Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB Nov 23 2010 minutesKAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING November 23. 2010 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee was called to order by Chair, James Nishida at 8:35 am., at the Lihue Civic Center, Mo'ikeha Building, in Meeting Room 2A -213. The following Committee members were present: Mr. James Nishida Ms. Camilla Matsumoto Mr. Jan Kimura Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA On motion made by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Jan Kimura, to approve the agenda, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES On motion made by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Jan Kimura, to approve Subdivision Meeting minutes of September 28, 2010, and October 12, 2010, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS There were no general business matters. COMMUNICATION There were no communications. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS Tentative Subdivision Action, S- 2011 -10. Kukui`ulaDevelonment Company (Hawaii) LLC, 2 -Lot Consolidation, TMK: 2 -6- 01:056, 057, Kukui`ula, Kauai. Staff Planner Dale Cua: Thank you Mr. Chair. As noted in the staff report the proposal consolidates two existing lots within the Kukui`ula Master Plan area I think as noted in the staff report the subdivision that created these lots was previously approved by the Planning Commission on September 12, 2006. In that subdivision there is a total of 80 residential lots. The proposed consolidation has been routed to the various reviewing agencies for their comments. We have received the requirements and they have been incorporated into the subdivision report. As a result the department is recommending tentative subdivision approval of this application. Ms. Matsumoto: In Lb, it mentions vacation rental/TVR purposes. Could you explain that a little bit more about this area? Staff: As far as the TVR is concerned, as part of the Kukui`ula Master Plan area when they received their entitlements back in 2004 there was a requirement that was imposed to the zoning amendment application as part of the approval where the applicant is required to track the amount of TVRs within the project. So between the applicant and the County we have a book keeping system to make sure that the amount of TVRs is not exceeded within the planned area. So this is a requirement that was previously imposed on the residential subdivision that created these lots and the purpose of this requirement is just to continue and make the applicant be aware that if this lot is to be used as a TVR then the TVR would be counted towards the overall book keeping between the County and the applicant. Chair: So Dale, when a TVR application comes in as it relates to say the Kukui`ula area the department is going to count that? Staff: Because the Kukui`ula Master Plan area was given a Visitor Destination Area designation as part of the requirement of the ordinance they were given x amount of TVRs. So as far as the books being concerned we want to make sure that the amount of TVRs is not exceeded. So at some point in time, right now it is hard because the project area is pretty much still being developed as we speak but as projects come along then there is a process to keep track of the number of TVRs within this Kukui`ula Master Plan area. So if some of the residential subdivisions like the single family residences are designated as TVRs then we will count it towards that overall number. Same thing goes with multi - family units. If there is a future project that entails 100 TVR units, again, that would be counted in that overall number. Chair: So you guys keep track of that overall number. Staff: Yes. Right now we have a system and it is between the County and the applicant where we keep track of the number. Ms. Matsumoto: So right now do you have those numbers? Staff: I don't have exact numbers right now because ... I can tell you that there are a little over a dozen houses that are there and they haven't really designated themselves as TVRs. Ms. Matsumoto: That is what I wanted to know. Subdivision Committee Minutes November 23, 2010 Mr. Kimura: If they are going to designate their property as a TVR are they going to come before the Commission? Staff: I think as I previously pointed out the area is designated as a visitor destination area so TVRs are permitted within the Visitor Destination Area. Mr. Kimura: So they don't have to come before us. Staff: It is only for those applications that identify themselves as outside of the VDA, that is where they come before the Planning Commission. Chair: And this particular parcel, the total is 20,000 square feet. So they are getting an actual reduction in density because... Staff: Essentially, yes. Chair: Any other questions for Dale? Can the applicant come forward? Do you have anything to add to the report? Mr. Lindsey Crawford: No, just to answer questions if you have any. Chair: What does the committee want to do? Mr. Kimura: Make a motion to approve the tentative subdivision action S- 2011 -10, Kukui`ula Development Company, Hawaii, LLC, TMK: 2 -6- 016:056, 057, Kukui`ula, Kauai. Ms. Matsumoto: Second. Chair: All those in favor say aye, motion carried. On motion made by Jan Kimura and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to approve tentative subdivision action for 5- 2011 -10, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Final Subdivision Action, S- 2006 -43, Isabel M. Parraza, 3 -Lot Subdivision, TMK: 2 -4- 005:020, Kalaheo, Kauai. Staff: Thank you Mr. Chair. The subdivision application you have before you is a proposed 3 -lot subdivision for a parcel on the mauka side, in Kalaheo. The final subdivision map has been routed to the various reviewing agencies for their approval. The