Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning120815SubdivisionMinutesWEBKAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING December 8, 2015 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee of the County of Kauai was called to order at 8:35 a.m., at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting room 2A -213. The following Commissioners were present: Mr. Sean Mahoney Mr. Louis Abrams Ms. Amy Mendonca The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Dale Cua; Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi- Sayegusa; Office of Boards and Commissions — Administrator Jay Furfaro, Commission Support Clerk Darcie Agaran Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: Vice Chair Mahoney called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. ROLL CALL Vice Chair Mahoney: Roll call. Staff Planner Dale Cua: Okay. Commissioner Mahoney? Vice Chair Mahoney: Here, Mr. Cua: Commissioner Mendonca? Ms. Mendonca: Here, Mr. Cua: Commissioner Abrams? Mr. Abrams: Here, Mr. Cua: Chair, we have three (3) members present. Vice Chair Mahoney: Thank you. it ' -W -W Z11 %1 1[o] Sl:�ei �1►117 :\ Vice Chair Mahoney: Approval of the Agenda. Mr. Cua: Chair, before we approve the agenda, I passed out three (3) correspondences this morning; two (2) from Mr. Graham and one (1) from Mr. Chang. So I just wanted to incorporate it into the agenda. Vice Chair Mahoney. Okay. Did everybody receive those? Mr. Abrams: We did. We probably need to go over them (inaudible). Mr. Cua: I just wanted to make sure it's received for the record. Vice Chair Mahoney: Okay. Mr. Abrams: Move to approve the agenda. Ms. Mendonca: Second. Vice Chair Mahoney: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 3:0. The agenda is approved. MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Subdivision Committee Meetings of September 8, 2015 & November 24, 2015 Vice Chair Mahoney: Minutes of the meeting of Subdivision Committee September 8, 2015 and November 24, 2015, Ms. Mendonca: Move to approve. Mr. Abrams: Second. Vice Chair Mahoney: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carries 3:0. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD Vice Chair Mahoney: Receipt of Items for the Record. Mr. Cua: Just those correspondences that were handed out. Yes. Vice Chair Mahoney: Chair will entertain a motion to approve the items for the record. 2 Ms. Mendonca: Move to approve. Mr. Abrams: Second. Vice Chair Mahoney: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) The motion carries 3:0. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Vice Chair Mahoney: Hearings and Public like to comment on any agenda Comment. item, they If there are may do so. any members Seeing none. of the We'll public move on. who would GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Vice Chair Mahoney: General Business Matters, Mr. Cua: None this morning. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Vice Chair Mahoney: Unfinished Business. Mr. Cua: None, NEW BUSINESS (For Action) Tentative Subdivision Action Subdivision Application No. S- 2016 -5; Pila`a International /West Beach Kauai LLC; Proposed 3 -lot Boundary Adjustment; TMK: 5 -1- 004:008, 014, 032; Pila`a, Kauai Vice Chair Mahoney: New Business for Action. Tentative Subdivision Action. Subdivision Application No. S- 2016 -5; Pila`a International /West Beach Kauai LLC; proposed 3 -lot boundary adjustment; TMK: 5 -1- 004:008, 014, 032; Pla`a, Kauai. Could we have the subdivision report, please, from the Planner? Mr. Cua: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What you have before you in this application is a proposal that redefines the boundaries between three (3) existing parcels in Pia`a. The property is situated at the intersection of Koolau Road and the State highway in Pila`a. In the end, what you have as a result of the proposal is three (3) lots. Lot A ... well, working backwards, Lot C is the smallest of the three (3) lots that will be the Kuleana parcel closest to the ocean. Then you have Lot B, which is a smaller lot, and then Lot A, which is the remnant piece, which is approximately 290 acres. Along with this application, we have three (3) correspondences that 3 the Department received. Two (2) of the correspondences relate to a condition that is being proposed from Mr. Graham, essentially to address the density for the project. The second item addressed in the correspondence dated December 71" talks about Condition La. of the tentative approval, relating to the title insurance. With regards to the title insurance, the Department doesn't have any issues with the condition that's being proposed by Mr. Graham. In terms of the density being addressed, again, the Department doesn't have any concerns with the proposal to add Condition 8 to the tentative approval letter. That's essentially to address Condition Li. of the tentative approval letter. The one (1) thing that I also wanted to address is on the subdivision report, on the first page of the subdivision report, there is a note in the "Comments" section that relates to Section 9 -2.9 of the Kauai County Code