Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutsd 6-10-14 minutesKAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING June 10, 2014 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee of the County of Kauai was called to order at 8:45 a.m., at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeba Building, in meeting room 2A -2B. The following Commissioners were present: Ms. Amy 1V4endonca Mr. Sean Mahoney Mr. Jan Kimura Absent and Excused: Mr. Hartwell Blake The following staff members were present Planning Department - 'Leslie Takasaki, Kenneth Estes; Office of Boards and Commissions - Cherisse Zaima; Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Mr. Kimura called the meeting to order at 8:45 a.m. ROLL CALL Staff Planner Kenneth Estes noted that there were three Commissioners present. Vice Chair Mendonca designated Jan Kimura Chair Pro Tem for the duration of the Subdivision Committee meeting. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA y,: Y p . Y Y prove'the agenda, the motion carried by unanhimous voice e vote. b Am Mendonca to a APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES' Meeting of `April 8.'' 2014 i AUG 12 2014 Meeting of April 22, 2014 RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD There were no items received for the record. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT There were no hearings or public testimony. Staff Planner Kenneth Estes reported that the Department received written correspondence from the applicant requesting items I.2.a. and b. Subdivision Extension Requests for S- 2006 -12 = Visionary LLC dba Lrhu e Land Company, and S- 2006 -24 = D.P.- Horton/Schuler Homes be deferred to a later date. On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Sean Mahoney to defer the Subdivision Extension Requests, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS There were no general business matters. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Tentative Subdivision Action S- 2014 -02 = HG Kauai Joint Ventures, Proposed 6 -lot Subdivision Mr. Estes read the Subdivision Report Supplemental 41 into the record.. (On. file) Surveyor Brian Hennessy, and Greg Allen representing the applicant were present. Mr. Kimura asked what the projected overall density of the completed.project will be. Mr. Hennessy explained that it is currently a six lot subdivision of which five lots will be agricultural lots; the largest lot, Lot 6, is in.the process of being:rezoned Residential, and will go through the State Land Use Commission. In response to Mr. Kimura Mr. Allen explained the density Lot 6 will be determined by the County Council once it is rezoned. Mr. Kimura asked how many goats will there be per acre to which Mr. Hennessy replied it will be a minimum of three goats per acre with no other crops or orchards; just goats. Mr. Hennessy explained that the person who prepared the agriculture plan looked at different, options, and determined this was the most viable for the property. PA Mr. Kimura asked for clarification that the agriculture plan was prepared in June of 2007 to which Mr. Hennessy replied yes, it was prepared under the previous application. In response to Mr. Kimura; Mr. Hennessy stated the goats are already on Lots 1 through -5; everywhere except where the solar farm is. Mr. Kimura asked how many units would be on each lot to which Mr. Hennessy replied it would vary depending on the zoning. In response to Mr. Kimura on drainage, Mr. Hennessy explained Public Works'did not submit a -report on their preliminary submittal, but he expects their comments will be similar to , what they had previously asked for. A drainage study had been prepared for the previous application which they will be modifying to fit the-currer t conditions, Mr. Jung reminded the Committee that because this is: a tentative' approval, it will need to be routed through the agencies again to ensure compliance. The Commission received testimony from Harold Bronstein, representing Kapa`a Solar, LLC, and KRB LLC. Each of these companies has a 50 year lease on the property; Kapa`a Solar leases 5 acres of Lot 2, and KRB leases an additional 11 acres which encompasses the remainder of Lot 2, and also Lot 1. The 50 -year leases were effective August 9, 2010 and run until July 31, 2060. Mr. Bronstein stated a grant of easement was granted to K1UC on March i l to get to the inverter shed which is used to'service the solar farm. Mr. Bronstein stated m addition to the easements AU1, AU2, Dl, and W1 designated on the map included with the proposal, there.exist easements Al and Ul which, upon close inspection, he did not see on the map; these easements need to be clearly identified. Mr. Bronstein stated there is a water meter at the top of 4lohena Road purchased by his client to obtain water for the solar farm To access that, there needs to be an easement across Lot 3 into Lot 2 to get to the maintenance building. The main issue with the map is that it doesn't make clear his client's rights to access their leased land: Mr. Bronstein stated that KRB LLC owns a kuleana that is landlocked by the applicant's parcel: To access' is you need to go through. Lot l across Lots 4and 5. He -noted the traditional access to that kuleana is at the same point that KIUC's easement begins. That