Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpcmin09-14-10 KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING September 14, 2010 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order by Chair, Caven Raco, at 9:05 a.m. at the Lihu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting roo2A-2B. The following Commissioners were present: Mr. Herman Texeira Ms. Paula Morikami Mr. Caven Raco Mr. Jan Kimura Mr. Hartwell Blake Mr. James Nishida Ms. Camilla Matsumoto Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: APROVAL OF THE AGENDA Chair: Can I get an approval of the agenda. Ms. Morikami: So moved. W. Texeira: Second. Chair: All those in favor say aye, motion carries. On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by Herman Texeira, to approve the agenda, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Chair: A motion for receipt of the items into record. Mr. Texeira: So moved. Ms. Morikami: Second. Chair: All those in favor say aye, motion carries. On motion made by Herman Texeira and seconded by Paula Morikami, to receive items into the record, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Chair: Meeting minutes for August 10, 2010 and August 24, 2010, if there are no revisions or deletions can I get an approval. Ms. Morikami: Move to approve. Ms. Matsumoto: Second. Chair: All those in favor say aye, motion carries. On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to approve Planning Commission meeting minutes for August 10, 2010 and August 24, 2010, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. OCT GENERAL BUSINES MATTERS Executive Session: Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92- 5(a)(2&4), the purpose of this executive session is to discuss matters pertaining to the Planning Director and, if necessary, to consult with the County's legal counsel. This session pertains to the evaluation of the Planning Director where consideration of matters affecting privacy will be involved and, if necessary, to consult with legal counsel regarding the powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and/or liabilities of the Planning Commission as it relates to this agenda item. On motion made by James Nishida and seconded by Herman Texeira, to go into executive session, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. The commission went into executive session at 9:15 a.m. The meeting was called back to order at 11:15 a.m. Commissioner Jan Kimura was excused at 11:15 a.m. COMMUNICATION There were no communications. SUBDIVISION Vice Chair Herman Texeira sat in for Chair, Caven Raco. Mr. Nishida: Subdivision Committee meeting, Tuesday, September 14, 2010, me and Cammie present. Tentative subdivision action S-2011-03, William C. Rita, TMK 2-4-004:007, approved 2-0. Move to approve subdivision report. Ms. Matsumoto: Second. Vice Chair: All those in favor, those opposed, motion carries. On motion made by James Nishida and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to approve Subdivision Committee Report, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A Bill to consider the addition of an additional section to Chapter 8, Article 24 relating to the imposition of civil fine authority for the County of Kauai Planning Department = County of Kauai Planning Commission. (Hearing closed 8/24/10.1 Deputy Director Imai Ain: Good morning Chair and members of the Commission. At this time the department is requesting a deferral of the matter to research the practices and types of violations in order to fulfill the Commission's request for establishing guidelines for fines and the types of violations. So at this time we are requesting a deferral to the September 28th meeting. A letter was included in your packet stating so. Vice Chair: I will entertain a motion to defer. Ms. Matsumoto: So moved. Mr. Nishida: Second. Vice Chair: All those in favor say aye, motion carried. On motion made by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by James Nishida, to defer action, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2010 2 NEW BUSINESS For Acceptance into Record - Director's Report(s) for Proiect(s) Scheduled for Public Hearing on 9/28/10. Use Permit U-2011-3, Special Permit SP-2011-1 and Class N Zoning Permit Z-IV-2011- 3 to permit the construction and operation of a solar power facility in Kapa`a, located approx. 500 ft. south of the Olohena Road, Kaapuni Road and Kaehulua Road intersection, Kauai, further identified as Tax Map Key 4-3-003:001 and affecting an area of approx. 4 acres = Kapa `a Solar, LLC. Director's Report pertaining to this matter. Use Permit U-2011-4, Special Permit SP-2011-2 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2011- 4 to permit a helicopter tour landing area for visitation and viewing of Hah'i Falls located on Hali `i Stream, approx. 1.5 miles west of Kilohana Crater, Kauai, further identified as Tax Map Key 3-8-001:001 (affecting an area of approx. 1,500 sq. ft.) = Inter-Island Helicopters, Inc. Director's Report pertaining to this matter. On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by James Nishida, to accept into the record and set public hearing for items F.2.a and F.2.b, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Special Permit SP-2011-3 and Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2011-5 to permit the construction and operation of outdoor recreation facilities on lands approx..25 miles east of the Kipu Road and Askukui Road intersection, Kauai, further identified as Tax Map Keys 3-3- 001:001, 3-3-018:002, and 3-1-002:001, and affecting an area of approx. 5 acres. = Outfitters Kaua `i Ltd. POSTPONED. Director's Report pertaining to this matter. For Acceptance and Finalization - Director's Report for Shoreline Setback Activity Determination. Shoreline Setback Determination SSD-2011-12 and Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR-2011-2 for a shoreline activity determination, Tax Map Key 4-5-008:027, for acceptance by the Planning Commission = Peter Thorrington. Director's Report pertaining to this matter. Staff Planner Lisa Ellen Smith read Director's report (on file). Chair: Commissioners, are there any questions? Mr. Blake: Is it going up? Staff: These are interior renovations based on the drawings that have been submitted and they are also doing a reduction in the footprint. Mr. Blake: Is there another floor being added? Staff: There is a second floor, the Lanai side or makai side of the Lanai. Mr. Blake: That is being added? Staff: It is a new patio. Chair: On what page? Staff: You can find that on A.3 of the construction drawings. Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2010 3 Mr. Blake: So isn't' that an intensification? Staff. How so? Mr. Blake: You have more square footage on the same footprint. Staff: They are actually reducing the square footage on the same footprint. W. Blake: Unless I misunderstood, you have the footprint which the report says is being reduced. Staff: That is correct. Mr. Blake: If they are adding another story it is not a real reduction, is it? Staff: Are we talking about lot coverage reduction? Mr. Blake: I am talking about intensification of use that I heard you say there is no intensification of use. Staff: I don't believe there is any intensification of use of the single family house as a residence. Mr. Jung: Commissioner, I think the use is the single family residence so the use will not be intensified. Mr. Blake: So if you went up three stories it would be all right? Mr. Jung: Well that would actually be up to the height ordinance. Mr. Blake: The height ordinance, right. If it is one story now on the existing footprint and it goes up two more stories but within the height limitation... that is not an intensification of use? Mr. Jung: The use is still for a single family residence so if they want to add an additional bedroom or whatnot they could. But here the lot coverage isn't necessarily an issue because it is not expanding the footprint. Mr. Blake: So as long as you are not increasing the footprint you can go up as high as you want within the law? W. Jung: For the single family residence, yes. Staff. This house also did go under KHPRC review because it is a historic home, the Slogget House. Mr. Blake: What is that again? Staff: This parcel was also reviewed by KHPRC, the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission as its age is...1932. Mr. Blake: Does this have a historic exemption? Staff: Not that I know of but the applicant is here. Mr. Blake: That is just with regards to that front page article in the Sunday paper about all these historic homes on Oahu. Staff: The applicant can answer regarding his KHPRC review. planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2010 4 Chair: Before we call the applicant up let's just take all the questions, any more questions for the planner? Mr. Blake: That was my question for the planner. Evidently it is okay. Mr. Costa: Well it was reviewed and approved by KHPRC with respect to the historic quality and as far as the intensification of use it is a single family residence. I guess we have never historically viewed an addition of a family member or a bedroom ...it is still a single family residence. But I guess that can be argued. Mr. June: The reason why this is before you is the shoreline setback ordinance requires all applications to come through the Commission so in this particular case they are doing an activity, a proposed improvement on that property even though they are not expanding anything. But the ordinance still does require, because it abuts the shoreline, that the Commission review where the setback will be. Mr. Texeira: Talking about going up to the second story on the shoreline, there is nothing about the view plane being disrupted? Mr. June: The view plane is taken into consideration based on the height limitations within the...what is this, R-4, so it would be 20 feet? It's Open? Mr. Costa: 20 foot plane, 30 foot roof, so it does not go any higher than the existing roof. There is currently a second floor already. Mr. Texeira: Oh, already existing? Staff. Yes. Chair: But this is just a shoreline determination, and the SMA, the application will come back to us as far as it is in the SMA? Mr. June: Actually the SMA wouldn't trigger because this is a single family residence so it's not considered a development. Staff: The proposed work is also outside what the setback would be by approximately 1'70 feet. Chair: So what was the answer as far as view planes? Mr. June: The view plane, because there is a height requirement in the R-4 district or Open District for residential houses, 20 feet and 30 feet for roof tops, then that is where it is regulated, where the height cap is. Chair: And this is way below the height cap, right? Mr. June: I am not sure. I am sure it is or it would have been picked out. Staff: It was built prior to the zoning ordinances so if it was above the height at the time it would still be legal nonconforming as I understand. Mr. Costa: If you look at the pictures that were just handed out, that is the makai view and it clearly shows the existing second floor. I believe the right half or right portion where you see two windows behind the coconut tree is the portion that is being, that deck addition is being put on. Chair: Any more questions before I call the applicant? If the applicant could come up if he wants to add anything. Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2010 5 Ms. Nalani Mahelona: Hi, my name is Nalani Mahelona. I am an associate architect with Avery Youn. The proposed improvements that are concerning the shoreline setback, we are covering the patio in the back, I guess you guys went over this already. If you can look over there, there is the orange and the green, to the left is the existing sidewalk, we are planning to actually remove some if you look at the green on the right and thus this would bring the setback further back. The patio area we are covering and we are not going past the existing building and to the lower right we are adding the deck, the Lanai above. We are requiring two footings for that so that would be considered an activity and that is actually 7 feet, 6 inches inland from the existing building. The work is about 250 feet from the shoreline. The property line to the building is about 192 feet. You guys know that there is already accretion of the beach. The pictures that were given to you show approximately 75 to 90 feet of vegetation between the property line and the sandy beach. The sandy beach is about another 100 feet and it is growing. I just wanted to bring out again the points why you should accept this. These proposed improvements are actually inland of the existing sidewalk. The improvements don't pass the protrusion of the existing building and actually we are increasing the distance of the setback of the structure from the shoreline while reducing the lot coverage. So everything we are doing is in favor of the shoreline setback lot coverage. Chair: Are there any questions for the applicant's representative? Ms. Matsumoto: It might be a very small point but I just wanted to