that the requirements of Ordinance 908 will not be triggered if the Applicant executes an agreement to limit the density as noted in Condition Li. Also, finally, the Department has received the agency requirements from the various reviewing agencies. As a result, the Department has incorporated these requirements into the subdivision report, and the Department is recommending tentative approval of this application. Vice Chair Mahoney. Okay. Is there a representative for the Applicant present? Max Graham: Good morning, Chair Mahoney and the Subdivision Committee members. I am Max Graham, and I represent the applicants. With me is David Tanoue, who is from R.M. Towill and is doing the engineering work for the project. As noted, this is a consolidation of three (3) existing lots; a large lot, which is referred to as Parcel 8, which contains approximately 379 acres, and then along the shoreline, as shown on your map, there are two (2) Kuleana lots. The two (2) Kuleana lots are proposed to be consolidated into a single lot, and then the large lot will be subdivided into two (2) lots, as shown there on your map. So Lot B is approximately 81 acres, Lot A is 283 acres, plus or minus, and then the Kuleana lot is Lot C. The two (2) Kuleana lots become a single lot. The applicants are willing to enter into an agreement that would be recordable, that would limit density on the three (3) lots so that Lot B would have two (2) unit density, Lot A eight (8) unit density... actually, eight (8) units in the State Land Use Ag District, Lot B is two (2) units in the State Agricultural District, and then Lot C is limited to a single unit. Potentially, on Lots A and B, there could be an additional density in the Conservation District with permits, but right now, the total density that is pennitted is thirteen (13), so the limitation would be a total of thirteen (13) units at the most. By doing that, we are asking the Planning Commission to recognize that since no new density or new lots are being created, that the project would qualify as an exemption to the one -time subdivision rule, and then second, that it would qualify as an exemption to what we refer to as "the Kaneshiro rule ", which is Section 9 -2.13 of the Subdivision Ordinance that says that if you do not create additional density or lots, you are not subject to off -site infrastructure requirements. I think that summarizes the proposed project. Vice Chair Mahoney: Are there any questions for the Applicant by the Commissioners? Mr. Abrams: I've got several, mainly because we didn't have a chance to take a look at this map before; or the letters. So I may go back and forth; some with you, Dale. Mr. Cua: Sure. FA !! Mr. Abrams: Why don't we start with you, and I think you may refer to them on some of these, so we can have that discussion. Your evaluation calls for ... that they shall provide to the Planning Department title insurance for each Kuleana. Is that something that the insurance is going to be something that the County wants them sort of ..I'm not sure what for. I mean, you know, proof of ownership? Or just simply that's all you're looking at. Mr. Cua: The purpose of the title insurance condition is ... I'll give you some background on the requirement. Generally speaking for subdivision application, the Department requires title reports for any subdivision application, and just basically to verify the ownership of the property and to identify if there are any existing encumbrances that would affect the subdivision layout. The title insurance requirement was imposed maybe about ten (10) to twelve (12) years ago, and it was basically to protect the County's interest when dealing with subdivision applications involving Kuleana parcels. The title insurance is a method to ensure that the title to the Kuleana is clean. In discussing the requirement with title companies, they've informed the County that they would not insure title to any Kuleana if there is a break in title. So basically, if we obtain title insurance for a Kuleana, it's an indication to the County that the title to the Kuleana is clean; otherwise, no insurance would be issued. Mr. Abrams: Okay. So is the County named as something defending them in ease ... I mean, I don't know. Even title insurances... anyway, just in case there is a mistake, right, that they would ensure. So do they ensure the County and defend them also? I'm not quite sure how that works. Mr. Graham: In one (1) of my proposals, there was an amendment to that condition, so either we show you the County title insurance for the property, or we provide a preliminary title report, plus an indemnification agreement, which means that the owner of the Kuleana lot indemnifies the County and waives any claims against the County. So you have a choice of the two (2); you might prefer the indemnification. If there's title insurance, the title insurance runs in favor of the owner; not the County. Mr. Abrams: Yes. So I guess that will be up to ... do we have that as a condition then? Mr. Cua: Actually, it is. Mr. Abrams: So you're going to propose an amendment to that? Mr. Cua: