& efforts, but she is concerned about the visual impacts, and suggested making it more compatible to :the concept of the Plantation. She reiterated that the idea of food trucks is to be in an area where there are not other food options, and while there are not too many restaurants currently in that area, there will be in the near future with the new development coming up. She acknowledged the amount of work Dr. Murray has put into that area, and stated her opinion that something more compatible with what will becoming in the future is something she'd like to see. . . Mr. Mahoney stated he disagrees with Ms. Mendonca in that he feels food trucks are evolving, noting the long list of community support received from hundreds of people who signed a petition in favor of this proposal. He commented that the location is well. kept, and. does not see it deterring from Koloa Town, but will rather enhance it. He feels Dr. Murray will ensure it is maintained well as he has done so far, and feels this proposal will be complimentary to the other.businesses in the area. Mr. Katayama asked for clarification on the dining: area shown in.Exhibit B to which Dr. Murray replied it will be seating that can be taken in and out; no tent, just. some chairs and possibly picnic tables. Mr. Hull read the Department' s recommendations and conditions into the record, and that a Condition 10 was added to read: The applicant shall comply with recommended conditions of approval set forth in those comments from the Fire Department, the Department of Land and .Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, the Department of Health, and Public Works Engineering Division attached hereto. (On file) Mr. Kimura asked .for clarification that they always go with the recommendations of the other agencies to which Mr. Hull replied it is standard in applications that go for a building permit, as most of the applications that come before this body do. However, in this particular case, there is no building permit, therefore it is recommended it be adopted into the conditions of approval. Mr. Katayama referenced:.Condition 1 and asked whether the limit of two trucks reflect some kind of capacity issue to which Mr. Hull replied that number is just what was proposed: Page 14 of 24 shoreline boundary interpretations. This is currently still a valid application because they have not yet used the one-time subdivision. Mr. Katayama asked if the Department' s position moving forward will be to allow other applicants to subdivide their parcel, and then duke it out later should the applicant want to ; subdivide again. Mr. Dahilig stated without any further guidance from other jurisdictions within the State that have had to deal with this situation, the Department. would continue with. that approach. Should there be a situation where a one-time subdivision was already-used, and there is a State boundary determination that further separates those lots, the Department would consider.that as an additional subdivision, and would need to proceed to court. Mr. .Chun explained that this is a very unusual situation in that there has never been,any , other subdivision application that he is aware of that is a result of erosion splitting a lot in two. He does not believe this issue will ever come up again, but if it should; the Department would be right in its stance that if there is a subsequent normal subdivision, that would be for the Department to determine. However, in this particular situation, the one-time subdivision rule is not applicable because the applicant has not come in for a second subdivision. Mr. Dahilig explained the interface between County and State law, noting in this case he feels Mr. Chun' s arguments on the applicability of the one-time subdivision rule are valid. Mr. Katayama stated the two cases of erosion in this situation are the erosion of the . shoreline, and the erosion of the agricultural lands into smaller and smaller parcels. Mr. Dahilig stated the County's policy is hat you can only subdivide _once, and this is the applicant' s "once". If they want too, do it again, the Department has put them on notice that they reserve the right to say no. Ms. Anderson referenced a record stating there is no access to water on this particular lot, and the applicant wants to build a single-family farm dwelling on this lot. . She asked how they will be accessing water to which Mr. Chun stated there is no water service to. any of the lots, but the smaller lots have private wells. Consultants have determined that there is potential that wells may be found on the larger parcel as well. The applicant is aware, and acknowledges that there is no water service there. Mr. Kimura asked how long the applicant has owned the property to. which Mr. Chun replied the smaller lot was sold in 2008, and the larger lot was conveyed in. 2001 , Mr. Kimura asked if there is the possibility that the applicant is waiting to develop the property until the ; economy is better, and real estate improves. Mr. Chun stated he does not know the .applicant's . intentions, but his impression is that there are many other issues on how to handle any kind of . development on the larger parcel such as ravines and streamlets that must be bridged, and roads. to be built, there are rocky coastlines, and they must consider how to incorporate the conservation area without directly impacting it, Mr. Kimura commented that the finds it difficult to believe that someone would buy property without any idea of what they want to do with it. In response to Mr. Kimura, Mr. Chun stated the applicant' s original intention was to farm; however, until they figure out how to address the numerous issues, it is difficult for the applicant to farm. Page 18 of 24 Mr. Kimura stated the majority of land owners that own ocean front property have claimed they purchased the land to farm, but the land ends up not being conducive to farming, so they subdivide. Ms. Anderson asked for an explanation of the layout of the lots, and for additional information on the erosion rates. She asked, if the lot will continually shrink, whether it is appropriate to subdivide it at this point. Mr. Chun provided information on the map referenced in Exhibits D and G. In response to Ms. Anderson, Mr. Chun explained the smaller Lot 10A1 is .422 acres, and the larger lot is 46. 