HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning120815MinutesWEBKAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION
0_` u_ _ 1►
December 8, 2015
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by
Chair Anderson at 9:00 a.m., at the Uhu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting room
2A -2B. The following Commissioners were present:
Chair Angela Anderson
Vice Chair Sean Mahoney
Mr. Louis Abrams
Mr. Wayne Katayama
Ms. Amy Mendonca
Mr. Kimo Keawe
The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Michael Dahilig, Leslie
Takasaki, Kaaina Hull, Jody Galinato, 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:
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 9:46 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Planning Director Michael Dahilig_ Commissioner Keawe?
Mr. Keawe: Here,
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Here.
Mr. Dahilig: Vice Chair Mahoney?
Mr. Mahoney: Here,
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Katayama?
Mr. Katayama: Here.
1
Mr. Dahilig. Commissioner Abrams?
Mr. Abrams: Here.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mendonca?
Ms. Mendonca: Here,
Mr. Dahilig: Chair Anderson?
Chair Anderson: Here.
Mr. Dahilig: Madam Chair, you have seven (7) members present.
Chair Anderson: Thank you.
Mr. Dahilig: You do have the Approval of the Agenda for this morning, Madam Chair. I would
suggest taking Item H.1., which is the Executive Session pertaining to my goals and objectives
for the upcoming fiscal year, to the lunch period. Other than that, I would recommend taking the
Commission agenda as -is.
Chair Anderson: Okay. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda?
Mr. Keawe: So moved.
Ms. Mendonca: Second,
Chair Anderson: All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any opposed? (None) Motion
carries 7:0.
MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission
Meeting of October 27, 2015
Meeting of November 10, 2015
Excerpt Minutes of Meeting of November 24, 2015 re ZA- 2016 -2 = Kaua `i County
Council
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Madam Chair. We have three (3) items under Item D for approval this
morning. These are minutes of the October 271h, November 10th, and an excerpt of November
241h for ZA- 2016 -2 for your approval.
Fa
Chair Anderson: Okay. Do I have a motion regarding approval of the minutes; October 271h,
November 10th, and an excerpt of November 241hq
Mr. Mahonev: Move to approve, Madam Chair.
Chair Anderson: Is there a second?
Mr. Abrams: Second.
Chair Anderson: Any discussion? (None) All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any
opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:0.
RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Madam Chair. We do have three (3) items for supplemental
information that has been distributed by the Secretary of the Commission pertaining to ZA -2016-
1, as well as a testimony regarding the Kahn Trust matter, and then another testimony from the
Department of Water relating to ZA- 2016 -1. We would recommend the Department [sic] take
these items for receipt for the record.
Chair Anderson: Do I have a motion to receive the items for the record?
Mr. Mahoney* Move to receive the items.
Mr. Keawe: Second.
Chair Anderson: Any discussion? (None) All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any
opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:0.
HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Continued Agency Hearing (NONE)
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Madam Chair. We are on Item F.1., Continued Agency Hearings. We
do not have any continued agency hearings for this morning.
New Agency Hearing
Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2016 -7 and Variance Permit V- 2016 -1 to deviate from the
requirements noted in Section 8- 9.2(a) of the Kauai County Code (1987) relating to land
coverage within the Open (0) zoning district, affecting a parcel located along the mauka side of
Kukuna Road in `Aliomanu, situated approx. 900 ft. north of its intersection with `Aliomanu
Road and immediately adjacent to a residence identified as 5139 Kukuna Road, Tax Map Key 4-
3
9- 005:015, and containing a total land area of 3 acres = Marty J. Kahn Trust & Carole Ann Kahn
Trust.
Mr. Dahilig: We are on Item F.2.a. This is Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2016 -7 and Variance
Permit V- 2016 -1 to deviate from the requirements noted in Section 8- 9.2(a) of the Kauai
County Code relating to lot coverage within the Open Zoning District, affecting a parcel located
along the mauka side of Kukuna Road in `Aliomanu, situated approximately 900 feet north of its
intersection with `Aliomanu Road and immediately adjacent to a residence identified as 5139
Kukuna Road, Tax Map Key 4 -9 -005 parcel 15, and containing a total area of three (3) acres.
The applicant is Marty J. Kahn Trust and Carole Ann Kahn Trust.
Madam Chair, before we open the agency hearing this morning, the attorney for the applicant
wishes to snake a statement regarding this application.
Chair Anderson: You may approach.
Jonathan Chun: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Commission. Jonathan Chun on
behalf of the applicants, Marty Kahn and Carole Kahn. Madam Chair, after reading the report
and also going through the most recent Supreme Court decision regarding a variance that was
issued by the City and County of Honolulu, the Kahn's would like to, at this point in time,
withdraw their application. I believe the questions that have been asked and the information that
is being requested by the Kahn's in order to make a more complete application is going to take a
bit more time than what we thought. So rather than take up the Commission and the
Department's time of reviewing something that obviously will be changing in the future, they are
going to withdraw their application, do their homework, get more information, get more studies
and plans done, and then come back to the Commission at a later time.
Mr. Dahilig: Madam Chair, the Department would have no objections if the Commission wishes
to receive his oral testimony as evidence of a request for withdrawing the application, and we
would recommend the Commission take a vote on formally accepting the withdrawal.
Chair Anderson: Do I have a motion to accept the withdrawal that has been given orally by the
applicants' representative?
Mr. Mahoney: Madam Chair, move to accept the withdrawal.
Mr. Abrams: Second.
Chair Anderson: Any discussion? (None) All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any
opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:0.
Mr. Chun: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Commission.
Mr. Dahilig. Madam Chair, as this is no longer an agency hearing, but the matter has been
posted, the Department would recommend taking any public testimony on this item. We do have
that written testimony from Mr. Scarbo that has been received for the record, but to comply with
Chapter 92, the Department would recommend making a final call for any testimony, and we do
not have anybody signed up to testify at this time.
Chair Anderson: Okay. Is there anyone in the public that would like to give testimony on this
agenda item?
Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2016 -6 and Use Permit U- 2016 -6 to operate a cabaret /night
club at the Kauai Brewery location in Lihu`e Town, situated along the western side of Rice
Street and approx. 150 ft. west of the Kalena Street /Rice Street intersection, further identified as
4265 Rice Street, Tax Map Key 3 -6- 009:034, and containing a total area of 5,000 sq. ft. = Kaua `i
Brewers LLC.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Madam Chair. We are on Item F.2.b. This is Class IV Zoning Permit
Z- IV- 2016 -6 and Use Permit U- 2016 -6. This is to operate a cabaret /night club at the Kauai
Brewery located in Lihu`e Town, situated along the western side of Rice Street and
approximately 150 feet west of the Kalena Street /Rice Street intersection, further identified as
4265 Rice Street, Tax Map Key 3 -6 -009 parcel 34, and containing a total area of 5,000 square
feet. The applicant is Kauai Brewers LLC.
Madam Chair, we do not have anybody signed up to testify on this matter, but I would
recommend opening the agency hearing at this time.
Chair Anderson: Okay. Is there anyone in the public that would like to give testimony on this
agenda item? Please step forward.
Mr. Dahilig: Seeing none, Madam Chair. The Department would recommend closing the
agency hearing at this time.
Chair Anderson: Do I have a motion to close the agency hearing?
Mr. Keawe: So moved.
Mr. Mahoney: Second,
Chair Anderson: Any discussion? (None) All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any
opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:01
Continued Public Hearing
Zoning Amendment ZA- 2016 -1 to amend Chapter 10 of the Kauai County Code 1987,
as amended to allow for additional rental units to be constructed and used within the Puhi
Lihu`e and Hanama`ulu areas to help achieve housing demands identified in the Lihu`e
Development Plan = County ofKaua `i, Planning Department.
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Madam Chair. We are now on Item F.3.a. This is Zoning Amendment
ZA- 2016 -1 to amend Chapter 10 of the Kauai County Code 1987, as amended, to allow for
5
additional rental units to be constructed and used within Puhi, Llhu`e, and Hanama`ulu areas to
help achieve housing demands identified in the Lihu`e Development Plan. This a continued
hearing from 11/24/15.
Madam Chair, the Department would recommend continuing and opening the public hearing at
this time.
Chair Anderson: Is there anyone in the public that would like to give testimony on this agenda
item?
Mr. Dahilig: Madam Chair, I do not have anybody signed up to testify on this particular
amendment. However, Madam Chair, given the discourse that transpired at the last meeting and
pretty much the policy questions that are about to be discussed in this meeting, the Department
would recommend just continuing the public hearing until the Commission is ready to take
action on the item.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Status Reports (NONE)
Director's Report(s) for Proiect(s) Scheduled for Agency Hearing, December 8, 2015.
(NONE)
Mr. Dahilig:
Madam Chair, we are
on Item G,
Consent Calendar. We do not
have any Status
Reports, nor
any Director's Reports
scheduled
for today. Item H we will take
during lunch.
GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS (NONE)
Mr. Dahilig: General Business Matters. We have none for today.
COMMUNICATION (For Action)
Letter (11/10/15) from Jonathan Chun, Esq., withdrawing permits for Project
Development Use Permit PDU- 2013 -15, Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2013 -17, Use Permit U-
2013-14 and Special Permit SP- 2013 -05, Tax Map Key (4) 5 -2- 013:001 = The Resonance
Project Foundation.
Mr. Dahilig: Communication under Item J. This is a letter dated 11/10/15 from Jonathan Chun,
Esq., withdrawing pen-nits for Project Development Use Permit PDU- 2013 -15, Class IV Zoning
Permit Z -IV- 2013 -17, Use Pen-nit U- 2013 -14, and Special Pennit SP- 2013 -05 at Tax Map Key
(4) 5 -2 -013 parcel 1. This was the permit that was issued to the Resonance Project Foundation.
I
The appropriate motion for the Commission would be just to receive this for the record, Madam
Chair.
Chair Anderson: Okay. Do we have a motion to receive?
Mr. Mahoney: Madam Chair, I snake a motion to receive for the record.
Chair Anderson: Okay. Do I have a second?