Yes. Mr. Abrams: For you to choose? Mr. Cua: That would be that correspondence that I handed out to you. The correspondence is dated December 7th Mr. Abrams: Okay, got it. 5 Mr. Cua: So in the proposal, Condition La. would be amended to read as noted in the correspondence. Mr. Abrams: Okay. And is that option the County's or yours? Mr. Cua: It was a mutual agreement between us and the Applicant. Mr. Abrams: Okay, so they can either.. you said "either "? Mr. Graham: Either, Mr. Abrams: So who chooses? You choose which one of the two (2) would be presented to the County? Mr. Graham: Yes. Mr. Abrams: And then they choose ... well, I guess at that point it doesn't ... so long that it meets the criteria then it's done. Okay. That works for me. I had some questions in regards to your language there that I keep seeing "residential units ", and I see "farm dwelling units ". I see a number of different ones. Mr. Cua: Essentially, it would be "farm dwelling units" since the property is situated within the State Agricultural Land Use District, Mr. Abrams: Okay, so the "residential units" that you have under your evaluation on Page 2, the twelve (12) you reference, that they're willing to restrict. Mr. Cua: Right. The Department will stand corrected. It would be thirteen (13) since we didn't take into account the one (1) density in the Conservation District. Mr. Abrams: Okay. So that's residential units, and that's what they call that on the Conservation? Is that where this is going to be? Or...? Mr. Cua: Essentially, it's a home; it's a residence. Mr. Abrams: Okay. We had some other areas in here that dealt with you actually saying "farm dwellings ". Mr. Cua: Right. Mr. Abrams: Which one are we going to use? Is it "residential" or "farm dwelling "? Mr. Cua: To be consistent, we can call them "farm dwelling units" 10 Mr. Abrams: Okay, that would be Section I on Page 2, which deals with the one -time subdivision. Mr. Cua: Yes. Mr. Abrams: So that, also is going to be changed to thirteen (13)? Mr. Cua: Thirteen (13). Correct. Mr. Abrams: Is this Kuleana that they are consolidating, is that in the Conservation District? Mr. Cua: Yes, it is. Mr. Abrams: So the procedure is to get a preliminary subdivision. Are they required, I guess at that point, to go to the DLNR? Mr. Cua: The Board. Yes. Mr. Abrams: And obtain approval? Mr. Cua: Right, Mr. Abrams: For the subdivision? Mr. Cua: For the proposal, and if they wish to obtain ... or if they're looking to construct a residence, the same thing would happen as well. Mr. Abrams: Okay. That's a condition in here? You have a State Land Use Boundary interpretation; the Ag and Conservation. Mr. Cua: That would be Condition l .h. Yes. Mr. Abrams: Okay, Lh, Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi- Sayegusa: Just to clarify, one (1) of the dwellings within the Conservation District is not a farm dwelling. Is that correct? Mr. Cua: Right. Mr. Abrams: That's a residential unit? Ms. Higuchi - Sayegusa: Right. Mr. Cua: Yes, Mr. Abrams: Okay. I just want to make sure we have that consistent, so that in case... VA Mr. Graham: If I can help you. Mr. Abrams: Yes. Help me. Mr. Graham: In the State Land Use Commission, Agricultural District, which is most of the property, dwelling units within that area are referred to as "farm dwelling units ". Mr. Abrams: Okay. Mr. Graham: Within the Conservation District, which is the portion of the property that runs along the shoreline, dwelling units in there are dwelling units or residential units. Mr. Abrams: Okay, Mr. Graham: So there are actually three (3) residential units that would be potentially permitted in the Conservation District, and ten (10) farm dwelling units in the Agricultural District, Mr. Abrams: Are there any in the Open District? Or is that the Agricultural District? Mr. Graham: I'm referring to the State Land Use Commission Agricultural District that includes the CZO Open and Ag Districts. Mr. Abrams: Okay. I wasn't sure about the Ordinance 908 and one -time subdivision, so I went to...I guess it's the CZO 8 -8.3 c.4. that deals with the fact that ... my question was, is it something that is required to be exempt from the one -time agriculture? And that there was a condition that says consolidation and resubdivision of properties where no additional lots or parcels are created that the resulting properties would not permit greater density. Mr. Cua: Right. Mr. Abrams: I didn't see whether there was something that allowed the Planning Department to go ahead and make that arrangement; except that it's specifically exempted, right? Mr. Cua: Right, Mr. Abrams: Do you know what I'm talking about? Mr. Cua: So that was the purpose of Condition l.i. where l .i. talks about the one -time subdivision limitation and Ordinance 908. As proposed, as we look at this application at face - value, the proposal would not qualify from the one -time sub, as well as the provisions of Ordinance 908. However, the Applicant has offered to restrict the density for the overall proposal in order to qualify themselves from the one -time subdivision limitation, as well as Ordinance 908, Mr. Abrams: Okay. So they would be exempted from doing that because of the fact that they are not creating any more.. . i Mr. Cua: Correct. On the basis that there will be no increase in density. Mr. Abrams: Okay. And that ability of the density is contained in the CZO section where they have the right to waive the one -time Ag subdivision requirement? Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: It seems to be within 9 -2.13. Mr. Abrams: Did I hear correctly that the Ordinance 908 ... what is Ordinance 908? It's the Kaneshiro Ordinance? Mr. Cua: Yes, it is. Mr. Abrams: That's the one dealing with anymore additional infrastructure? Mr. Cua: Yes. The off -site infrastructure requirement, right. In summary, the ordinance would allow an exemption from off -site infrastructure requirements provided that (1) the proposal involves four (4) or less lots, and (2) that there is no gain in density with the proposal. Mr. Abrams: So we're looking at less lots? Mr. Cua: No, it's equivalent. Its three (3) lots; into three (3) lots. Mr. Abrams: So the same or less would qualify? Mr. Cua: Yes Four (4) or less. Mr. Abrams: Okay. That's in the Subdivision Ordinance? Mr. Cua: Yes. Ms. Hig;uchi- Sayegusa: Yes, 9 -2.13. Mr. Abrams: Okay. Let's see. Sorry, I didn't get a chance to read these other letters, but when I did have the map, I went ahead and took a look at it on the County's database, and noticed that Lot 8 has two (2) condo units on it. I didn't see any mention of that, and they are owned by different parties ... oh no, they aren't owned by different parties. But one (1) of the parties on this is not part of this application. Mr. Cua: Right. Maybe ... and the Applicant can correct me, but with the subdivision proposal that you see before you, the alignment of the proposed boundary line would be consistent with the CPR lines that has been executed on this parcel. Mr. Abrams: Okay, Mr. Cua: So it formally separates the interest between the parties owning the property. W Mr. Abrams: Yeah, because I had ... Apartment 1 on Lot 8 was owned by Koa Kea, and they are not on the subdivision application, and the other one is Pila`a International. Can you explain that? Mr. Graham: In order to separate the ownership temporarily while the subdivision was pending, the owners of the Parcel 8 established a two -unit condominium property regime. Unit 1 is owned by Pila`a Ranch Hawaii LLC, formerly known as Koa Kea International LLC, so it's the same entity with a change in name. Unit 1 will become Lot B, so Pila`a Ranch Hawaii will eventually own Lot B. Unit 2 of this condominium project is presently owned by Pila`a International LLC, and that's the other applicant. Unit 2 will become Lot A, essentially; that will be the same area to be owned by Pila`a International LLC. The Kuleana is owned by West Beach Kauai LLC, so the two (2) Kuleana lots will become a single lot and continue to be owned by West Beach Kauai LLC. The Kuleana lot is not part of the condominium; it's an exception. The Kuleana lots are separate parcels. Mr. Abrams: Okay. Just that one (1) portion that shows the Royal Patent 4045 on your map, that's Lot C then you're saying what it will become? Mr. Graham: Correct. Mr. Abrams: Okay. And last, because we didn't get a snap, I didn't understand the easements. Could you explain what ... are they just for access and utilities? Or what are they? Mr. Graham: They are access and utility easements. Easement A -1 is the entrance easement into both properties, so you'll have a single access into both Lot A and Lot B to avoid having multiple access on Kuhio Highway. Easement A -2 is the access and utility easement that goes to Lot C, the consolidated Kuleana lot. Mr. Abrams: Dale, question then comes to that, so Ordinance 905, is it? The Kaneshiro one? Mr. Cua: 908, Mr. Abrams: 908, excuse me. That deals with this infrastructure here, right? Mr. Cua: No, not necessarily. The infrastructure is off -site infrastructure, so like water line or water tank. Mr. Abrams: Okay. Or highway... because I was wondering at that point, looking at all of these other Kuleanas and seeing what can happen that this ultimately could be, if they were all utilized I guess, something fairly significant in terms of access onto a highway. Mr. Cua: Sure, Mr. Abrams: At that point, there would be no off -site infrastructure requirements? Or is there a trigger that Planning looks at somewhere down the road? 10 Mr. Cua: It would be down the road, absolutely. Mr. Abrams: Would that be something we want to go ahead and spell out in this subdivision approval, which is the first one? Mr. Cua: At this point, it wouldn't be necessary since it's unclear as far as how this property will be developed. I think we will treat it at the time a proposal comes in. Mr. Abrams: Yes. So theoretically, if all of these were utilized and there were no increases, and they utilize this road, you could have ... I'm trying to see how many ... there's a lot of Kuleana lots. Mr. Cua: Right. There are existing provisions in the zoning ordinance that would require... Mr. Abrams: It would trigger some sort of