118 acres. Ms. Anderson asked at what point was the area eroded as it appears it has always been that way. Mr. Chun referenced the original shoreline of 1932 shown in Exhibit G. Mr. Chun noted he saw another survey done in the 80 's or 90 ' s which showed a sliver of land still connecting 10A and 10B. He does not know from then when it actually physically separated. Ms. Anderson asked if the applicant has any opposition to deferring the matter to the next Planning Commission meeting to which Mr. Chun replied not really, they are not in a rush because there are no plans for development for the property. However; what is pushing this are lawsuits between two different parties and their respective insurance companies. It was agreed that this was a viable, potential resolution of any litigation. Ms. Anderson commented on the rationality of this subdivision, which she surmised is driven by other things besides just the erosion. There isn' t information on whether or not the buyers were already aware of the separation of the land prior to purchase, therefore, it seems misplaced that the subdivision is necessitated due to a change in erosion rates. She stated given the increasing erosion rates are going to change subdivision boundaries and shorelines, 'she feels it may be dangerous to set a precedence, especially considering the impetus for this particular subdivision request is due to a lawsuit, and not due to natural erosion. She clarified that it is being represented that the need for this subdivision is due to erosion dividing the two lots; however, it has been noted on the record that this is a proposed remedy to a lawsuit. It is still unclear whether or not these two areas were already divided when the purchases were made, and whether the owners were notified of this beforehand. Ms. Mendonca asked if by pemutting this does it set a precedence that the Commission would be obligated to fulfill should something like this come before them in the future. Mr. Jung replied this case deals with a host of issues, one of which is State land intersecting apiece of property, and how that is applied to the County Code. He stated both the applicant and the Director are correct in determining that question does not come down until another application is put .in for the next parcel. As far as precedence, there is no way of knowing what will happen in the future with coastal erosion, potential climate' change and sea 'level rise. ...He commented it is incumbent upon the Department to start thinking about it to figure out steps to build into the code. Though the one-time subdivision issue is addressed, it does not include coastal erosion . . and climate change issues. Mr. Katayama stated he would feel more comfortable if the Department took a more affirmative stance on the one-time subdivision because the applicant can always bring the Page 19 of 24 argument forward rather than have the Department deny it and get sued. He feels the applicant would not seek litigation on it today, but when they come forward to subdivide in the future. Mr. Dahilig stated based on discussion with the applicant, the Department felt it best to address what was factually right at this point in time. Mr. Chun added if the one-time subdivision is imposed now, the applicant will be forced to litigate now because the rules state they cannot wait to appeal any decision and must do so within 30 days. Ms. Mendonca commented that the one-time subdivision has always been a policy, and they will be making an exception to the rule, which she is uncomfortable with because it may open other doors. Mr. Dahilig noted they are not making an exception because the applicant is entitle d,to. come in for this . application. The determination of whether a second subdivision is applicable under the one-time subdivision rule has not come up at this point. . Ms. Anderson requested an inclusion to clarify the record; noting the petition is based on the subdivision being a necessity because of the erosion. However, there hasn't been any evidence shown that this erosion did not exist at the time of the purchase, and that the owners were on notice of the status of the lot. if the Commission can clarify the record, should this get approved, it is not .based on the petition that this is a subdivision by necessity. Mr. Dahilig stated the phrase "by necessity" is a required funding by the Commission for the variance standard relating to deviations in size, shape, topography, etc. Should the Commission find it is not "by necessity", they cannot grant the variance. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by John Isobe to approve the Class IV zoning permit and Variance permit, the motion split by roll call voter 3 Ayes (Mendonca, Isobe, Mahoney); 3 Nays (Katayama, Anderson, Kimura) No action was taken, and the item .will carry over to the Special Order of the .Day .at the following Planning Commission meeting. (The meeting recessed at 1 :04. p.m.) . (The meeting reconvened at 1 : 52 p.m.) Mr. Katayama left the meeting at 1 :52 p.m. Class IV Zoning Permit Z-1V-2014-16 and Use Permit U-2014-13 to establish a visitor center facility with accessojy commercial uses that includes a Production Facility/Administration Building. Tasting Room. Cafe..interactive Garden, a construction of one (1) Farm Dwelling Unit and a display Planation House, and associated improvements on a parcel situated in Koloa, alone the western side of Maluhia Road and immediatel across: Anne Knudsen Park further identified as Tax Map Key 2-8-006: 001 , and containing a total area of 18.867 acres = g61oa Rum Corporation. fMirector' s Report received 6/10/1.4.1 Mr. Hull read a summary of the Director' s report into the record. (On file) Page 20 of 24 Ms. Anderson asked if the production facilities that are outright permitted under Section 205 include distilleries to which Mr. Hull replied the Department' s interpretation is that it does, which is why a special permit is not before the Commission. (Due to a microphone malfunction, a portion of the recording was inaudible) President and CEO Bob Gunter provided background information on himself and the various distillery projects he has been involved in as well as how the K610a Rum Corporation came to be. He feels it is great that the people share their concerns about the project, and noted the benign nature of the business, stating they have never gotten any complaints from their surrounding neighbors. He addressed some of the concerns raised during public testimony, explaining that odor-would not be a problem because they will be using raw, crystal sugar as opposed to molasses, and there will be no noise associated with the production process. The traffic will consist of the same type of commercial traffic that is already present, and the proposed project will not create any unusual traffic situation. Mr. Gunter acknowledged the potential impact the proposed project will have on the South Shore, and have worked to ensure the project benefits, and complements the community. He referenced the drawings provided, and explained the design style of the proposed architecture, noting all the designs will be constructed in a way that is fully complimentary with the ambiance and feel of K61oa Town. Mr: Gunter described what will be on the grounds, stating that only 10.6 percent of the entire 18.867 acres will have structures associated with it: 40 percent of the property will be open, and as much of that as possible will be sugarcane, and also guava for the jams and jellies: Mr. Gunter shared his vision for the property, referencing various drawings provided. (On file) He stated part of the whole concept is to not only benefit K61oa Rum from a commercial standpoint, but also have an educational component so visitors can get a sense of what it was like in a plantation community. They plan to have a plantation house museum, which would be a real, original plantation house that Will be moved to the property, and furnished with period furniture, implements and artifacts. Being so close to the Koloa Mill ties in to the history of the town, which they would like to promote by integrating bike or walking paths from the K61oa Rum property to the old mill site. Mr. Gunter talked about their processing methods, noting once again that they will use raw, crystal sugar; not molasses. They plan to have a septic system on the property similar to what they have in Kalaheo, and they will ensure they do whatever is required of them, Referencing concerns about the project being in such close, proximity to the park, Mr. Gunter stated they are a very highly regulated industry, one of the most regulated industries there is. They acknowledgelhe need to operate their business responsibly and try their best to do so. There are a number of regulatory agencies that ensure they do that. He stated they are fully willing to comply with any traffic requirements such as creating adequate ingress and egress. Mr. Gunter explained one of the components of the project will be a small farm dwelling, which will be occupied by a full time resident who will provide on-site security. The entire area will be fenced, and people will not be able to just wander on and off the property. Referencing the concern raised about exposure to children, Mr. Gunter pointed out that they currently operate their tasting room and store at Kilohana, which is directly behind Island School, and across the Page 21 of 24 street from Chiefess Kamakahelei Middle School and the YMCA. He understands the importance of running their business responsibly and professionally. Mr. Gunter mentioned there will be extensive landscaping all along the roadway in order to prevent any unattractive views when driving into town. They will be working closely with National Tropical Botanical Gardens on selecting many of the indigenous or long-established trees and plants. . The intention is. to have this project be a show piece that they and the community can be proud of. The grounds that are not in cultivation will be manicured to encourage people to come and walk around. Mr. Gunter stated the building is set back far enough that the residents on the far side of the stream are the furthest away; there would be no impact in terms of noise