department has received all of the approval letters from the reviewing agencies. As a result we are recommending final subdivision approval of this application. Chair: Questions for Dale? Can the applicant come forward? Mr. Cesar Portugal: Cesar Portugal for the record. Subdivision Committee Minutes November 23, 2010 Chair: Anything to add? Mr. Portugal: No. Chair: Questions for the applicant? Ms. Matsumoto: Just a question about your plans for the widening of the road, are there any plans for that? Staff: I can tell you that the existing ... let me start off by saying that many of the roads on the mauka side of Kalaheo as we learned through this process are on private property. It was almost assumed that the roads are within the right -of -way but after surveys conducted many of these properties, what we found, was that the road is on private property. So what the applicant is proposing to do in this application is dedicated that portion where the road exists and there is also another reserve they are looking to dedicate the road, just to facilitate where the road's at. And then if there are future improvements on this road it would more likely occur on the other side of the roadway. Mr. Kimura: Are these County approved roads? Staff: These are County approved roads, yes, but many of these roads preexisted and they are considered as sub - standard to today's roadway standards as far as the roadway width is concerned. As I mentioned if there are future road improvements in this area more likely they would occur on the opposite side of the roadway. It has been the County's policy through subdivisions that if there are roadway requirements in an area the road widening requirements is split between the two adjacent parcels to that roadway. So for example if the existing road right - of -way is 30 feet and if the present day roadway standards require that the roadway be 44 feet, that 14 feet difference is split between the two adjacent parcels so you would have 7 feet on one side and 7 feet on the other side. Ms. Matsumoto: And the road widening would be for just along the boundaries of those (inaudible). Staff: As subdivisions go we would try to acquire or set reserves along this roadway. In the event that certain properties aren't developed then the County still has a process to acquire the land area through condemnation process, very similar to what you see with the highways now. Ms. Matsumoto: We don't have a map with this... Chair: Right here. Subdivision Committee Minutes November 23, 2010 Staff: So if you look along (inaudible) Road there is a 14 foot road widening reserve and there is a remnant lot A that is being proposed to be dedicated to the County of Kauai to accommodate the existing road. Ms. Matsumoto: It is a difficult situation. It is going to be widened here and then it is going to go back to... Staff: Substandard, wide and narrow. The purpose is just to set reserves and like I said in the event the County does have plans to widen the roadway they can utilize these reserves. And if there is a property that doesn't have the reserve often times the County goes through the condemnation process to acquire the land area. Ms. Matsumoto: And how long is (inaudible) Road? Staff: The road goes up manka. It goes up for about one and a half miles. Mr. Portugal: Less than one mile. Staff: About a mile. Ms. Matsumoto: So the highway is down here then and how far is it from the highway to this area? Staff: From the highway is about half a mile. Chair: Any other questions? Ms. Matsumoto: How many houses are in that area? Staff: I know it is a rural area, between... 40, 30. Ms. Matsumoto: 40 at the most? Staff: 30 to 40. Mr. Portugal: On the highway side (inaudible). Staff: The highway side has the most and then as you get further up along the roadway it becomes more and more scarce. Many of the lots that are more mauka are undeveloped. Ms. Matsumoto: Thanks. Chair: What does the committee want to do? Subdivision Committee Minutes November 23, 2010 Mr. Kimura: Make a motion to approve finale subdivision action, S- 2006 -43, Isabel M. Parraga, TMK 2 -4- 005:020, Kalaheo, Kauai. Ms. Matsumoto: Second. Chair: Moved and seconded, all those in favor say aye, motion carries. On motion made by Jan Kimura and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to approve final subdivision action for 5- 2006 -43, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Tentative Subdivision Extension Request, S- 99 -49, Kapa`a 382, LLC/KulauaAOAO, 20 -lot Subdivision, TMK: 4 -3- 003: - -5, Kana`a, Kauai. Staff: As noted in the staff report the purpose of this subdivision extension request is to complete the infrastructure for the subdivision. As noted in the staff report the subdivision its self obtained final subdivision approval on August 24, 2004. This is their second extension request for the subdivision as far as trying to complete the improvements. The applicant has submitted exhibits and their justification for their extension request, the department is recommending an extension to August 24, 2011 with the condition that the applicant have their construction plans recertified in order to assure that the construction standards in the construction plans are current. And one the construction plans are approved then it is a way to determine whether the bond for the subdivision is sufficient to complete those improvements. I just wanted to also add that there is a valid bond for the subdivision. I can tell you that about 50% of the improvements have already been completed so it is just to complete the remaining 50 %. And the second condition of approval is that the applicant continues to submit a status report to identify the progress with the subdivision. Chair: Dale, just clarification, this number S- 99 -49, what number is that