review? Mr. Cua: An upgrade to the driveway in the event the property is further developed. Mr. Abrams: Okay. Mr. Cua: Yeah, Vice Chair Mahoney: Any further questions? Mr. Abrams: No. Still lost, but that's... Mr. Graham: Mr. Mahoney, if I could clarify one (1) thing, and I spoke to Mr. Cua about this. Condition 1.d. and Le. refer to the need to get a shoreline certification for the property pursuant to our shoreline setback ordinance, which was recently amended. Subsection d says the shoreline certification needs to be obtained six (6) months prior to the date of final subdivision approval, but with the recent amendment of the shoreline setback ordinance, that time has been extended to one (1) year. And if we could clarify that we will have one (1) year prior to final subdivision approval to get the shoreline certification, that would help. Vice Chair Mahoney: Could you clarify that please? Mr. Cua: That would be correct. Condition l .d. was a standard requirement for all subdivision applications abutting the shoreline. With the recent adoption of the shoreline setback rules through Ordinance 979, the language was then amended to one (1) year. So yes, it would be okay to amend Condition l.d. where the language would read "within one (1) year ", as opposed to "six (6) months ". Vice Chair Mahoney: Okay, thank you. Any further comment? To clarify approval or a motion? III Mr. Abrams: Move to approve tentative subdivision approval to Pila`a International and West Beach Kauai LLC, tentative approval, Subdivision 5- 2016 -5 with one (1) amendment to Section 1.d., changing it from six (6) months to one (1) year. Mr. Cua: Actually, it will be three (3) amendments. Vice Chair Mahoney: Three (3) amendments. Mr. Cua: It would be amendment to Condition l .d., amendment to Condition Li. to thirteen (13), and then incorporation of Condition 8. Mr. Abrams: Okay. Condition 8 is the one that he's proposing in his letter. Mr. Graham: Mr. Cua, also Condition La. Mr. Cua: Oh, I'm sorry. Four (4), yeah, and Condition La., which involves the title insurance. Mr. Abrams: Okay. And that is... Mr. Cua: That amended language is that December 71h letter. Mr. Abrams: Okay. Strike all of that until we get this. (Laughter in background) Vice Chair Mahoney. Yes, if we could clarify the conditions to be amended. Mr. Cua: Again, just for the record, the amendments would be to Conditions 1.a., Ld., Li., and Condition 8. Mr. Abrams: Condition 8 is in the... Mr. Cua: December 41h correspondence. Mr. Abrams: December 4th as... Mr. Cua: December 4th from Max. Mr. Abrams: Okay, Mr. Cua: On Page 3. At the bottom. Mr. Abrams: Okay, that's the limited one. And the other one was ... wasn't there some sort of thing where we were dealing with the title insurance? Mr. Cua: That was Condition La. Mr. Abrams: La. 12 Vice Chair Mahoney: La. Mr. Abrams: Okay, got it. Okay, move to approve Subdivision 5- 2016 -5, Pila`a International/West Beach Kauai LLC, consolidation and resubdivision with amendments to La., which is the December 7, 2015 letter regarding title insurance; Condition l .d. where we are changing it from six (6) months to one (1) year for the shoreline certification; Condition Li. where we are changing that from twelve (12) to thirteen (13) farm dwelling units; and a new Condition No. 8 which is in the December 41h letter from Max, Page 3, Item c. That's my motion to approve. Vice Chair Mahoney: That's a great motion. Chair will entertain a second. Ms. Mendonca: Second. Vice Chair Mahoney: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carries 3:0. Thank you. Mr. Graham: Thank you very much. Subdivision Application No. 5- 2016 -7; Frances J. Acoba, et. al.; Proposed 2 -lot Subdivision; TMK: 2 -3- 004:006• Kalaheo Kauai Vice Chair Mahoney: Okay, moving on. Moving on to New Business for Action; Tentative Subdivision Action Continued; Subdivision Application No. 5- 2016 -7; Frances J. Acoba et. al.; proposed 2 -lot subdivision; TMK: 2- 3- 004:006; Kalaheo, Kauai. Mr. Cua: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In this proposal, you have a proposed 2 -lot subdivision. The application establishes one (1) additional lot within the Agriculture Zoning District. The preliminary subdivision map has been routed to the various reviewing agencies for their review and comment. The Department has received these requirements and incorporated it into the subdivision report. As a result, the Department is recommending tentative approval of this subdivision application. Vice Chair Mahoney: Okay. Are there any questions for the Planner? Hearing none. Is there a representative for the Applicant present? Could you state your name for the record, please? Dennis Esaki: Morning. Dennis Esaki, representing the owners. Vice Chair Mahoney: Are there any questions for the owners' representative? Have you read the report? Are there any questions from the Applicant? Mr. Esaki: Yes. Regarding the Water Department's comments or conditions, they refer to paying FRC, which actually they have the old figure, and put in the water facilities. The Applicant has already installed two (2) water meters, so that doesn't pertain, so I believe the condition should just read.. . 