Ms. Mendonca: Second,
Chair Anderson: Any discussion? (None) All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any
opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:01
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Subdivision
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Madam Chair. We are now on Item K. This is the Committee Reports
of the Subdivision Committee,
Mr. Mahoney: Subdivision Committee Report. Tentative subdivision action; S- 2016 -5; Pila`a
International/West Beach Kauai LLC; TMK: 5 -1- 004:008, 014, 032; approved unanimously
with amendments. Item b.; S- 2016 -7; Frances J. Acoba, et. al.; TMK: 2 -3- 004:006; approved
3:0. Item c.; S- 2016 -8; Kakuda Brothers LLC; TMK: 2 -7- 006:087, 141; approved 3:0 with
amendments. Final subdivision action; Item a.; S- 2016 -3; Judith C. Page Trustee, et. al.; TMK:
1 -9- 002:0252; approved 3:0. That concludes the report for the Subdivision Committee, Madam
Chair.
Chair Anderson: Are there any questions for the Subdivision Chair? Okay. Do we have a
motion with respect to the report?
Mr. Abrams: Move to approve.
Ms. Mendonca: Second,
Chair Anderson: Any discussion? (None) All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any
opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action)
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Madam Chair. We are now on Item L. This is Unfinished Business for
Action. We have none for this morning.
N
NEW BUSINESS
Class IV Zoning Permit Z- IV- 2016 -6 and Use Permit U- 2016 -6 to operate a cabaret /night
club at the Kauai Brewery location in Lihu`e Town, situated along the western side of Rice
Street and approx. 150 ft. west of the Kalena Street /Rice Street intersection, further identified as
4265 Rice Street, Tax Map Key 3 -6- 009:034, and containing a total area of 5,000 sq. ft. = Kaua `i
Brewers LLC.
Mr. Dahilig: Item M, New Business for Action. We are back to Item F.2.b., Class IV Zoning
Permit Z- IV- 2016 -6 and Use Permit U- 2016 -6. This is, again, the request for Kauai Brewery to
operate a cabaret /night club at their location on Rice Street. Jody will be presenting the report on
behalf of the Department.
Staff Planner Jody Galinato: Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Commission.
Ms. Galinato read the Actions Required, Project Description and Use, Legal
Requirements, Findings, and Preliminary Evaluation sections of the Director's Report for the
record (on file with the Planning Department).
Ms. Galinato: I'll hold off for the Conclusion.
Chair Anderson: Is the applicant here?
Jim Guerber: Yes.
Chair Anderson: If you can please step forward.
Mr. Guerber: Hi. I'm Jim Guerber, President of the Kauai Beer Company,
Chair Anderson: Do you have any comments and /or have you reviewed the Director's Report?
Mr. Guerber: Yes, I have. Our customers asked for this, so I'm trying to get it for them. I'm not
intending to change the nature of our business as much as once in a while having some live
music in there and dancing.
Chair Anderson: Okay. Do you agree with the conditions as set forth in the report?
Mr. Guerber: I do.
Chair Anderson: Alright. Does the Commission have any questions for the applicant?
Ms. Mendonca: I have a question. At the current time, you already have the front end with
seating on the sidewalk, correct?
Mr. Guerber: That's correct.
Ms. Mendonca: And your cabaret license will permit you to be open from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Mr. Guerber: Our current license lets us have the same hours. We're just explaining the same
hours as we have now. We just have decided amongst ourselves to close at 10 o'clock instead of
2:00 (a.m.),
Ms. Mendonca: Yes, but by requesting for a cabaret license, you will be permitted to stay open
to 2:00 a.m.
Mr. Guerber: That's correct.
Ms. Mendonca: My question is, how are the plans for parking in that front area?
Mr. Guerber: Well, let me say this. Parking is in two (2) kinds of situations. There's one (1)
that is a zoning thing, and there's one (1) that's reality. Reality is that there is not enough
parking down there, but customers find parking spaces everywhere. There really are plenty of
parking spaces around; they just aren't in front of Kauai Beer Company. So, I don't think it
would change anything.
Ms. Mendonca: Well, my question to you is.. Xrn trying to visualize it. At the current time, you
have two (2) food trucks that sit in the front, and that is part of one (1) of your promotions that
you have, and it seems to be acceptable. But when you have ... and I'm guessing, you need to
clarify this for me, when you have a cabaret license, there will be pupus and so forth during the
time you have dancing and drinking. So, are you still going to keep those two (2) trucks there?
Or are you going to be cooking and serving within your facility?
Mr. Guerber: Currently, we are open on Wednesday through Saturday, 11 o'clock in the
morning for lunch until 10 o'clock at night. We serve our own food, except Thursday dinner,
which we close our own kitchen, and we allow the food trucks to come and they cater for us. So
we are supplying food now for lunch and then for dinner as well, up until about 9 or 10 o'clock
at night, so that won't change. We are not doing pupus; we are doing sandwiches. We could be
doing pupus as well.
Ms. Mendonca: So at nights with this cabaret license, are you going to specify your dance area
from a specific time? Because technically, a cabaret license will permit you to start dancing at 9
o'clock in the morning. Is there a specific time that you will be offering the dancing and so
forth?
Mr. Guerber: At this point, I don't know the frequency that we are going to have music and
dancing. I do know that in the application, we've applied for a certain space inside that we will
designate as a dance floor. To me, it's unclear right now, but we may have dancing ... we may do
dance classes at 9 in the morning. There are people that want to put on ballroom dancing classes
and things like that, but I don't envision that right now at all.
Chair Anderson: Any other questions?
WE
Mr.
Keawe:
Have
you
had any issues with
the neighbors? You're pretty close to. . 'You 9ve got
noise or
anything like that.
the
have
furniture
store,
and
with
that
Barbecue
Inn in the
kind
back.
Mr. Guerber: The only neighbor we've had issues with is Yoneji Store when people park during
the day.
Mr. Keawe: Right,
Mr. Guerber:
But
after 5 o'clock,
they're fine with it. That's all I can recall. There has never
been an issue
with
noise or
anything like that.
Mr. Keawe: Do you have any concerns if you open later, you may attract a different type of
crowd?
Mr. Guerber:
I do.
I
certainly do. And that is
a very big decision of ours to not open late. We
don't
want to
have
to
deal
with
that
other
kind
of
crowd.
Mr. Keawe: Right,
Mr. Guerber: We are more like a restaurant, than we are like a bar, and I don't think that will
change.
Mr. Keawe: So your intention is still to close at 10:00 (p.m.)?
Mr. Guerber: Yes.
Mr. Keawe: But with the ability to have dancing and serving food?
Mr. Guerber: Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Keawe: Thank you.
Ms. Mendonca: Doesn't the liquor license permit you for special licensing, if you are going to
be offering dancing certain nights, that you can get a special license for that, and not go cabaret?
Mr. Guerber: I suppose. We are designated as a Brew Pub A, which is a brew pub as a
restaurant. There is another license, Brew Pub B, which is with music and dancing, and this will
let us apply for that "B" license. I suppose we could apply for a one -day license if we have some
inclination that we're going to have a time and a month from now, but that would have to go
through the Liquor Commission meeting, and there's a whole big, long procedure that takes time
to do that. I think this is the right procedure to do; to come and ask you guys to grant us this,
instead of doing it as a special occasion.
Chair Anderson: Are there other questions?
Mr. Katayama: Madam Chair. Jodi or Mike, as we move forward with form -based code and
complete streets initiative, as we intensify the use of certain districts, how do we address or how
does the Department plan to address things like parking? You know, we are encouraging these
kinds of activities, so as we have people staying longer with more cars, how do we measure that
capacity?
Mr. Dahilig: Okay. As it pertains specifically to the Lihu`e Town Core area, we have undergone
a parking audit sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. As Mr. Guerber is
characterizing, there is ample parking within an area, but it may not be in the most desirable
places for people to park. And that's what we are realizing in, let's say, Koloa Town as well.
There are parking assets around the town, but they are not in the places that are most convenient,
visually, for somebody. So what we are working on as contemporaneously with the
implementation of form -based code in some of these more urbanized areas is to promote more
wayfinding opportunities for people to be directed to desirable parking areas. One (1) of the
activities we are undergoing right now, with respect to the Lihu`e Town Core, is to direct, I
guess, the patrons of some of these establishments to actually go to places that are one (1) block
or two (2) blocks away, or along ... on-street parking, let's say, on Hardy Street, and that kind of
thing; so that's one (1) aspect of it. The other one, too, is that we, from a residential standpoint,
and I may be digressing a bit here, but just to answer the issue of parking, the parking standards
have been relaxed to look at more multi -modal opportunities versus relying specifically on how
many spaces per unit. For example, the Council has approved an in lieu trade to allow for bike
parking in lieu of providing vehicular parking space. Now, there may be some question, and it is
a chicken or the egg question, how do you get people out of their cars? And vice versa, how do
you get people to ... if you're providing bike spaces, who's going to use it? So there is no silver
bullet to answer what will generate people to move out of their cars into biking, but the
opportunity has been made available, so that is something that is also utilized within some of
these Town Core areas, is the in lieu opportunity to provide more bike parking versus vehicular
parking.
Mr. Katayama: So under the current standards, what's the measure for capacity as we encourage
commercial enterprises to develop? In terms of maintaining a reasonable traffic load on our
streets, and yet, giving the opportunity of businesses to be sustainable.
Mr. Dahilig: It is in effect almost an inverse effect that when you slow down the street, you
actually end up with more economic activity. That is a simple proposition, but it is very hard for
people that are used to vehicular -based society to gather that, in effect, a lot of these main streets
have lost the street or walking economic activity as a consequence of increasing the speeds along
a stretch.
Mr. Katayama: Oh no, I'm talking more of storage. I mean, if you...
Mr. Dahilig: Storage of...
Mr. Katayama: Of the vehicle.
Mr. Dahilig: Yes.
III
Mr. Katayama: I mean, if you want people to go and patronize establishments along a certain
corridor, they need to put their cars somewhere.
Mr. Dahilig Right,
Mr. Katayama: What's, right now, the rule for that?