is the access his client desires because it is on the ground, has already been used, and being a cane road causes no problems in accessing the kuleana. Mr. Bronsteiii.pointed- out that the proposed'prehminary map labels this access as AUl and AU2; however, there is no determination on when this easement will be done; it is on paper, not on the ground and may not be usable for quite a while. More importantly; there is already a traditional historic access. Mr. Bronstein commented he believes that in 2012 KRB LLC paid Mr. Hennessy's firm to survey the easement, which was paid for, but the easement never given. It has been held up for quite a while with no indication of when, if anything, will happen. His client has.immediate need, and he does not see the problem with granting an easement for the historical access which could be done quickly. Mr. Bronstein pointed out the deed clearly shows his client has owned the property since 2003, that there is no recorded access to the public roadway, and that easement by necessity is absolute. 3 In response to Mr. Bronstein's concerns, Mr. Hennessy stated he understands the concerns, noting that the preliminary map shows the parcels as they exist today. He expects that some of the conditions needing to be resolved: for final approval will include addressing those concerns. Mr. Kimura stated he agrees with Mr. Bronstein that the existing road does not appear on the map. Mr. Hennessy provided an explanation of where the road is located and pointed it out on the map. Mr. Jung asked if there have been any discussions with the Department of Public Works on the location of the gate access past.Olohena Bridge and whether they will bubble off that _access. ,Mr. Hennessy stated that access is where the ,driveway to serve the solar farm has been, . and Public Works is okay with that location; however they are not going to;allow.more accesses along Olohena Road. Mr. Jung asked where the interior road would enter into Lots 1 through 5 to which Mr. Hennessy replied from easement AU next to the middle school; there has been no discussion with Public Works about closing off the current access to the solar. farm.. Mr. Hennessy stated the applicant does understand the rights of the kuleana owner, pointing out that AUl over AU2 is a; shorter access to the kuleana, and. could be improved with utilities which are also. part of his kuleana rights. Should he want.to continue to use his current access until those improvements are made, provisions can.be made for that. Mr. Kimura stated his concern that the access road to Lots 2 to 5 is a blind hill, and asked if that will be right turn only to which Mr. Hennessy replied the flagpoles he is referencing on the map are not access roads, and will be strictly for non - vehicular utility access. Mr.:Jung stated for clarification that should. this tentative action be approved, the applicant must still consult with all respective, agencies. Mr. Jung stated the concerns about the solar farm and the existing easements are outlined in the grant -of- easement terms as well as the lease agreements. However, it: should. be discussed with Public Works whether it will be allowable for ,the access to continue right past Olohena Bridge to enter into the .solar farm. The Commission can ask the applicant to work with Public Works to ensure the current access remains open, but it will ultimately be Public Works' determination: Mr. Hennessy statedthe applicant will work with Public:Works, and if they have no current objections to the access as it is now, he does not anticipate they will have any future concerns. , Ms. Mendonca asked if the applicant is willing to work with Mr. Bronstein on his concerns.to which Mr. Hennessy replied yes, absolutely. On the motion by Sean Mahoney and. seconded by Amy Mendonca to approve the tentative subdivision action, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. NEW BUSINESS (for Action) Tentative Subdivision Action 5- 2014 -16 = Sensuke & Chiyo Ueunten, Proposed 5-lot Subdivision Mr. Estes read the Subdivision Report into the record. (On file) Dennis Esaki representing the applicant stated his concern with Condition l.d referencing the 15 feet future road widening reserve, noting it is arbitrary as the road width is not consistent. The map shows the distance from the road to the property varies, and the property slopes down away from the road. He also noted that road widening is customarily taken from both sides of the road, and not completely from one side. Mr. Esaki noted his concern with Condition l .g referencing the construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and asked whether that condition is part of Safe Routes to School.