HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/2016 Planning Committee minutes MINUTES
PLANNING COMMITTEE
December 7, 2016
A meeting of the Planning Committee of the County of Kaua`i, State of
Hawai`i, was called to order by Mason K. Chock, Chair, at the Council Chambers,
4396 Rice Street, Suite 201, Lihu`e, Kauai, on Wednesday, December 7, 2016, at
12:05 p.m., after which the following Members answered the call of the roll:
Honorable Arthur Brun
Honorable Ross Kagawa
Honorable Derek S.K. Kawakami
Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura
Honorable Mason K. Chock
Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro, Ex-Officio Member
Honorable Mel Rapozo, Ex-Officio Member
Minutes of the October 12, 2016 Planning Committee Meeting.
Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Yukimura, seconded by
Councilmember Brun, and unanimously carried, Minutes of the
October 12, 2016 Planning Committee Meeting was approved.
Minutes of the October 26, 2016 Planning Committee Meeting.
Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Yukimura, seconded by
Councilmember Brun, and unanimously carried, Minutes of the
October 26, 2016 Planning Committee Meeting was approved.
The Committee proceeded on its agenda item as follows:
Bill No. 2634 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8,
KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, TO ALLOW
MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS IN ALL
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (Kaua`i County Council,
Applicant) (This item was Deferred.)
Councilmember Yukimura moved to approve Bill No. 2634, seconded by
Councilmember Kagawa.
Committee Chair Chock: There is a motion to approve. I know at the
last discussion, we were talking about potential amendments and I hope everyone
received the document from Ka aina regarding some of the questions that came out
of the last discussion. Do we have any further questions? Also, do the new
members need a short overview of it? Any questions for Kaaina? If not, any
further amendments?
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 2 DECEMBER 7, 2016
Councilmember Yukimura: Chair, I want to first of all thank the
Planning Department, specifically Ka aina Hull, for the data that they researched
and gathered about the number of lots that would qualify for forty (40) units or
more. I did not really look at the E-mail that would been the number of lots that
qualify for twelve (12) to forty (40), which would be the lots that would be affected
by my potential amendment. I have decided not to propose any amendment,
because number one, I do not think there are the votes and number two, I have
concerns yet about how this...first of all, let me say that I have always supported
the general concept of the Bill. I am just concerned about the unintended
consequences where there are greater numbers of units possibly in neighborhoods
that are R-4 or R-6. Because we do not have any evidence of what will happen, I
think I will wait to see what will happen. If some problems arise, we will then move
to try to address it. This does not limit the privilege of multi-family units to
affordable housing, but can be used for any kind of residential unit, and some of
them could be second homes, but we do not know. I will wait to see how it unfolds.
Committee Chair Chock: Okay. Thank you. If there are no questions,
we are going to call for public testimony. Do we have anyone signed up? No. Does
anyone want to testify on this item? No. Wow, we are moving fast through this.
Final discussion before we take this vote? This will be a roll call vote.
Councilmember Kawakami.
Councilmember Kawakami: Sorry, Chair, but we are voting to approve
this measure today, but it still goes to the full Council?
Committee Chair Chock: Absolutely.
Councilmember Kawakami: Okay, so I understand the intent of the
measure and if this were to fulfill that intent, it would be well-intended and it
would be a great opportunity. With that being said, I do have some reservations,
but at least it offers me an opportunity to sit down, meet with the introducer, and
meet with the advocates. I will be voting to approve this today, but let it be noted
that when it goes to the full Council and my hesitancy is not addressed, I will be
intending to vote no. But for the time being and to move this forward, I will move it
on to the full Council. Thank you, Chair.
Committee Chair Chock: Council Chair Rapozo.
Council Chair Rapozo: I have a suggestion. Because we have
two (2) new members, it might be a good idea to have a deferral or an approval
today, but maybe set it for the following meeting so that they will have some time to
meet with the Planning Department. That is just a suggestion because this is a
complex Bill. Chair, I would ask for the consideration for the two (2) new members
to give them a little bit more time.
Committee Chair Chock: Absolutely. This is an important measure,
one that can be significant. Depending on what your concerns are or your
familiarity with it, I am happy to entertain that motion so that everyone can get up
to speed on it.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 3 DECEMBER 7, 2016
Councilmember Kawakami: Sorry, Chair, and I will go either which way I
feel comfortable being able to vote on it and getting the appropriate information
that I need for the next Council Meeting, or we could defer. I just feel terribly bad
because I do know that the introducer...it is not like this has not been on my radar,
just my apologies for not having the questions to be addressed sooner. I do not want
to be any hindrance as to any forward progress that has already been made. Either
which way, I appreciate the notion to defer.
Committee Chair Chock: Thank you. Councilmember Brun.
Councilmember Brun: I would like to defer this Bill a little longer,
until the next Council Meeting.