Mr. DahiliK So the rule is, in effect, we have the in lieu for the biking, but there is a formula
within each of the separate form -based codes that prescribes, based on how many square feet and
the use that you are providing, how many spaces you have to use. What is also in the code is that
you can designate spaces that are off property as the storage area for that particular
establishment. So it wouldn't make sense, for example, when you're looking along Rice Street,
to have these establishments torn down so that you can provide parking in the front of the
building; especially given some of the historic natures of these buildings. So that's why the code
has that flexibility to look at parking in a different sense by providing the biking spaces or by
saying okay, this landowner that is two (2) blocks away has said okay, I will designate these
spaces for "x" establishment on the main street. We can accept that as acceptable storage as
well. The catch though is how do you get people to get out of their cars and walk two (2) blocks,
and that is a paradigm shift that just has to take time.
Administrator Furfaro left the meeting at 10:14 a.m.
Mr. Katayama: So given the current application, we're saying that there is sufficient parking on
public property to support that activity?
Mr. Dahili &. Yes, there is, and in fact, with the opening of the new spaces along Hardy Street,
there should be even more ample parking, but you have to walk three (3) to five (5) minutes to
get to the Brewery.
Ms. Mendonca: Where on Hardy Street?
Mr. Dahilig: All along the stretch of Hardy Street.
Ms. Mendonca: That's all the way going around to the school.
Mr. Dahili& Yes.
Ms. Mendonca: My opinion in this is if we're going to provide this kind of changes, my concern
is how does it fit into the future planning? Because there is a shopping center on one (1) side,
and if they're going to say okay, you all park on Hardy Street, that's all residential. And they'll
say, go to the Rice Shopping Center. Well, you've got businesses there that are going to already
have problems for parking because you have the bowling alley and all those shops. At night,
sometimes you can't find parking spaces, so I have a little bit of difficulty in saying there will be
ample parking.
12
Now, the applicant indicated that he can go to the Liquor Department. He's so unclear
specifically how he's going to utilize his cabaret license, in which case he can still go to the
Liquor Department and request for special licenses on certain days. And if it becomes to his
advantage, I can see him coming back, but these are all based on hypothetical projections. To
prevent something of a congestion on Rice Street, and keeping it open, like you said, for people
walking, that's something we've been trying to encourage, and keeping it more friendly in that
terms.
Mr. Dahilig: I guess I'll say this, and this is maybe just from personal experience since I'm a
regular patron at that fine establishment. (Laughter in background) I will say this then, when
you look at the draw, and I've been there on numerous nights; either Wednesdays, Thursdays,
Fridays, and even on the weekends. The peak that I've noticed has been when they do have the
truck stop that you've referenced, and it tends to be a huge capacity crowd. Now having looked
around and understanding the parking situation, it does not seem like the parking assets are not
there with respect to if you are within a five - minute walking radius. If you're within a one -
minute walking radius or a two - minute walking radius, yes, there is a parking problem, and that's
where it becomes a behavioral kind of issue when we use the phrase, "is there ample parking ?"
Because there is parking also by Kalena Park, there is parking along ... all the way going into ... by
Hamura Saimin, and then there is also that street one (1) block away where Kong Radio is. So
there are assets around the area that do allow for people, if they choose to want to patronize the
Brewery, to actually park, but they just have to park a block away.
Administrator Furfaro returned to the meeting at 10:18 a.m.
Ms. Mendonca: I understand what you're trying to say, Mike, and I'm not against the fact that
it's a business thing and it might be good for the public. The request for a special permit for this
to ... he can go to the Liquor Department, he can apply for special licensing for special nights, as
he said, for dancing. But to rezone that area is what I'm finding very uncomfortable because
when you are looking down the road, what's to stop somebody else to say okay, we can have a
special use or variance, you know, change in our zoning because of this. It sets a precedence
again. We already have a cabaret operating dancing right around the corner, which is Rob's
Grill, and that has all of that parking space. I'm just looking at it's not we're stopping him; he
can have alternate routes to do his dancing by going to the Liquor Department and requesting for
a special license.
Mr. Dahilig: I do want to clarify, though, that the liquor permit or the special liquor license that
comes is independent from whether or not they are meeting the zoning requirements. So even if
you were to do it once, and I will say that a lot of people around the island do live music and do
dancing through these special things, but reality is you still do need a zoning compliance type of
permit to even operate it just once. The way we read the application is almost as if the Brewery
is saying look, we're going to tightly follow the law here, and we're going to say okay, even
anticipating we're going to be applying for these, even if they are special licenses from the
Liquor Commission, we're going to ensure that we're compliant with the law regardless. This
would cover either, whether they're applying for the special one -time licenses or the full -time
cabaret license from the Liquor Commission, and this provides, as we read it, a degree of
flexibility for them to approach their business opportunity one way or another. So I wouldn't
13
give the impression that the special permit from the Liquor absolves that operator of any zoning
compliance issues because...
Ms. Mendonca: No, I understand that, but my question is, because he is not certain as to the
specific hours when he's going to do the dancing, he is generalizing it and that makes me feel
very uncomfortable because, again, I'm still cautious about the parking. By utilizing other areas,
it's going to cause some conflict with other residents or businesses around the area; that's all I'm
saying. I mean, if he came with a specific plan as to certain times, maybe, that he's going to
have this, certain days, at least it gives us an idea what to expect from people who have problems
parking in that particular area.
Chair Anderson: Okay. And I just want to bring us back because it seems as though we're
slightly moving into more discussion rather than the question specifically for the Department, so
I appreciate that we did get some clarity in tenus of the perspective from the Department on
how ... the application of the zoning in this particular matter. Are there any other questions for
the applicant or the Department? And again, let's stick to questions and we can go into
discussion on the policy matters once we have a motion on the floor. Questions from the
Commission.
Mr. Abrams: Yes. This is for Mike. I keep thinking of Lahaina, and the way that mixed -use is
there, and how they have separate, little parking areas, and not being familiar with the Lihu`e
Town Core Plan, and also realizing that form -based code wants to not ... if you try to
accommodate all of the vehicular parking forever, you then are really shooting yourself in the
foot if you're trying to make a walkable community. I see that to a certain extent, and was
asking more, are there plans? Or how are you envisioning phasing into that as you move out of
vehicular and into more walkable community?
Mr. Dahilig: As I mentioned earlier, we did do that parking audit. I think the way we are, from
a County's standpoint, trying to relieve the parking pressures and the issues as we start drawing
more people to the area for economic use is to essentially make it very easy for people to identify
where those assets are. So we are actually undergoing a logo and branding approach to the Rice
Street area. It's something that I think in the next couple of months we are going to reveal to the
Commission as part of that initiative to brand the street, provide it as a destination, and also use
those monikers as an opportunity to create wayfinding signs to install along the Rice Street
corridor. As you are aware of, with the TIGER grant that we received about a month ago, a lot
of those wayfinding elements and, I guess, amping of the on- street parking elements are going to
be enhanced as part of the TIGER plans. So that is the County's contribution to try to more
orderly distribute the parking around Rice Street as a destination versus trying to have the
establishments fully absorb whatever parking that they generate.
Mr. Abrams: And
along Rice Street, is
the plan to
allow parking on one (1) of the two (2) lanes?
(Inaudible) period
of time? All up and
down Rice
(Street)?
Mr. Dahilig: At least from a preliminary standpoint, the plans that we did submit to the U.S.
Department of Transportation do call for some retention of that on- street parking along Rice
14
Street, so it will not be wholly eliminated. But I believe that the stretch will call for some
elimination, but not total elimination of the on- street parking.
Mr. Abrams: Thank you.
Chair Anderson: Any other questions for the Planner or the applicant?
Mr. Keawe: Can we hear the recommendations? Sorry. (Laughter in background)
Chair Anderson: Can we hear the recommendations?
Ms. Galinato: Yes.
Ms. Galinato read the Conclusion and Preliminary Recommendation sections of the
Director's Report for the record (on file with the Planning Department).
Chair Anderson: And again, the applicant, are you in agreeance with the conditions as set forth?
Mr. Guerber: I am.
Chair Anderson: Okay, thank you. Alright, do I have a motion?
Mr. Abrams: Madam Chair, I move to approve Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2016 -6 and Use
Permit U- 2016 -6, Kauai Brewers LLC.
Chair Anderson: Is there...
Mr. Keawe: Second.
Chair Anderson: Okay, noted. Discussion. Any comments?
Mr. Keawe: Quick question.
Ms. Mendonca: I have a question.
Chair Anderson: Okay, we'll start from over here.
Mr. Keawe: Sorry. (Laughter in background) Okay, Mike, so basically to answer Amy's
concern about a single Liquor Department license, what you're saying is he's still going to need
a Class IV Zoning Permit irrespective if he gets a license from the Liquor Commission to operate
a one -night or whatever it's called, or to do the cabaret?
Mr. Dahilig: That's correct.
Chair Anderson: Other questions /comments.
15
Ms. Mendonca: I have a question for Jody. Where you say here, No. 9, "the applicant is advised
that the Planning Director shall have the authority to increase the parking requirements when
particular uses cause unusual traffic congestion." Can you explain that a little bit more in detail?
As an example.
Ms. Galinato: It is within the CZO. Under certain circumstances, there could be off -site parking
requirements; an agreement that could be signed to do that. I think the Hyatt did that; was one of
the circumstances. There is a lot of parking at the War Memorial, also there. So depending on
how the Town Core design goes and how the transit issues work out, the Department would take
it on a case -by -case based on any complaints that we received.
Mr. Katayama: Madam Chair,
Chair Anderson: Yes,
Mr. Katayama: Jody, could you define what the current parking conditions are pertaining to this
application?
Ms. Galinato: In regards to this application, the applicant has met the parking requirements for
the use that they have.
Mr. Katayama: What is that?
Ms. Galinato: For the bar and restaurant. The addition of the live entertainment, there's nothing
in the ordinance that would increase the parking requirements for that.
Mr. Katayama: So is there any off - street parking requirement presently in place for applicant?
Ms. Galinato: They have met the parking right now. There's no additional parking. If I'm
answering that right, Mike?
Mr. Keawe: I'm sorry. So what is it? (Laughter in background)
Ms. Galinato: Off the top of my head ... I'd have to check.
Mr. Dahilig: Under the Lihu`e Town Core ordinance, you can also provide bicycle parking to
meet the requirements of what the formula prescribes. Again, the actual formula doesn't..'Off
the top of my head, I don't know what exactly that is, but what we've accepted as their physical
parking requirement is the provision that they provide bike parking on their establishment, so
they actually have outlined that in the plan. It's actually ... if you look at it, it is PDF 249 out of
294.