know, I think this is a Naupaka plant here. Ms. Mahelona: Is that Naupaka or Lavender? I haven't looked close at it. Ms. Matsumoto: Is anybody planting in this area? Ms. Mahelona: That is existing vegetation. Staff: I believe the vegetation is also located outside the property boundary by approximately 75... Ms. Mahelona: 75 to 90 feet. Mr. Avery Youn: My name is Avery Youn and I am the architect that is involved with the Thorringtons in this remodel. We are not here for an SMA because it is an existing residence and technically we are supposed to be exempt. We are here primarily for the shoreline setback law. What I passed out to you is a comparison between the previous law and the current law. As you can see in a case like this it is very clear that we are not affecting the shoreline at all. In the previous law, if you read the language the Planning Director did have the right to exempt these kinds of things from coming before the Commission because it is really obvious to me that we are not affecting the shoreline. But in the revised language in the new ordinance I just wanted to point this out to the Commission, by just changing one word and putting in a different one it changes the whole meaning of the ordinance. Let me explain further, on the left side on the original ordinance it says "it is applicable to all lands within the County of Kauai that are abutting the shoreline or being located within 500 feet of the shoreline unless the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that the applicant's proposed improvement will not be affected by coastal erosion or hazards", etc, and I think this is one case whereby it is very easy to demonstrate to the Director. The original ordinance gave the Director the authority to waive what we are going through now. If you look at the next one, the revised language, it is practically the exact language but the way it was worded, I am not sure if it typographical or to make it clearer but it changes the whole meaning. "This article shall be applicable to all lands within the County of Kauai, State of Hawaii, abutting the shoreline." That makes everything abutting the shoreline subject. And then (b), I think they put that language in, in yellow, "not abutting the shoreline but located within 500 feet". What this does is give the Director the authority only to waive these kinds of requirements if it doesn't abott the shoreline. The way it was re-worded or re-written before the Council, I am not sure if this is typographical or if this was the main intent but I think is situations like this it really doesn't need the shoreline... it doesn't have to come before the Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2010 6 Commission and I think it just sort of takes up your time. I am not sure if the original intent of the ordinance was to put this kind of thing before you of if it was just typographical. So I just wanted to point out to you that there will be other situations like this whereby we are building behind, further back. For example if we were doing a renovations to the guest cottage which is behind the building we would still have to come before you and it doesn't give the Director the authority to waive it which makes sense. And so I am just trying to point out maybe this ordinance should be looked at, just this language here because I don't know if it was intentional or just the intent to clarify the language and in so clarifying it just changed the whole meaning of the original ordinance. Mr. Jung: I think just for some clarification, when ordinance 887 went through its amendments which the Planning Department proffered to deal with lifeguard stands and situations where there are emergency equipment that needed to be on the shore for any period of time, we wanted to get an exemption from a certified shoreline because it would be temporary in nature. When the bill got up to Council, this particular ordinance, they wanted to strip the Director of the discretion or some members of this community wanted to strip all discretion from the Director. And then Council went with that, not based upon any of your approvals or the Planning Department's approvals but Council went ahead because this was outside of what the original recommendation was. So this is a Council implemented ordinance, this particular one. Right now that is actually up for public hearing. I believe some time in this month is a new ordinance that is going to address this language again because there are situations where if something abuts the shoreline the proposed activity will be a quarter of a mile away from the shoreline. So clearly it would not affect the beach process. So Council will be addressing this particular provision soon in a public hearing I think this month where the Director again would have the discretion but it would be based on a qualified consultant's report to say that this will not affect the coastal beach process. So where the proposed activity is say 100 yards or 200 yards away then it wouldn't trigger this particular ordinance. Because this ordinance creates the no build line, right, so you are creating the area of where you cannot build so the setback ordinance should affect or be applicable only to areas where they are clearly going to affect the beach process. And in this situation it is arguable whether or not it would because it is just a proposed improvement so most likely it won't affect the beach process because it is clearly away from wherever the set back line is. But the new ordinance will address that same language. Mr. Costa: And that is the bill that the Commission approved I believe about three months ago. Mr. Youn: Thank you for the clarification and I am glad something is being done. Chair: Any more questions for the applicant's representative, if not thank you. Is there anybody in the public that would like to testify on this agenda item? Seeing none I will bring the meeting back to order, what would be the pleasure of the Commission? Ms. Morikami: Mr. Chair, on item F.3.a, move that we accept the Director's report for shoreline setback determination. Mr. Nishida: Second. Chair: All those in favor say aye, opposed, motion carries. On motion made by Paula Morikami and seconded by James Nishida, to accept Director's Report, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. ADJOURNMENT Commission adjourned the meeting at 11:51 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2010 7 Respectfully Submitted. Lani L. Agoot Commission Support Clerk Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2010 8