Committee Chair Chock: Okay. Councilmember Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: If we are looking at a deferral in committee
to the first meeting in January, then I will ask for the additional information from
the Planning Department.
Committee Chair Chock: Would you like to state the question now?
Councilmember Yukimura: How many lots would be eligible for
twelve (12) and more units? That is what my amendment was aimed at.
Committee Chair Chock: Okay. Any other discussion before we have
the potential deferral? Okay, so there is the request from our new members to defer
this item and I would like to entertain that. Can we get a motion to defer? What is
the date on that? January 4th, okay. Councilmember Kaneshiro.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I am no longer on the Committee, but I
introduced the Bill. It is hard for the new members to pick up and try to just vote
on something, so I just wanted to give a brief overview of what it was doing and
what we are trying to do. I think we all know that we are in a housing crisis.
Currently right now without the Bill, you are not allowed to build attached
dwellings in R-1 to R-6; not allowed at all, unless your property was recorded prior
to 1980. R-1 to R-6, the more less-intensive zoning, you cannot build multi-family
dwellings. R-10 to R-20, it is permitted outright right now. So if you have R-10 to
R-20, you can do it. All this Bill does is relax the restrictions and say, "Hey, let us
give these people in the R-6 to R-1, the ability to choose whether they want to
build," and it does not increase density. The density stays the same. Whatever
density they have is how many units they can build, but this just gives them the
option to say, "Do I want to build two (2) single-family houses or do I want to build
one (1) multi-family house?" There are cost savings doing multi-family. You are
building one (1) roof and you can bring the utilities to one (1) area. Also, your
property footprint might get a little smaller because you are able to consolidate to
an area. That is all it does. It just gives them the option to say, "Do I want to do
two (2) single-family houses or do I want to do a multi-family house?" It does not
increase any density. If they can build ten (10) units, then their decision is, "Do I
want to build ten (10) single-family units or do I want to build some units together?"
That is all it did.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 4 DECEMBER 7, 2016
Committee Chair Chock: Councilmember Kagawa.
Councilmember Kagawa: For a real-life example, Councilmember
Kaneshiro, it is like the one in Puhi where there are duplexes. That would not be
allowed in the other R's, but it was allowed because it was R-20 or whatever?
Councilmember Kaneshiro: I have to double-check with the Planning
Department, but you are talking about D.R. Horton?
Councilmember Kagawa: No, in Puhi.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Yes, I think Puhi was R-10 or R-20, Halelani
Village.
Councilmember Kagawa: Yes, the duplexes.
Councilmember Kaneshiro: Correct. They had a higher, more-intensive
density and they were able to do multi-family. If you have a lower density, you
cannot. It basically just gives the homeowner an option.
Committee Chair Chock: I will just add to paint the bigger picture in
what the discussion has been. It really has been focused on character and form, so
where is it appropriate for us to look at that kind of construction, now that we
might be bringing it together? Some of the amendments and questions are around
how many can we expect in certain areas? How would that impact a neighborhood,
for instance? With that being said, I am ready to vote on it. Councilmember
Yukimura.
Councilmember Yukimura: The concern was where you have larger lots,
so you might be allowed twenty (20), twenty-five (25), thirty (30), or forty (40) units
on that lot, and in a neighborhood that is R-6 or R-4, you would have a large
multi-family unit building. So the impact, it is not on density. You are still going to
have the same number of units, but you will have potential form and character
impacts and that is what we are trying to weigh in terms of how it will affect
neighborhoods and people's understanding of the character of the neighborhood.
Committee Chair Chock: Again, I am open to deferring this item to the
January 4, 2017 Committee Meeting if that pleases the body.
Councilmember Kawakami: Just so it is open and transparent, one of the
concerns I have is how is it going to affect property tax values. We have seen time
and time again people getting taxed out of being able to live in certain areas due to
somebody being able to afford. For me, like I said, I am not here to hinder the
process. I have no problem. If you folks want to defer so that we can have an extra
week or two (2) then that is fine. If you folks are ready to vote, the majority is ready
to vote, I am a big fan of the democratic process and I will use those two (2) weeks
as it moves to the full Council to get the information that I need to vote yay or nay
come Council day.
PL COMMITTEE MEETING 5 DECEMBER 7, 2016
Committee Chair Chock: Thank you. My interest would be to get all
the work done here in the Committee, prior to moving to the full Council. So I
would like to entertain that deferral, if I can, please.
Councilmember Kagawa moved to defer Bill No. 2634, seconded by
Councilmember Brun, and unanimously carried.
Committee Chair Chock: The motion is passed. That concludes the
business of the Planning Committee. The Planning Committee is now adjourned.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:18 p.m.
Respectfully sub itted,
Codie K. Yamauchi
Council Services Assistant I
APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on January 4, 2017:
MAS i' K. CHOCK, PL Committee