Mr. Keawe: Madam Chair?
Chair Anderson: Yes.
16
Mr. Keawe: May I ask the applicant if he knows?
Chair Anderson: If you can... there's... on Page 249.
Mr. Keawe: 249 is the...?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes, PDF Page 249.
Mr. Keawe: I don't see anything that's... that's the floor plan?
Mr. Dahilig: So if you look at the floor plan and you look at the corridor, you look on the very
left, bottom left side of the corridor, along the corridor, you'll see bicycles put in there.
Mr. Keawe: So those little, skinny lines are bicycle parking?
Mr. Dahilig: That's correct.
Mr. Keawe: And that qualifies?
Mr. Dahilig: Yes, it does, under the law.
Mr. Keawe: Do you happen to know how many parking stalls you need?
Mr. Guerber: I think it's eight (8).
Mr. Keawe: Eight (8)?
Mr. Guerber: Automobile parking stalls.
Mr. Keawe: For automobiles, there's eight (8) parking stalls?
Mr. Guerber: I think so.
Mr. Keawe: Okay,
Chair Anderson: Okay. We're in discussion.
please continue. Any further discussion?
If there are comments from the Commission,
Mr. Abrams: Part of my motion to approve, on the application, he states that there is no off -
street parking. I'm not sure whether or not off - street parking was required of that prior to this
use. Simply looking at the lot, I don't see any place to actually get in any parking. But five (5)
on- street parking spaces have been designated, and then parking for up to sixty (60) bicycles.
Mr. Keawe: How many?
Mr. Abrams: Up to sixty (60) bicycles.
17
Mr. Keawe: Sixty (60)?
Mr. Abrams: Yes. And that's based on the idea that you are trying to do multi -modal so that
you're trying to encourage that as a way to get to the project. I know it's really hard, and a lot of
people look skeptically at the fact that if you don't have vehicular access, that you may have a
challenge in terms of running a business. I'm sure that's sort of been there, and it's the first in
this area that I can tell in regards to trying to come up with something to deal with the new
Uhu`e plan. I'm willing to give it a shot because while I totally agree that ... I mean, what is
it ... parking would normally be for something that is commercial? One (1) stall per 300 square
feet plus one (1) for every, I guess, three (3) employees, I think is what is there. And even that
isn't enough when I walk into a shopping center sometimes and it's full; much like what we'll be
experiencing, I guess, going up at Christmas at Kukui Grove. But it's there, and he's willing to
take that on. I hope that we can encourage an applicant like this who is willing to do that; to
support him in regards to not putting unrealistic things that he can't possibly do. I mean,
Lahaina, I understood that generally for those businesses that are in there that I guess they call it
a "blighted town" because of parking issues. And maybe that will happen; although I think that
there's a little bit more thought going into the plan regarding parking from there. I didn't even
think about the Convention Center [sic]; that's right through that little alleyway there, so there's
going to be a lot of access by that way to be able to accommodate that, and that is not on -site. So
I support that wholeheartedly and let's see how this works. If it doesn't, then Mike will have to
make the call to decide whether or not something needs to be done about that. That's my
position in terms of support for this application.
Chair Anderson: Any further discussion?
Mr. Katayama: For the applicant, how many employees do you have?
Mr. Guerber: We have twenty (20) employees now.
Mr. Katayama: How many of them ride bikes to work?
Mr. Guerber: At least three (3). May I say something about this in general? Part of this is to
start to talk about parking. Parking on Rice Street is a very important subject. You guys can try
to solve it yourselves, and the only way you can solve it is in a way that says you can't do that
business here, you can't do this business here. So far I have been able to establish a business
here on Rice Street with very little parking, and in actuality, it's thriving. In the beginning I was
wondering about this myself, and we should all be considering what it is about parking. It's true;
the Convention Center [sic] has a large parking lot. I don't know how many cars it could handle,
but it's within a couple hundred feet. We can't tell people to use it because it's not ours, legally,
but people do. People find parking spaces all around the place. If you guys legislate or snake a
rule that says well, you have to have this much parking, a business won't be able to be
established. If you let the business establish and there's not enough parking, the business,
economically, won't survive, and let that happen. Or, the customers will want to be at that
business so badly that they'll find a parking space. Reality says that we will make it work. But
it all starts here. You can either foster the economy and the community, or you can make it so
that we can't do businesses there.
Chair Anderson: Thank you for your comments. As we are in the discussion phase, there are no
further discussions from the Commission. I'd like to go ahead and we'll do a roll call vote.
Mr. Dahilig: Madam Chair, the motion on the floor is to approve Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV-
2016-6 and Use Permit U- 2016 -6 at TMK: 3 -6 -009 parcel 34. Commissioner Keawe?
Mr. Keawe: Aye,
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Ho?
Mr. Ho: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Vice Chair Mahoney?
Mr. Mahoney. Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Katayama?
Mr. Katayama: Aye,
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Abrams?
Mr. Abrams: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Commissioner Mendonca?
Ms. Mendonca: Aye.
Mr. Dahilig: Chair Anderson?
Chair Anderson: Aye,
Mr. Dahilig: Seven (7) ayes, Madam Chair.
Chair Anderson: So your application has been approved. Thank you.
Mr. Guerber: Thank you.
Zoning Amendment ZA- 2016 -1 to amend Chapter 10 of the Kauai County Code 1987
as amended, to allow for additional rental units to be constructed and used within the Puhi
Llhu`e and Hanama`ulu areas to help achieve housing demands identified in the Lihu`e
Development Plan = CountyoFKaua `i, Planning Department,
Mr. Dahilig: Thank you, Madam Chair. We are now on Item F.3. This is Zoning Amendment
ZA- 2016 -1 to amend Chapter 10 of the Kauai County Code 1987. This is relating to the ARU
19
units in Puhi, Lihu`e, and Hanama`ulu. If you'll indulge me, I'll give the hot seat to the Deputy
Director to handle this item.
Chair Anderson: Okay,
Deputy Planning Director Kaaina Hull: Good morning, Chair and members of the Commission.
You folks are in receipt of our Director's Report, Supplement to the Director's Report, as well as
the proposed amendments to the previously proposed ordinance for additional rental units within
the Mhu`e Planning Area. Let me get to the tract changes. Hold on one second. The changes
are relatively minimal to what was previously proposed. Sorry. The only real changes that were
made were to clarify that subdivision of the proposed area unit would be prohibited, and that
would essentially reduce the speculative nature of the housing market on ARU's. We are also
recommending that the definition of "long -term rental" would be of a period exceeding six (6)
months, and not a year. There were some issues, as far as some potential applicants not wanting
to go into a year -long rental agreement with renters in the case that say it becomes an adversarial
relationship with the need to be able to evict, essentially, a tenant. And then we removed the
referenced gallbladder portion, which essentially gave the Department further discretion above
and beyond code standards to deny an after - the -fact ARU unit that wanted to come into
compliance, so we removed that, and the other language just kind of clarifying editorial language
changes. So that was what we submitted to the Commission and what was made publicly
available last week.
Our report for the most part, the evaluation points stand as stated. Some of them were in direct
discussion with the overall draft bill, and some of them were essentially addressing questions
that were brought up in the previous Planning Commission meeting. Since that time, both the
Water Department and the Fire Department have submitted comments. Essentially, their
comments were ... they wanted assurances that their infrastructure improvement requirements say
for Fire, if they required a sprinkler system, or for Water, if they required an additional meter or
an additional FRC charge, would be addressed for the unit. In discussions with them, we
ultimately decided to recommend to this Commission, which you guys are also in receipt of our
addendum item for this agenda that proposes a facilities clearance form, which is, essentially,
similar to the ADU clearance form that the applicant, prior to building permit, walk the clearance
form to each of the respective agencies to ensure that they will be able to meet the infrastructure
demands, if any additional ones are required for the improvement. The addendum item that you
got today also includes, under subsection d. now, the ARU clearance form process. And we're
available for questions.
Mr. Keawe: If I may...
Chair Anderson: Yes.
Mr. Keawe: Is that Supplement No. 1 to the Director's Report?
Mr. Hull: No. So you guys received, this morning, Supplement No. 2. Exhibit A in Supplement
No. 2 has the new language concerning the ARU facilities clearance form. We apologize for the,
somewhat, lateness of that. We weren't anticipating further comments from Fire or Water, but
20
being that we got them in and they had some concerns, we wanted to address those concerns in
the draft ordinance.
Mr. Katayama: (Inaudible)
Mr. Hull: That would be a portion of subsection d., correct.
Mr. Katayama: d?
Mr. Hull: Right,
Mr. Katayama: So where does (inaudible)?
Mr. Hull: Oh, that is correct. We'll have to actually...
Mr. Abrams: You are going to have to change that (inaudible).
Mr. Hull: Yes. We are going to have to actually change those numbers.
Mr. Abrams: Are you going to then go to e. and then move everything like you did with the ones
that are on Page 4? Well I don't know.
Mr. Hull: No, the... actually, sorry, the quickest... yeah, we could do ... that would be e. and then
on the following page, No. 4, e. through h. would turn into ff, through i. My apologies for that.
Chair Anderson: Other questions?
Mr. Ho: Kaaina, is it too late to comment on that ... we were discussing the size of the building
that each lot owner could add, and we were discussing how small that unit would be, 300 square
feet. What if it is a vertical thing? Two - story? Could you make it two - story?
Mr. Hull: So that ultimately...
Mr. Ho: 600 (square feet); 300 (square feet) on the bottom, 300 (square feet) on the top.
Mr. Hull: I think that definitely is a possibility. That would be at the Commission's discretion, I
think, if there's an agreement on that. The overall size has to do with two (2) reasons; (1) to
reduce the speculative nature in the sense that keeping these relatively small will essentially
weed out the luxury high -end market from purchasing these for speculative purposes, but the
other part of it is just overall impact to the residential area. The larger that these structures get,
the more people they can accommodate. We'd love to accommodate more, but there is also an
acknowledgement that they will have impacts on the resources in a respective community. So if
you're talking about the possibility of allowing for two (2) stories within that say 400 square foot
envelope or 800 square foot envelope, it would essentially increase the square footage to 800 for
the smaller lots and 1,600 for the larger lots. The Department is comfortable in its
21
recommendation here, but increasing it to encompass the vertical aspect, I think that would be a
discussion that can be had here.