and odor in that direction. He commented that if they do not go forward with their proposal with its strong agricultural component, the land owner will be pressured to develop it; likely commercial because of its close proximity.to Koloa Town. Mr. Gunter feels their proposal is the best use for the property, and will preserve it for agriculture use for the foreseeable future. Mr.. Mahoney expressed his appreciation for Mr. Gunter's willingness to address community concerns with odor, noise, and proximity to youth activities. In response to Ms. Anderson, Mr. Gunter explained the scheduling of deliveries and shipping, and how often they expect delivery trucks. Ms. Anderson asked if the applicant would be agreeable to having limitations to heavy trucks coming during certain hours to mitigate any potential noise. issues. Mr. Gunter: stated he does not think this project will create any increased traffic, noting that when people come to visit the island, they go to the South Shore anyway. However, they will make great efforts to limit the delivery trucks as they do not want to create any type of nuisance. Mr. Gunter commented on the positive feedback he has received on their current operations and encourage the members of the Commission to visit their establishment if they wish to see what the operation: is about and how it is laid out. In response to Ms. Mendonca, Mr. Gunter explained the concept of the proposed cafe. Ms. Mendonca asked to clarify whether all the items at the- cafe will be available to sample at the tasting room. Mr. Gunter explained the tasting room is for sampling the various types of rum, and will be physically separate from the cafe. The rum .tasting is limited by regulation to one ounce per person per day. Because they have multiple products, they pour, quarter ounce amounts so people can taste several different products. Ms. Mendonca stated the application reflects the. expected amount of patrons at 400. Combiningxhat with the 200 expected to visit the cafe brings the total amount of patrons: to upwards of 600. Mr.: Gunter clarified that he expects the visitors to the store; tasting room and cafe to be the same people. The design plans and layout of the structures were displayed and explained. Ms. Mendonca asked for the applicant's response to concerns about alcohol consumption in close proximity to the ball park. Mr. Gunter reiterated they are a highly regulated and controlled industry. : They are very clear on what:their responsibilities and obligations are as a beverage and..alcohol manufacturer. Picture identification is required in the tasting room, and the Page 22 of 24 Department of Liquor Control does send in undercover decoys to ensure they are complying with the law. He restated their current location at Kilohana is in close proximity to Island School, CKMS, and YMCA. They are not a bar, and are very strict about requiring picture identification for anyone wanting to purchase bottles of their alcohol. In addition, they have a Responsibility Policy that emphasizes drinking responsibly. Ms. Mendonca asked if they have looked at a location closer to the mill as their primary operation will be the production of alcohol. Mr. Dahilig stated that under State law, the production of any value-added product derived from agricultural activity is outright permitted. Though it is alcohol being produc4 the Department does not make a judgment on what the value-added product is. Ms. Mendonca stated she understands that but is curious about that. Mr. Dahilig stated the Department is not insensitive that there is a park across the street, but pointed out that under County law, parks are not dry areas and allow alcoholic beverages on park facilities. Ms. Mendonca stated she understands that, but her question was posed because of Mr. Gunter' s willingness to share information, and she was curious as to why they chose that particular location. Mr. Gunter replied they had been looking for property for the past three years, and did explore the old mill area as well as other areas around that general vicinity. However, they did not have any luck for various reasons. When this property became available, it just seemed to snake sense. Mr. Gunter honestly feels there will not be an adverse impact, and they will make every effort so there are no problems. Mr. Kimura reminded the Commission that they are only looking at the cafe and the store as the rum production is outright permitted. Ms. Mendonca commented that their current Kalaheo location is only a quarter mile from where she resides, and she has not heard any complaints from anyone. , Mr. Kimura asked if they have considered putting a wall up behind their facility for the residents that live on the neighboring property to which Mr. Gunter replied a fence will be installed around the perimeter. On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve the Class IV zoning permit and Use permit, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. ANNOUNCEMENTS Topics for Future Meetings Mr. Dahilig noted they understand there may be some quorum issues for the July 22 meeting, which they will be making accommodations for. The following scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha July S, 20140 ADJOUPtNMENT Page 23 of 24 Chair Kimura adjourned the meeting of 2:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Cherisse Zaim Commission Support Clerk ( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval). ( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting. Page.24 of 24