13 Vice Chair Mahoney: What condition was that? Mr. been moved Esaki: 3.a. and 3.b. Since it's already done, perhaps you can just change the condition to resolve water meter requirements with the Water Department, Vice Chair Mahoney. If you could incorporate on that. Mr. Cua: Chair, the Department hasn't received any amended requirements regarding the subdivision application. In the past, what the Department has done is recommended that the Applicant work directly with the Water Department to resolve this specific requirement. If the requirement has already been fully addressed, what has happened in the past is the Department of Water has followed up with an amended subdivision requirement to the application. And if the Applicant has fulfilled these requirements, they usually amend their requirements and exclude this requirement. Vice Chair Mahoney. Okay. Would the Applicant be willing to work with the Water Department to...? Mr. Esaki: Yes, we will resolve it. Vice Chair Mahoney. Yes, okay, and have the conditions stay as -is and then work with the Water Department to resolve the... Would that be alright with the Department? Are there any other issues? Mr. Esaki: No. Vice Chair Mahoney: Any questions for the Applicant? Hearing none. Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Abrams: Move to approve tentative subdivision approval S- 2016 -7, Frances J. Acoba, et. al. Ms. Mendonca: Second. Vice Chair Mahoney: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Opposed? (None) Motion carries 3:0. Thank you. Mr. Esaki: Thank you. Subdivision Application No. S- 2016 -8; Kakuda Brothers LLC; Proposed 2 -lot Boundary Adjustment; TMK: 2-7-006:087,141; Oma`o, Kauai Vice Chair Mahoney: Moving on to Tentative Subdivision Action. Subdivision Application No. S- 2016 -8; Kakuda Brothers LLC; proposed 2 -lot boundary adjustment; TMK: 2 -7- 006:087, 141; Oma`o, Kauai. 14 Mr. Cua: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In this subdivision application, it involves a boundary adjustment between two (2) existing lots in Oma`o. The preliminary subdivision map, again, has been routed to the various reviewing agencies for their review and comment. We have received the agencies' requirements and incorporated it into the subdivision report. As a result, the Department is recommending tentative approval of this application. Vice Chair Mahoney: Any questions for the Planner? Is there a representative for the Applicant present? Mr. Esaki: Morning, again. Dennis Esaki representing the owners. Vice Chair Mahoney: Thank you, Mr. Esaki. Are there any questions for the Applicant? Does the Applicant have any concerns? Mr. Esaki: Yes. This is a small boundary adjustment. If you notice on the map, it just cuts off a corner of the flagpole section to accommodate the driveway. I believe that, as discussed earlier, the Ordinance 908 pertains and the Water Department should not condition this approval in Item No. 3. There are two (2) existing houses on it, and the condition says domestic water service will not be available until the required construction improvements are completed; so that should not pertain and they should fall under the Kaneshiro Ordinance. Vice Chair Mahoney: Is there...? Mr. Cua: Yeah, the Department, in this case, concurs with the Applicant that the provisions of Ordinance 908 would be applicable. Since it is a boundary adjustment between two (2) existing lots, both lots contain existing residences and the proposal, all it does is amends the existing boundary line. Vice Chair Mahoney: Any further questions to the Applicant? Mr. Abrams: Dennis, you want 3.a. through c. removed? Mr. Esaki: Well, whatever conditions that are included in that ordinance. Mr. Abrams: Would that be a fire hydrant? Mr. Cua: Yes, it would be. In this case, Conditions 3.a. through 3.c. would be removed. Vice Chair Mahoney: 3.a. through? Mr. Cua: 3.c. Vice Chair Mahoney: Any further questions? Mr. Abrams: We have the other side; Page 3. (Laughter in background) I guess all the way up to 3...I guess 3.e. and f. are okay? 15 Mr. Cua: Yes. Mr. Abrams: Locate your meter, right? Mr. Esaki: Yes. Mr. Abrams: Okay, and remain in the present location? Mr. Cua: Yes, Mr. Abrams: Okay, so 3.a. through d. Vice Chair Mahoney: 3.a. through... Mr. Cua: d. Vice Chair Mahoney: 3.d. Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: 3.d. Vice Chair Mahoney: Okay. Ms. Mendonca: Dale, doesn't this apply, like you said to the earlier subdivision request that they work with the Department of Water? Mr. Cua: In this case, they are imposing off -site infrastructure requirement related to the proposal, and the proposal exists today as it stands. I think as a result, the provisions of 908 would be applicable in this instance. Ms. Mendonca: Waiving it wouldn't be a problem? Mr. Cua: Excuse me. Ms. Mendonca: Removing these conditions would not be a problem? Mr. Cua: No, because Ordinance 908 would allow you folks to remove it. Ms. Mendonca: Okay, Ms. Higuchi-Sayegusa: How about leaving in 3.d.? That is just the disclosure recorded with the deeds that future construction would be required to add fire flow and any other requirements that Water may have in the case of future construction. Would you have objections to that? Mr. Cua: So Condition 3.d. is just basically a disclosure on the deed. Vice Chair Mahoney: Does the Applicant have a concurrence with leaving in 3.d.? 16 Mr. Esaki: We have a problem with "inadequate or unavailable" Mr. Abrams: Isn't that off -site infrastructure? Mr. Cua: Well, it pertains to the off -site requirement noted in Conditions 3.a. and 3.b. Mr. Abrams: Yes, that's why I'm ... I mean I get what you're saying, but at this point right now, they're saying that fire flow standards, which is the waterline that's on the street in the public right -of -way would need to be upgraded by the Department, right? Or may need to be upgraded by the Department. Mr. Cua: May. Mr. Abrams: So you would then have to work that out with them, but that is similar to the 908 Ordinance, Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa I mean, i.e. right now there is no increase in density, so therefore it falls within 908 or 9 -2.13, but should there be any requirements in the future with any future construction or ... I think that disclosure just simply makes that apparent to the Applicant that in the future, Water may have additional requirements. Mr. Esaki: I understand that, but I'm not satisfied with the wording on here that it may be unavailable right now. Like say the house burned, and they say well, too bad, you signed off saying you might not have water to put out your house fire. Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: Okay. The Commission could entertain amendments to that language. Mr. Cua: Or delete. Ms. Higuchi -Save usa: Or take it out. It's up to you folks. Mr. Cua: Yes, so essentially, Ordinance 908 would give this body the authority to amend that condition or delete that condition in its entirety. Mr. Abrams: Well, I think it's fair to say that in the future, okay, you may have to, because you're basically saying that you have your two (2) lots now and the structures that are there that they were provided that. But if you wanted to expand, so it's more of a cautionary one; although this doesn't quite say that. Unless certain water facilities have been constructed and installed on G -1 and H -1 in accordance with Water Department's Standard Operating Procedures, so that's just the procedure for the Water Department. Mr. Cua: Right. Correct. Mr. Abrams: Through the consolidation and resubdivision process. I don't think I've ever heard of that. Have you, Dennis? 17 Mr. Cua: It's a new policy that they have. Mr. Abrams: It's a new policy? Mr. Cua: Yes, Mr. Esaki: I don't know what they are referring to. Mr. Abrams: Well, perhaps we can... Vice Chair Mahoney: Is there some language the Commission could consider? Mr. Cua: Or the option is you could conceivably leave the requirement in, and have the Applicant iron it out with the Water Department. Ms. Mendonca: I think that would be better. Dennis, do you have any objections in accepting the language as it is, and then you work it out with the Department of Water? Mr. Esaki: I would prefer more clear - cut... Ms. Mendonca: Language here? Mr. Esaki: Yes. A short ... Ms. Mendonca: You're concerned about the words "inadequate or unavailable" based on what your description was because if there was a fire. Mr. Esaki: Yes. Ms. Mendonca: Well, I certainly hope the Water Department will provide sufficient availability infrastructure to take care of a residential area for fire. Hopefully. Mr. Abrams: I'm kind of wondering, does the Water Department follow the ordinances and the laws that are there that basically say you don't have to do this? Mr. Cua: Right. Mr. Abrams: Maybe this was before? But at this point right now, we have an ordinance that says all of these things that we are proposing to strikeout. Because it applies to Pila`a, it should apply to this lot. I'm not quite sure... Mr. Cua: Maybe as a precautionary measure, this body could eliminate Condition 3.a. through 3.c. You could keep Condition 3.d. in, and have the Applicant resolve it, just so that it doesn't put this body in the position to make that determination for fire protection and domestic water service. If they should strike this particular requirement, again, they can follow up with an updated subdivision report to the Department. 