Mr. Ho: The only reason I ask that is, you know, 400 square feet or 300 (square feet) is a very
small apartment. If you add another floor to it, it makes it a little bit more comfortable, and
maybe an incentive for you to build the unit.
Mr. Hull: Yeah, and the 400 square feet is really just for those relatively smaller...or really
small lots actually. A 3,500 square foot lot is a fairly small lot. I guess we would acknowledge
that, Commissioner. I don't know if the Department... the Department wouldn't necessarily have
objections, per se, to increasing it. At the same time, I don't think we would be necessarily
comfortable recommending to increase the ability to go vertical and essentially double the square
footage. With the situations in which 800 square feet for the little bit larger lots, they can do that
800 square feet right now in the proposal on a single- story, as well as a two - story. It would be,
essentially, 400 and 400.
Mr. Keawe: Kaaina, are you familiar ... you know, it seems to be a real ground swell, nationally,
about people living in smaller homes, and you know, tiny homes and small homes. They come
up with some pretty amazing kind of living conditions for 400 or 600 square feet. I think that
would be an approach there if this goes through, as opposed to the old Hicks home that was 400
feet and had single (inaudible) bedrooms and things. But you know, there's a lot going on,
nationally, with regard to that effort to get people... And especially the millennial generation;
ride their bike, live in a smaller house, save their money, so it might be something to consider as
far as exploring alternatives to make smaller homes design compatible, energy - efficient, look
cool, you know.
Mr. Hull: Yeah, I think the Chair also brought that up the last meeting, as far as the Department
looking at specific models or examples that we can provide the public or an applicant with to say
here's a possibility. You don't have to do this, but it meets the code, and here's a possibility that
you can...
Mr. Keawe: A lot of the universities across the Country now, architectural universities, are
actually going in that area, coming up with some pretty amazing stuff, environmentally.
Chair Anderson: Any other questions /comments for the Department?
Mr. Abrams: Yes. Kaaina, so if someone wanted to do this, they'd still have to be within the lot
coverage thing, so 50% of the lot is the max that you would go?
Mr. Hull: Correct.
Mr. Abrams: Second thing is that I don't know whether you've had discussions with the Water
Department, but if they are going to lay an FRC charge of fourteen (14) grand on top of doing
that, do you have any idea what the criteria is? I mean, it's a single - family home. We're trying
to just simply enhance a bedroom, shall we say, to make it a little bit more of a livable unit. And
for a while there, I guess you could do it under a 5/8 -inch line, and they wouldn't require another
22
one. Has there been any discussion with them in regards to that? Because it seems fairly rigid
what they're saying right now, which is they want to have...they're going to end up being the
final straw as we go around, and I think it's going to be very difficult to try and accomplish this
extra housing with that in place.
Mr. Hull: I have had discussions with the Water Department. In fact, we met with them just
yesterday. Their comments came in yesterday evening. As I understand it, they.. many sites
here in Lihu`e would be able to, if they are being folded into the same structure, and that's what
we anticipate most of the proposals to be, will be required to pay the FRC rate, which would
actually be the multi - family rate, which would be roughly $9,000, but wouldn't necessarily need
an additional meter in place, so they wouldn't have to expend those additional construction costs.
Could that change in the future? It could. It's really a ... you have to essentially go to the Water
Board to amend some of their rules and regulations. Ultimately though, the discussion of
what ... if there's higher costs above and beyond that, come down to also how many outlets they
have, essentially, for water; bath tubs, toilets, hose bibbs, faucets. How many are in a respective
structure ultimately dictate the type of water facilities they need to put in place.
Mr. Abrams: Yes, that's what I'm thinking maybe that we could get them to ... because if it's
like a two - bedroom house, and then adding something in to have an affordable rental, may not be
that big of a deal and then being able to provide that service without the FRC charge certainly
may entice somebody to want to go ahead and try it now. So I understand we really don't have
the wherewithal to demand that the Water Department do that, but hopefully the Council will
have some discussion with them in regards to that; although I guess we have our Planning
Director who can advocate our position, right?
Mr. Hull: The Planning Director does sit on the Water Board. (Laughter in background)
Mr. Abrams: We'll put that on his goals. And I guess the other one is that I don't know if you
having a facilities clearance form all over again is going to be something that is going to end up
having some unintended consequences, and I was wondering whether or not you have any
thoughts about how we would go about that. Are these going to run forever until shut off? Or I
mean, it's a 5 -year thing, right? Theoretically, this sunsets and so people would have to go in
and get their FRC clearance form first, right? Or could they just go straight in and not have one?
Mr. Hull: Under our proposed amendment, they would have to get all of the respective agencies
to sign off on their facilities clearance form before applying for their building permit, and to a
certain degree, I mean, it is an extra added layer of review that can get in the way. It's also a
safety mechanism for the applicant because you have situations where they'll just come to the
Planning Department with the bare -bones application of just the site plan and the elevations.
They don't have the actual construction plans and expended whatever amount of monies to get
their construction plans stamped by an architect, and that can be, somewhat, costly. In some
situations, if there wasn't a clearance form, an applicant may draft up the construction plans, pay
the architect for those, it could be upwards of $10,000 to $15,000, walk over to the Fire
Department, and Fire says there's not enough fire protection in this area. You have to put in "x"
amount of water line and a fire hydrant and it's going to cost them $80,000/$90,000, and at that
point, the applicant might just say well, I spent all this money on these plans and now you're
23
telling me I have this other barrier that I'm unwilling to pay for, and they kind of just wasted that
money. So it can serve as a protection for the applicant to ensure that before they go fully down
the path of constructing an ARU that they are fully aware of what the infrastructure costs will be.
We are trying to work with the various agencies to reduce that as much as possible, but for the
applicant to be aware of what those will be before they draft up their building plans.
Mr. Abrams: Yeah, I mean, I look at some of the comments that are coming out of the
Departments now. They just simply say that well when you come in, it's subject to whatever
rule we have, so I don't know whether you'd be any better off going to have them to say that,
like the Fire Department. Like well, I'm trying to see whether or not there are somethings that
we could assist by the other departments, you know, to try to speed up this process because of
the housing crisis that we're looking at, than sort of getting it in slow gear in the beginning, and
then all of a sudden, you know, it starts to take off and then we are a couple of years down the
line.
Mr. Hull: Yeah, and there's a possibility. There's a specific concern brought up by the Board of
Realtor folks who pointed out that sometimes just the bureaucratic paperwork that is involved
and delay after delay can push a lot of potential applicants out of this process. And that's the
discussion we may be able to have with the Council, as well as ... I'd love to be able to say that
the Planning Department would have somebody for the next five (5) years that is just the ARU's
(inaudible); they'll get these permits through, they'll kind of understand the bureaucratic hoops
that the applicant has to jump through, and basically navigate the system for them, so that they
can smooth it over, or that say the Housing Agency could take that responsibility on. But right
now, we are severely under - resourced, and the Housing Department, quite frankly, has less
resources than we do right now.
Chair Anderson: A comment that kind of falls along the same lines, and I think I may have made
it the last time as well; looking at the amount to try to streamline the process, if there is a way,
similar to form -based code, to have the strict guidelines of this is what one of these ARU's
would look like, this is the capacity of water that would keep a three (3) bedroom, two (2) bath
house, an additional unit to this can only have this particular capacity. And then have
recommendations for this is, you know, having those guidelines in terms of the sink, the square
footage of the bathroom, those things, so that that's not the research that the homeowner has to
go through that whole process; that it be spelt out and here's a cookie - cutter approach that you
can use that will be something that would be practicable in most instances. I don't know if that
necessarily needs to be a part of the ordinance, or if it could be an addendum to the ordinance
that gives different technology... you know, kind of lays out the different plans that are available.
I understand that's ... you'd have to do that legwork ahead of time with the different agencies to
make sure everybody is on- board, but it seems to make sense to do that rather than put the
onerous on the consumer or the resident to do that.
Mr. Hull: Yeah, and that point is well taken. We definitely will be ... should the ordinance be
adopted, we will be looking at the... facilitating the process and perhaps having that type of
document available that essentially says if you do this, this is what you're going to be required,
and if you do this, this is what's going to be required. We will be sitting down with the agencies
to further flush that out, should the ordinance be adopted, as well as working with, in particular,
Q111
the Board of Realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Contractors Association because this
is the bulk of their membership that's going to be potentially taking advantage of these
opportunities, to have the most streamline possible process available.
Mr. Abrams: Just a question in regards to expediting permits. Was it for the photovoltaic and
those type of things that had priorities on permits processing? Was that a State law? Or was that
a County ordinance? Because maybe we should talk to our legislators also.
Mr. Hull: That was a State law. I'll just say this to that law.
Mr. Abrams: And then maybe get some funding for it.
Mr. Hull: Yeah, and it basically said you shall streamline. I can say that Kauai has seen a lot go
online for solar in that particular case, and it's because the Planner involved with those really
pushed and really helped facilitate the process. But when you look at some of the other agencies,
I know where they kind of just pointed out like yeah we know it's there, but quite frankly, we've
got all types of work that we still have to handle, and duties and responsibilities that need to be
answered for.
Mr. Abrams: Maybe it would be good... something where we could let our Director know that
perhaps with the affordable housing crisis and this thing, I know Oahu is doing sort of the same
thing that perhaps the legislature could assist for a year or two (2) in helping expedite some of
these things, and coming up with plans and things to help all of the Departments get these things
going.
Chair Anderson: Other comments?
Mr. Katayama: I think to address streamlining and making it more efficient, can the Department
do overlays of capacities for the different infrastructure requirements? And actually
identify ... you know, we've identified three (3) areas, communities, that we think will service the
need. Can we then do overlays of the communities saying that Water has this kind of capacity to
carry 1,000 more units, streets have the capacity to carry this, and just sort of define that if you
come in for a permit or a facility clearance form for this street or this lot, it's in this zone, that all
of these things have been identified and cleared. I think you can then, sort of, measure the
capacity of what we are trying to address. We have set out very ambitious units, you know,
10,000 units. If you were to do a capacity overlay by the three (3) different criteria, whatever the
big hurdles are, rather than having individuals go through and do the research, that we do that
and saying that as long as you come in and you're here, you've been cleared; you're good to go.