- Mr. Jung replied no, and explained a new law was passed about a year ago which requires R -4 subdivisions to have curbs, guttering and sidewalks; however there is a provision included that allows the applicant to work with Public Works to determine whetherthey are adequate in that particular area. Mr. Esaki requested the conditions reflect that; Mr. Jung will work on the language to address that. Mr. Esaki stated he also has a concern with Condition 5.a referencing an-Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS), noting it seems the policy now is to send' everything to SHPD who almost always requires and AIS, even if the land was used for farming in tine past. The focus of their concern is usually the digging of the ground, but when going through the paper process of doing a subdivision, there is no ground work being done. He asked if there is' anyway'to defer that requirement until actual ground work will be done. Mr. Jung asked if the applicant has had any discussions with SHPD regarding that requirement to which Mr: Esaki stated they have worked with them on other projects resulting indifferent solutions; however, SHPD now 1as new staff that the applicant has not specifically discussed this particular project. Mr. Jung informed the Commission that there is now a new archaeologist on the island who will be working for SHPD. He clarified Mr. Esaki's comment that they have been defaulting to- request an AIS for everything; however, in most cases it is only required if there are known historical sites in the area. If the applicant will be-working with SHPD, the condition can be amended to state requires compliance with SHPD; it's up to the Commission. Mr. Jung suggested the item be deferred until the end of the meeting to allow the attorney and'planner'to work on the amended conditions. On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Sean Mahoney to defer the tentative subdivision' action to the end of the meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. 5 S- 2014 -17 = State ofHawai `i. Proposed Mot Subdivision Mr. Estes read the Subdivision Report into the record. (On file) Dennis Esaki representing the applicant stated this proposal is part of the Hardy Street Improvements project, and the County ofKaua`i would like it moved forward quickly. He stated concerns similar to the. previous, item regarding SHPD, and requested that condition be amended. On the motion by Amy; Mendonca, and seconded by Sean Mahoney..;_tgdefer the r� ......... tentative subdivision action to the end of the meeting, the motion. carried byttnanimous voice vote. Subdivision Extension Request S- 2012 -06.= Lindsav Crawford/Kukui `ula Develo ment Co any Hawaii) LLC,Z, Proposed 44ot Subdivision Mr: Estes readthe Department's Evaluation .& Recommendation-into the record. (On file) Applicant Lindsay Crawford was present. Ms. Mendonca..asked. if granting the extension to, 28,.2015 ,will be, ample time to get through -all of the 'issues as it seems there is much going on,currently. W. Crawford replied yes he, does, and noted that the water service is currently being worked on and physical construction should be done in the: next.couple of.weeks; conveyances should take another, few months. He feels confident it will be done by,the.end of the year: { On the, motion. by. Amy Mendonca and seconded by. Sean.Mahoney to approve the - subdivision o dension request, the motion:carried by unanimous voice. vote.;. Final Subdivision Action :, :. S- 201409 = .BrWtte.M..Kuslo.iProposed 2- 16t.Boundary Adjustment\ Mr. Estes read .the Subdivision Report, into, the record., (On file) . -• Applicant Brigitte Kuslo was present. ­On by,Sean.,Mahoney. and. secondedty Amy.Mendonca to approve the final subdivision action, the motion earned by unanimous voice vote- Ili Tentative Subdivision Action S- 2014 -16 = Sensuke & Chiyo Ueunten Proposed 5 -lot Subdivision Mr. Jung noted that Condition l.g referencing curbs, gutters, and sidewalks can be amended to read: Prior to final subdivision approval the applicant shall comply with Kauai County Code Section 9 -2.3 and work with the Department of Public Works to resolve the requirements of Kaua `i County Code 9- 2.3(e). Condition 5.a regarding SHPD's recommendation for an AIS can be amended to read: Prior to final subdivision approval the applicant shall work with the State Historic Preservation Review Division and comply with the requirements ofHRS bE. Condition l.d referencing the road widening reserve can be amended. to read: A future road widening reserve shall be established along the frontage of Papalina Road. The remainder of the condition will remain minus the specific number of feet. On the motion by Amy Mendonea and seconded by Sean Mahoney to amend the conditions as read, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. On the motion by Amy Mendonca and seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve the tentative subdivision action as amended, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. S- 2014 -17 = State ofHawai `i. Proposed 2 -lot Subdivision Mr. Jung noted that Condition 4.a referencing SHPD's recommendation for an AIS can be amended to read: Prior to final subdivision approval the applicant shall work with the State Historic Preservation Division and comply with the requirements ofHRS 6E. On the motion by Amy Mendonea and seconded by Sean Mahoney to amend the conditions as read, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. On the motion by Amy Mendonea and seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve the tentative subdivision action as amended, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT Chair Pro Tem Kimura adjourned the meeting at 9:39 a.m. 7 Respectfully submitted by: Cherisse Zaima Commission Support Clerk ( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval). { ) ' Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting. 8