0 L6111 Mr. Abrams: Well, 3.c. is for the FRC, right? Mr. Cua: Right, Mr. Abrams: So this one is more of a fire standard, right? I don't... Ms. Mendonca: Dale, d. reads ... it starts off with "if the Department's water system approvals are deferred ", so that's a cautionary tentative approval from this body, correct? Mr. Cua: Correct. Ms. Mendonca: So if we left the language as it is, in spite of Dennis' disagreement, and if we approved everything as it is, and he goes to the Department of Water, and you're saying that it is deferred, then what alternate route is he left with? Mr. Cua: I think that would be taken directly between the Applicant and the Water Department, Ms. Mendonca: The Water Department, Mr. Cua: To explore what the alternatives would be. I guess one (1) option is to fulfill the requirement as -is, or I believe the Water Department has a process to object to certain requirements of the subdivision. Mr. Abrams: Would you have objections if we held off making a decision while Water was contacted to discuss this thing in light of 908? Because I think it's really important, too, for some word. And it does require them to put it on the map, which I thought would be fine, but it also requires a deed restriction that will run with the land, so if in fact it turns out that it applies only to a more narrowly crafted situation like expansions on the house or more dwellings or ADUs, shall we say, or any of those types of things that would require some of this to come in, then maybe it could be clarified as to the way this language is for this specific subdivision. Mr. Esaki: 1 believe 3.d. starts off with the Department's water system approvals are deferred, the water system approvals they are referring to goes back to 3.a., and they're talking about construction of the facilities and you get the construction plans, but then you don't construct it and you defer it. So they're referring back to something that they shouldn't be requiring anyway. I suggest, perhaps, language saying future development may require certain improvements. Ms. Higuchi -Sam tg lsa: So perhaps instead of the explicit deed restriction, just a general disclosure that additional requirements as required by Water, the Water Department may require for future development. Mr. Esaki: Yes. Just put something like that instead of the... Vice Chair Mahoney: Is that acceptable for everyone? Mr. Abrams: That's acceptable. 19 Ms. Mendonca: Yes, that would be alright. Vice Chair Mahoney: Could some language be drafted? Mr. Abrams: Should we leave it up to the Applicant and the County Attorney and Planning? Mr. Esaki: I think you can make it right now. Ms. Higuchi- Saygusa: Something simple like that just simply that future development may require additional improvements as required by the Water Department, Mr. Esaki: That's okay. Vice Chair Mahoney: Is that acceptable with everyone? Mr. Abrams: Yes. Ms. Mendonca: Yes, Vice Chair Mahoney: Okay. Any further concerns? Hearing none. Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Abrams: Move to approve tentative subdivision approval 5- 2016 -8, Kakuda Brothers LLC for lot consolidation with an amendment in striking Section 3.a. through 3.c. out and then making Section 3.dl amended to state only ... so you take everything out of Section d. and say "future developments may require additional improvements as called for by the Water Department." Ms. Mendonca: Second to that motion. Vice Chair Mahoney: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 3:0. Thank you, Mr. Esaki. Final Subdivision Action Subdivision Application 5- 2016 -3; Judith C. Page Trustee, et. al.; Proposed 2 -lot Consolidation; TMK: 1 -9- 002:0252; Hanapepe, Kauai Vice Chair Mahoney: Okay. Final Subdivision Action. Subdivision Application No. 5- 2016 -3; Judith C. Page Trustee et. al.; proposed 2 -lot consolidation; TMK: 1 -9- 002:0252; Hanapepe, Kauai. Can we have the report from the Planner please? Mr. Cua: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In this proposal, the application involves the consolidation of an existing lot with a remnant ten (10) feet wide private roadway, which is to be acquired from the State Department of Land and Natural Resources. The property is situated in Hanapepe Valley. The final subdivision map has been routed to the various reviewing agencies m for their review and concurrence. The Department has received all of the agency approvals. As a result, the Department is recommending final subdivision map approval of this application. Vice Chair Mahoney: Okay. Is there a representative for the Applicant present? Could you state your name for the record, please? Judith Page: Judith Page, Alan Hironaka: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Alan Hironaka. I'm with Hironaka Surveying and Mapping, representing the owner. Vice Chair Mahoney: Okay, thank you. Have you read the conditions to the subdivision report? Okay, any questions? Are there any questions for the Applicant by the Commission? Ms. Mendonca: No. Vice Chair Mahoney: You've read all of the conditions and have no questions about the conditions? You're in compliance with...? Okay, Chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Abrams: Chair, I entertain approval of final subdivision approval for S- 2016 -3, Judith C. Page Trustee, et. al. Ms. Mendonca: Second. Vice Chair Mahoney: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 3:0. Thank you. Mr. Hironaka: Thank you, Commissioners. Vice Chair Mahoney: I think this concludes the business ADJOURNMENT Vice Chair Mahoney adjourned the meeting at 9:33 a.m. ( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval). ( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of om Meeting adjourned. Thank you. Respectfully submitted by: arcie Aga an Commission Support Clerk meeting.