To me, that would streamline everything, and you can do it very efficiently doing that. Again, I
mean, if TIGER money can be used for that or some other source of funding, I think that does
three (3) things that we're talking about; (1) is that you can cut out a lot of the overhead from
each of the Departments, as well as the applicant. Secondly, we have a good idea or reasonable
approximation of what the capacity is for these three (3) communities, and then it will help us
develop our General Plan expectations accordingly. You know, this is not part of the ordinance,
but this is, to me, the mechanics of this ordinance.
25
Mr. Hull: That would speak much to what the Chair was bringing about, as far as having
somewhat of a cookie - cutter layout in which you could also have those overlays as part of that
cookie - cutter layout to say this is an area where you're going to have "x" amount of costs for
wastewater or for water. For wastewater, we can do that overlay relatively easy. The Water
Department gets a bit more dicey just because some of their infrastructure costs are incumbent
upon what already exists on the lot. So different infrastructure requirements may be imposed,
depending on how many outlets they have. A house that has two (2) faucets on one (1) lot might
be on the very same street that has a house that has fifty (50) faucets.
Mr. Katayama: But they should have a capacity (inaudible) right now.
Mr. Hull: No, so yeah, their FRC rates are essentially established by what's going on on the site.
But as far as what's available for the Uhu`e area, in discussions with them, they said
approximately 1,000 meters are available for this type of use. Concerning Wastewater, our
discussions with them for the Lihu`e area can readily accommodate the demand being that we
are currently at about 50% capacity of the plan, so therefore there is more than adequate room in
both the water area, as well as the wastewater area.
Mr. Katayama: If you have a community that meets all three (3) requirements, give it green. If
it's two (2) out of the three (3), give it a yellow.
Mr. Hull: Right.
Mr. Katayama: If it's one (1) out of the three (3), give it a red. And then we will know.
Chair Anderson: Okay. Other comments?
Mr. Abrams: One last thing. Kaaina, on Page 2, b.4., they don't use HRS Chapter 514A
anymore. It's 514B.
Mr. Hull: That is correct. Yeah, we can ... actually I would...
Mr. Abrams: Or any ... you know, I mean at that point...
Mr. Hull: You know what, I would actually ... if you guys are entertaining a motion to take
action on this, I would actually recommend that it just be amended to state "514" because there
are some things that 514A is still applicable to, and there are some things that 514B are
applicable, so yeah. Thanks for the catch, Commissioner.
Mr. Katayama: One more.
Chair Anderson: Okay.
Mr. Katayama: Kaaina, Page 4, the old e /the new f, what is the intent of that section? Or that...?
Mr. Hull: e...
M
Mr. Katayama: The old e on top of Page 4.
Mr. Hull: Oh, "the owner of a structure constructed without a building permit prior to the
effective date of this ordinance, intending to convert that structure to an additional rental unit,
shall obtain an after - the -fact zoning permit and building permit." It's just to ensure that they are
applying for the permits, and that we are reviewing them in -house for tracking methods, as well
as to ensure that any of the improvements that they have in there, prior to applying for this after -
the -fact permit, meet the standards of the building code, which is really a health and safety issue.
So ... as opposed to them just saying okay, now we are all grandfathered in, we're good, the
ability to track it and to make sure that those improvements meet the health and safety standards
of the building code.
Mr. Katayama: Only those standards? What about the building size requirement? The square
footage.
Mr. Hull: Yeah, in order to come in for an after- the -fact permit to be brought into conformance,
they would have to meet the square footage as laid out in this draft ordinance. I know that there
was some discussion about giving some leeway, as far as size, and if that's the prerogative of the
Commission, I don't think the Department would object, but we are not at the point of willing to
recommend that such a discretion be given to the Department.
Mr. Keawe: So if someone comes in and the limits 800 (square feet) and they have 1,000 square
feet, then what?
Mr. Hull: They would have to remove a portion of that structure in order to (inaudible).
Mr. Keawe: Physically, right? I mean, in order to conform, they would have to remove square
footage.
Mr. Hull: Correct. Yeah, and as Commissioner Anderson is kind of pointing out to me, is that if
they have the opportunity to connect it to the main residence.. .
Mr. Keawe: As an alternative?
Mr. Hull: And then ... yeah, and then they could make that additional 200 square feet, say, part of
the primary residence and keep their's at 800 (square feet).
Chair Anderson: Alright. Any other comments? I just have a question. This is going back to
the findings in the Director's Supplement No. 1. No. 9, concerning the wastewater, so you've
included the comments from the Department of Health regarding the EPA standards. I just want
to have the Department clarify how the ARU units will work. If it will be only on parcels that
have wastewater infrastructure? Sewer?
Mr. Hull: So the Department of Health's comments were essentially that the site would have to
be sewered in order to be approved by the Department of Health. If it was not on an existing
public or private sewer system, that it would have to have a septic system. The cesspool systems
27
would not be allowed for ARU units, so they would have to have a septic system for which you
have to have a lot 10,000 square feet or larger to accommodate. So any lot smaller than 10,000
square feet that is not sewered, would not be eligible to apply for an ARU unit.
Chair Anderson: Okay. Any other questions?
Mr. Abrams: You had the discretion part in first draft. I'm kind of thinking you probably should
have it on issues of trying to bring ... because I'm interested in bringing the structures into
compliance at the same time that they are going for their ... and that if you had something like a
200 square foot discrepancy, a person may not decide to come in, and I certainly wouldn't want
to take that away. Of course it would have to be something that was existing. They don't go and
build a new one, right?
Mr. Hull: The discretion section that we removed actually wasn't to give discretion to give
greater leniency. It was actually to give discretion to be a bit more harsher on these applications.
It basically stated that even if you meet all of the requirements of the code, the Director still has
the discretion to say "no" to after - the -fact permits. So that was actually that discretion clause
that is in the Honolulu ADU Ordinance, but the Department is likely to say if you meet all the
code requirements, you should be able to bring these into compliance. I mean, there's even an
issue of the liability of something like that where basically you'd have a Department saying you
meet all the requirements, but I, as Director, have decided I don't want to approve you; there is
some legal liability to that.
Mr. Abrams: It's more for thought. (Laughter in background) What do you think? You're a
carpenter. (Laughter in background) He wants three (3) stories. I'm going to put you next to
the clock tower. (Laughter in background)
Chair Anderson: Okay. We've had quite a healthy discussion, and a lot of good feedback for the
Department. In terms of whether or not this ordinance is ready to hove on, I just want to get
feedback from the Commission if there are specific things that they would like to see in the
ordinance, or if the explanation from the Department in terms of how they will continue to work
with the agencies, if that's sufficient to take this one (1) step forward.
Mr. Abrams: Did we close the public hearing?
Chair Anderson: The public hearing is still open; it's continued. So we can continue this on,
yeah, to the next meeting.
Mr.
Keawe:
So,
Madam Chair, what are our options at this point? With regards, specifically to
the
bill as it's
in
its current form.
Chair Anderson: Okay. So we can continue; we've provided additional feedback for the
Department. If there are items that we want to see amended or, you know, come back to us, it's
very difficult to amend a bill on the floor, so if the comments are really to the substance of the
bill, that I believe that we should continue this so that the Department can address those. I'm
asking because some of the responses from the Department were in the affirmative that they
were doing those things, but for example, the overlay, whether that happens at the forefront and
be incorporated into the bill, or if that's done after - the -fact and worked into the supplemental
materials that are provided once this is ... say it's approved as an ordinance.
Mr. Keawe: So barring any major changes to what we have in front of us, goes back to Planning
for final drafting, and then approval to move forward?
Mr. Hull: Yeah, so ultimately, the options before you are to take action today, and if you were to
take action, the Department would recommend that it would just be with those minor changes
concerning the numbering. If there are substantive changes, such as the Chair is pointing out, if
you'd like, say, the overlay or the cookie - cutter type of mechanics to be part of the ordinance,
then yeah, the Department would recommend a deferral, and the Department can come up with a
draft proposal for you folks. The Department's position on both of those situations would be that
you wouldn't want to adopt them in the ordinance because of the fact that things change. If we
establish an overlay pursuant to Water's infrastructure today and in six (6) months they increase
infrastructure somewhere else that could, say, allow for another green zone and we've adopted
an overlay via legislation, it could be somewhat problematic. But, the Department does intend to
have, essentially... should this ordinance be adopted by Council, ultimately, the Department does
plan on establishing some type of workbook or worksheet that the public can work off of in order
to somewhat facilitate the process. I don't have too much more comments on that just because
we are still in discussions with the agencies of how we can work that out, as well as with the
various community groups. The only thing that the Department would recommend if this
Commission is entertaining that would be a substantive change that the Department would have
to go back and work on, would be like Commissioner Ho's input, is if the Commission wants to
actually entertain adjusting the square footage to essentially double via vertical possibilities, that
the Department would ask that if that's where the Commission is leaning that you afford us that
time to look at that a little bit further. Yeah, that would be one (1) substantive change that I
would say we'd have to take back. But like I said, the Department, right now on the fly, would
say we're not willing, necessarily, to propose that because of potential further infrastructure
impacts, but if the Commission wants us to go and look in that further, we can.
Mr.
Ho:
So, Kaaina, when a person comes in for
the permit, you are going to give him a booklet
that
he's going to open and says I have
to do this,
this, this, and then you send him on to Water
and
Water will give him a booklet, and
he's going to...?
Mr. Hull: No. I think the attempt would be possibly if we can have some type of sheet, possibly,
that ... or informational packet that lays out all of the agency requirements that could help
facilitate it, possibly. The last thing we want to do is make more barriers or bureaucratic hoops
to jump through, and we will be working very closely with individuals, like the Contractor's
Association, to ensure that if our attempt to streamline is going to be that much more of a muddy
process, then we won't do that. But to work with them to essentially see how we can streamline
these projects.
Chair Anderson: I really leave it to the expertise of our Planners, but I do think that drawing
from the example of form -based code ... because this is what we're really concerned about, the
infrastructure, and my understanding is that when you have a form, that takes into account what
KIP
the capacity of that area can handle. So if we can establish some sort of form for these ARU's, I
think it will be helpful. The form doesn't necessarily... I'm leaning less towards having a square
footage requirement because every lot is going to be different, and you might have a home that
has a very small footprint, and then they want to expand on that, and that may be less than
another very large square footage single - family home that is, you know, so it has more to do with
the overall impact on particular lots. So I think that's why rather than looking at where the walls
are inside of the buildings, like for example when we're talking about people who may come in
for after- the -fact permits, if they are under the 50% coverage and they are 10 feet or 20 feet over
a certain square footage, I think that we want to have some leeway and that we really should be
looking at form, and not necessarily the strict square footage. I'd also ... weIre looking ... part of
the housing when we look at what the housing need is, it's not just for single people. When I
think about a 400 square foot room, it's for a single person. You know, there are couples, there
are families that are in need, so really being able to expand and go vertical, I think, would be a
way that we can address more of the scale of the housing that's required, but again, because there
are these infrastructure concerns, that's where the research and looking at, well, what would that
look like, how could we do that, and look at more of an overall form. So those are my
suggestions.
Mr. Hull: Well taken. And to go back to further when you're talking about the booklet, we're
actually, with the form -based code that we recently adopted, are saying that while the forms
themselves, as far as the form and character of the buildings that are allowed, are relatively easy
to access. We are realizing that a lot of people are still a little confused because when you look
at the form -based code, it's that thick, right; the book is... So we're actually parsing it out into
different sections so that if you live in this area, here's your three (3) or four (4) page booklet of
what you can and cannot do, as opposed to them having to go through the whole code to do it.
So the ARU could potentially be something similar to that as well.
Mr. Abrams: Kaaina, I'm sort of trying to reconcile the fact that when you put this ARU in, it's
going to constitute a multi- family dwelling.
Mr. Hull: Yes.
Mr. Abrams: The building standards between single - family detached, and multi - family attached,
I guess, is there anything that differentiates the two (2)?
Mr. Hull: Not that I'm aware of.
Mr. Abrams: Like setbacks? Or density? Or (inaudible)? Those types of things.
Mr.
Hull:
Oh, as
far as
those, no. As
far as setbacks and density, which are actually regulated
under the
zoning
code,
these wouldn't
change.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. Because to me, it's like just adding on a room. Just because you have a
kitchen, it's more like building a single - family dwelling, and I wanted to make sure that there
wasn't any complicated or you know, requirements that might come up that would cause people
not to want to do that because I think it's (inaudible) easier ways to go. Although, you
30
might ... say if you want
to go
up, then
you've
got all
of these other structural stuff on the roof
and everything that you
have
to worry
about,
right?
Not too bad?
Mr. Ho: Well, no. The cost of it is in the roof, so if you build one (1) roof over two (2)
structures, you're saving money.
Mr. Hull: I will actually correct myself. There are additional height allowances under the
existing zoning ordinance for a multi- family, above and beyond the height allowed for a single -
family structure. Yes.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Katayama: Kaaina, is the definition of "floor area" understood or standard?
Mr. Hull: We haven't had too much of an issue with it, I'll say, in the implementation of floor
area square footage.
Mr. Katayama: Well, now you are crossing a lot of boundaries between single - family, multiple -
family lot density coverage. If the intention here is to keep it focused for rental units, we may
need to craft a definition that fits this intended use, the general use, to be a little bit more specific
in what this ordinance is trying to bargain.
Mr. Hull: We can...
Mr. Katayama: Again, it helps focus the intended use, as opposed to historically, we've been
pretty general of what livable area is. Moving forward, this may affect what people can and
cannot do.
Mr. Hull: Yeah because the way in which we enforce the square footage of a building right now
is just roof and wall structures. If it is not walled, then it does not constitute part of the square
footage requirement.
Mr. Abrams: But all of that's predicated on the lot size and the lot coverage, right?
Mr. Hull: Correct,
Mr. Abrams: What if we just went to straight lot coverage where you can go up to 50% lot
coverage and keep it the same without an actual floor area?
Mr. Hull: There is some ... the reason for the floor area in particular is to address the possibility
that they might make large homes, which in some situations, yes, as the Chair points out,
families need larger homes. But the possibility that if they have the room available, making it so
much more larger that it's not being aimed at the market we are intending to aim it at. And the
flipside of also somewhat requiring the smaller units, we are definitely in acknowledgement that
many families today are in need of units, but there are also ... right now, the way that the market
provides housing, there are really no alternatives for the single individual out there. The need for
31
studio apartments at a very low rental rate is virtually non - existent on Kauai, and by having
some of the smaller lots that could only really, infrastructure -wise, accommodate a small unit, to
a certain degree, provides that hopefully we'll spur on the market for which there definitely is
demand out there. So that's the ultimate reasons why, as we understood it, the Oahu size
requirements were established during their legislative process, and the Department is pretty
much in agreement with them.
Mr. Abrams: So what you're saying is that you are targeting the smaller rental housing for that
specific market because you believe that's affordable where someone could, if it was larger, have
someone move out of a rental that would go into that, and make another rental available.
Wouldn't it seem to be somewhat counterproductive? Because you can't really ... I don't know
whether we can control with the idea of not being speculative or something to that effect, or
hitting a target. We've got a lot of people that are sort of in that gap group, people that are up
there that maybe could afford a little bit more, or would still be within the guidelines that now, I
guess, or now with the discussion I just heard you guys are going to be facing in front of the
Council relative to the affordable rentals that the Housing Agency and all of them are trying to
stimulate the landowners by either giving them a lower tax rate or providing direct subsidies to
the tenants, were some of the ways to go. That maybe making it too small, you may be cutting
off some possibilities that could go larger than that, but wouldn't. I'm just thinking that it's
50 %. If everybody's used to dealing with the 50% lot coverage, then it would be much easier,
even though that may mean that they could build something that's larger than the ... if they're on
a lot that's there ... the 800 square feet. Since we really don't have a size like the other islands do
on the ADU unit, which may or may not have made a speculative venture onto the property, I
don't know. But at this point, certainly with those properties with the ADU on those, it didn't
seem to be a problem, except on maybe your Ag and Open parcels that were really large.
Mr. Hull: Well, the ADU's did feed into the speculative market to a certain degree, in the sense
that they are allowed to be sold off. So just by the very nature of that, that does feed into a
certain aspect of the speculative market, and the increase in the housing rates here on Kauai,
which is essentially protected from via the prohibition on CPR'ing and subdividing within the
draft ordinance.
Mr. Abrams: But they still have to be able to do the 50% lot coverage in order to get the ADU,
even if they were on residential lots, and the County really didn't have any say over it anyway,
right? Technically, at this point with the ADU's, that's going to be the decision, whether they
can do an ADU to meet the 50% or they are going to take a look at doing an affordable rental to
meet that class, and whether or not there is a cost difference or whatever will motivate them for
doing one or the other. Right now, I guess, with all of these that could go ADU that haven't, we
have the existing housing problem right now.
Mr. Hull: Yeah. And virtually, I mean, we wouldn't anticipate many, if any, property owners if
they can still go for the ADU, opting out for the ARU, quite frankly. Because of the fact that
you can sell into the market system, the ADU potential is that much more lucrative for a property
owner, so we don't really anticipate many guys.
32
Mr. Abrams: And they might not take on the affordable rental one, if they are looking at a small
square footage, where they may want to have something that's a little bit more comfortable and
could meet some range in there. I don't know. It's sort of a ... it's a toss -up. At that point, I start
to think about we need all this housing units, and at this point, I'm concerned with the fact that
we don't make it so stringent that we don't get the hard look that we are hoping these property
owners are going to have. So that's my thought right now. (Laughter in background) Which
leads me to, I would like to see lot coverage as the one instead of square footage.
Chair Anderson: I agree with the sentiments voiced by Commissioner Mahoney [sic]. In terms
of lot coverage, I think it simplifies and we may be able to bring in more people for after - the -fact
permits if we don't have that strict restriction on the square footage. And then the ... in terms of
guidance, in terms of amending, I think we really want to look at the incentives for the ARU's so
that it is something that is going to be streamlined, and that it's something that people have an
economic incentive, whether it's tax incentives to provide affordable... these one -unit housing.
There is also that concern, you know, I think when we give more leeway, there's more creativity.
I'm fearful that if we write that into the bill that if you are on this smaller lot, you are restricted
to 400 square feet that we are really, in some ways, ghettoizing where we're saying okay, people
who want to have a studio that's going to be restricted to 400 square feet. If it goes to lot
coverage, I think there can be more creativity, and just think that may be more apt. And looking
to Honolulu, I do think that Kaua`i's real property is significantly different. The purposes for
their square footage may have been because the lot sizes are already quite small. Many people
have already subdivided into 4,000 square foot lots; whereas Kauai still has quite a bit of the
larger residential lots where we can provide more square footage for people.
Mr. Hull: If I could say that if the only point that the Commission is currently really wrestling
with is this lot coverage issue and to allow for further increases in sizes, I don't think the
Department would have an objection to that. And the only amendment that would be necessary
is just to delete Subsection b.1. because then it just has to meet the standards of the existing code,
which is 50 %. It's just saying that you can put an ARU, it cannot be CPR'd or subdivided off,
and it meets existing code, which is 50% lot coverage. So if the Commission wants to take
action and that's the main sticking point, the Department would be amenable to that amendment
being made to the draft ordinance.
Mr. Abrams: Well, I don't have a problem with that. I also was going to bring up your two -
story, which would then also encompass the ability to do that because now you're at 50% lot
coverage, so that sort of catches two (2) issues with one (1) stone. I'm really challenged, right
now, to try and figure out a way to get around restrictive covenants that limit to one (1) dwelling,
and because we're calling that additional rental unit a second dwelling, you stop them in their
tracks. Where the practical reality is, is that if someone wanted to rent out bedrooms in one (1)
dwelling, then that wouldn't be violating the restrictive covenants and they could go about doing
that. I'm wondering whether or not we could somehow figure out a way to not call it a second
dwelling, and see what happens. I don't know whether that's ... I know the ... whoever it was said
it's a ... was it the EPA or who?
Mr. Hull: It was...
33
Mr. Abrams: And that was only because of a kitchen, okay, that's far as all I can tell, right?
Mr. Hull: I don't know if I discussed that with you guys previously at the last Commission
meeting. The Department did attempt to draft up that type of language, and under thorough legal
scrutiny, (laughter in background)
Mr. Abrams: Oh, shoot. Damn the scrutiny. Let's go for it already. (Laughter in background)
Mr. Keawe left the meeting at 11:32 a.m.
Mr. Hull: And there are some covenants, the Board of Realtors helped us get a couple covenants
established for, I believe, two (2) different housing areas that would restrict to a single - family
dwelling, so it would essentially prohibit ARU's. The other thing to take into mind, too, is that
many of these covenants actually have a sunset date. We haven't seen them in particular, but
from some homeowners that have had discussions with us stating that their covenants sunset
after ten (10) years. They would have restricted ARU's from being developed, but because it
sunsetted several years ago, that restriction is no longer in place, so...
Mr. Abrams: Yeah, but read the restrictive covenant because it generally requires the
neighborhood to remove it, okay. It says that it can, okay; prior to it, you can't, so a lot of those
restrictive covenants have a section down there saying that it sunsets, but you have to repeal it,
so it's kind of like asking for 100% approval of a subdivision to do that, and it will actually never
happen, but you know, maybe it would. I'm just going around and around, trying to figure out
how that might play in here with the ability to have this separate rental unit have a kitchen and at
the same time, be a separate rental unit, as opposed to being a room in a house, which you could
almost do that. You can do all of what we're talking about right now, right?
Mr. Hull: That overall is...
Mr. Abrams: Maybe a detached kitchen. How's that?
Mr. Hull: That overall is a discussion also that can be had.
Mr. Abrams: That may be, yeah, okay that's really way out there, and maybe you have given it
so much thought, and I see Jodi smiling, so she's probably going to entertain some of these ideas.
Mr. Hull: Yeah, because the State legislature has entertained the fact that there are covenants out
there that are counter to where the State wants to go. For example, they have essentially
overridden any restrictive covenant that prohibits clotheslines because of the need to be a little
bit more sustainable and dryers can be a drain on energy. It is a possibility for the State, also, to
look at saying because of the housing crisis that the entire State is in, that these restrictive
covenants may need to be overridden to say you cannot restrict the density that a respective
County has given in order to provide housing opportunities. That's a possibility, but that is a
State discretion though.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. Alright.
34
Chair Anderson: I'm somewhat concerned in terms of making the change and moving forward
today. The coverage is something that we've brought up today, but I'm afraid that there may be
implications that we are not necessarily bringing to the table right now.
Mr. Keawe returned to the meeting at 11:34 a.m.
Chair Anderson: So if that's something that the Commission, as a whole, is interested in, I
would want the Department at least to come back in terms of being able to identify what the
potential issues, just on the ... because what it sounds like, if we limit it to 50 %, then essentially,
all single - family homes can become duplexes. Is that...?
Mr. Hull: That's correct.
Chair Anderson: So if there are ... I don't know if there's ... like the infrastructure, I don't know if
there are limits on density, if there's a number of rooms because then we might be getting into a
situation of boarding houses. I just think that there are some issues that as soon as you make one
(1) change, there could be some other unforeseen circumstances, so perhaps if we make that
change, there may be some other items that we might want to look at in terms of density and
maximum ... I don't know if that's something we can control in terms of the number of people
that reside in a home.
Mr. Hull: Well ultimately, what's before you right now is to increase density. You're also right
that there are requirements, as far as non - family members and how many can be in an existing
dwelling unit.
Chair Anderson: There are?
Mr. Hull: There are. Yes, correct.
Chair Anderson: Okay. But that would be something that (inaudible).
Mr. Hull: We can do further research if you'd like us to.
Mr. Katayama: I also have a ... if the Department could look at the exemption for real property
taxes on these dwellings. If we go on lot coverage, would then allow a lot larger dwellings, does
the real property tax waiver go counter to something like that? Because my original thought was
that the reason why you are providing for a tax shelter is that you are limiting the size of the
structure. If we are now expanding that upper limits to lot coverage, does the real property tax
waiver still provide the same kind of incentives? Or is it really counter to what we are trying to
do in terms of population density increases? Anyway, I agree. We need to look at it.
Mr. Hull: The companion piece. Because they are not... potentially would not be amending
sections that this body is purview to, the Department would still intend to communicate it to you
folks, just as a matter of reference and communication, so that you are also aware of what is
happening with other departments to move a companion piece to the Council.
35
Mr. Abrams: I'm looking at the definition of "dwelling ", "single- family attached" and
"multiple- family ", and that only has to do with the structural difference there, so I guess if
someone wanted to have it structurally independent for that extra room, then they wouldn't be
considered multi - family, right?
Mr. Hull: That's correct.
Mr. Abrams: Would they be able to do an additional rental unit? No?
Mr. Hull: Under the proposal, not under the ... if they have an ADU, they cannot do an ARU as
well, which is why we anticipate most folks that have that extra square footage that can do an
ADU will more than likely, if they haven't already, do the ADU option. Like I said, the vast
majority we anticipate to be folded within the existing structure.
Mr. Abrams: Maybe it could be designed that it's structurally independent. See, I'm looking at
it where it still allows the multi - family for, you know, consisting of two (2) or more dwelling
units designed for the occupancy by two (2) or more families living independently of each other
where any one of this constructed units is structurally dependent, okay, so that would be ... yeah,
yeah, okay; where the single - family attached is where each unit is structurally independent,
although superficially attached or close enough to appear attached.
Mr. Hull: I think most of that is to ... like I said, the multi- family was really to ensure that these
folks could take advantage of the lower FRC rate that Water will charge them. And as I
understand it, we can clarify further with Water, Water doesn't interpret it the same way that the
zoning code does. If they are attached in any manner, they interpret it as multi - family. As
opposed to the zoning ordinance states that they have to be structurally dependent upon each
other.
Mr. Abrams: Okay. But if you decided to make it independent, you wouldn't be able to do it?
You wouldn't be able to (inaudible).
Mr. Hull: If it is wholly independent of the primary structure, correct. At this point, under
Water's rules, they couldn't give them the multi - family FRC rate.
Mr. Abrams: Okay, but what if they are willing to do that and have it separate? I mean, I'm
assuming ... let's say there is a restrictive covenant. Okay, so you got two (2) families, I don't
know if it's two (2) dwellings, but it's dwelling single - family attached.
Mr. Hull: If Water is willing to...
Mr. Abrams: Well, I'm saying no. Let's say I have a restrictive covenant that says you are only
allowed to have a single- family dwelling, okay? Well I can get a single - family attached dwelling
that handles two (2) families, independently of each other, and still get around the restrictive
covenant.
Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: I'm sorry. I'm not fully following the scenario. So just...
36
Mr. Abrams: Because it's not two (2) dwellings.
Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: Right.
Mr. Hull: I think at the end of the day, Commissioner Abrams, what it's going to come down to,
and I'm sure you are all too familiar with, really is what the Association interprets it as, right?
(Laughter in background) And how they decide to enforce it.
Mr. Abrams: Kiahuna took a lot of their owners to (inaudible).
Ms. Higuchi -Sage sa: Right, and I mean, that's just a little snippet of a discussion I had with
Kaaina, is we really shouldn't be getting into maneuvering around associations' various
covenants.
Mr. Abrams: Well, I'm saying you are calling it a multi - family dwelling, so what's the diff?
Okay, I mean, if you want to use it for water purposes, just let them do it as a ... but you could
just simply not say anything. That's not (inaudible) too much, is it?
Chair Anderson: Okay. There has been a lot of food for thought. Thank you, Commission. I
think Kaaina has his work cut out for him. If we could ... just given the fact that we are
approaching the lunch hour and it doesn't appear that we will be moving on this today, could I
get a motion to defer this matter to ... is the next Commission hearing open?
Mr. Keawe: January 12`hq
Chair Anderson: Yes,
Mr. Mahoney: Madam Chair, move to defer to January 121"
Mr. Keawe: Second,
Chair Anderson: Okay, any discussion? All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Any
opposed? (None) Motion carries 7:0. Thank you.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Topics for Future Meetings
Mr. Hull: Alright, Madam Chair, the next item on the agenda is Item N, Announcements. The
first one is the Topics for Future Meetings, which has been distributed. If you folks have any
questions on that, the Department can address that at this time.
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 Building, Meeting Room 2A -2B, 4444
Rice Street, Lihu`e, Kauai, Hawaii 96766 on Tuesday, January 12, 2016.
37
Mr. Hull: Okay. The next item, N.2., the following scheduled Planning Commission meeting
will be held at 9:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter, at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Moikeha Building,
Meeting Room 2A /2B, 4444 Rice Street, Lihu`e, Kauai, 96766 on Tuesday, January 12, 2016.
That's all we have for the agenda.
Chair Anderson: Okay. So we do have the executive session that we are going to break into
after lunch. If I can have the Commission's counsel please read the Executive Session.
Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: Okay. Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 92- 5(a)(2 and 4),
the purpose of this executive session is to discuss matters pertaining to the evaluation of the
Planning Director over the past and current fiscal year and to discuss upcoming fiscal year goals.
This session pertains to the Planning Director's evaluation where consideration of matters
affecting privacy will be involved. Further, to consult with legal counsel regarding powers,
duties, privileges, and /or liabilities of the Planning Commission as it relates to the evaluation of
the Planning Director.
Can we get a vote to enter executive session?
Chair Anderson: Okay. Could I have a motion, please?
Mr. Mahoney: Madam Chair, move to go into executive session.
Mr. Abrams: Second,
Chair Anderson: Okay. Any discussion? (None) All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote)
Motion carries 7:0.
Ms. Higuchi- Sayegusa: Oh, and then, can we, perhaps, entertain a motion to adjourn after the
executive session?
Chair Anderson: So do we have a motion to adjourn after the executive session?
Mr. Keawe: So moved.
Mr. Mahoney: Second.
Chair Anderson: All those in favor? (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carries 7:0. Okay, so
we'll take a recess at this time, and enter executive session after lunch.
The Commission recessed this portion of the meeting at 11:44 a.m.
The meeting resumed in Executive Session at 12:23 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
U69i
Chair Anderson adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
( ) Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval)
( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of
M
meeting.
Respectfully submitted by:
r
Parcie Agaran,
Commission Support Clerk