because usually there is a different number. Staff: That is the subdivision application number; it came in the 1999 fiscal year. It has been a while. Chair: Questions for Dale? Mr. Kimura: Dale, if we approve this extension the infrastructure will be put in by next year 2011? Staff: Yes. The applicant is hoping to do so, yes. They have some challenges. Mr. Kimura: How long has it been since they started this project? Staff: Maybe what I can do is have the applicant kind of give you a background on what has happened or what has transpired with the subdivision. Subdivision Committee Minutes November 23, 2010 Chair: Can the applicant come forward? Mr. Dan Diamond: Good morning and aloha, my name is Dan Diamond. I am the project manager for the Kulana Subdivision. I would be happy to answer any questions you guys might have. Mr. Kimura: How much progress have you had on the subdivision? Mr. Diamond: As Dale said we are about 50% complete with our roads and utilities. In 2007 the developer was no longer financially viable and he had to shut the project down. As a consequence the Homeowners Association has taken over those responsibilities to complete the project. We are working on financing packages, we are working with the County on the disposition of the bond and the homeowners themselves have put money up to complete our construction. We have a commitment from Unlimited Construction who is going to come in and help us finish the place up. Chair: I wanted to go over the letter that came in. Under condition No. 1, the recertification of construction plans it says "Please refer to Bow Engineering's timetable outlining the steps taken to get our construction drawings recertified by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Water." So where are you on that and what is the timeline? Mr. Diamond: The plans have been drawn. Our water line and civil plans were done by Bow Engineering and they are currently at the Department of Public Works and the Department of Water, they are reviewing them. Our electrical, utility, and cable plans are complete and accepted by KIUC. Chair: Some of it was completed though. Mr. Diamond: Yes. Chair: This is for the whole thing but some of it was completed. Mr. Diamond: Some of the work was completed, yes, we have about a third of our roads in and practically the same amount for the electric and water. Chair: Do you anticipate any changes to the bond or anything like that? Mr. Diamond: We are working with the County, we are looking at the bond and there may be some bondable funds available but the bond is kind of uncharted territory. But we are working with cooperation with them. Chair: And the letter of intent from Unlimited Construction, you are not going to contract that until the construction plans are done and all that, right? Subdivision Committee Minutes November 23, 2010 Mr. Diamond: Yes we have had preliminary bids so that we could come up with a realistic budget for completion but the final signed bids won't come in until we have certified plans. Chair: Condition No. 2, the updated status report of the progress of the subdivision, you have me with the Planning Department? Okay so that is exhibit (b). And the last thing was the drawings were submitted to the Department of Water and all that, right? Mr. Diamond: Yes sir. Chair: The list of the milestone, financial outlines and project status, so where do you think ... what is your timeline for the remainder of the project then? Mr. Diamond: Well I tend to be cautious in my estimates. I know there are some things that need to be straightened out in the legal world some of the developer's lots are being sold. We are working with the County on the bonds. There are some title issues that need to be cleared. Optimistically that could get done in 6 months and we could start construction which is basically a 9 month phase and then I anticipate about 3 months for final subdivision acceptance. That is optimistically. It could take a year, I could be sitting here next year saying well we have made our progress with the County and the bond and then we could start our construction. Chair: So the one year extension request might take you to construction so it is kind of reasonable, the one here is kind of reasonable status report time. Mr. Diamond: Yes. I would prefer to see a two year extension with an update in a year. I think that would be realistic. Chair: The request is for a one year extension so what you are saying is a two year extension with a one year update. Mr. Diamond: Yes. Chair: We can do that Dale? Staff: Actually it is the committee's prerogative to make the decision. I would like to make note that in the previous extension request it was a one year and the committee granted them a two year extension request. Chair: Any other questions? Mr. Kimura: Who was the original developer on this? Mr. Diamond: It was a company called Kapa`a 382. Chair: Any other questions? What does the committee want to do about the extension, the request from Mr. Diamond? The request is two years, subdivision extension request, two Subdivision Committee Minutes November 23, 2010 years, with an update at one year. And then you are looking at probably being roughly, you are hoping to be about two thirds done on the construction within the one year. At least start construction within one year and then complete by the two year. Staff: In considering the request I would also like to point out that construction plans, when they are approved, they are only good for one year. So in the two year timeframe construction standards may change. I am not saying they will change but they may change so that is why the department is making a one year recommendation only so that it would kind of go hand in hand with the construction plan approval. Mr. Diamond: For clarification on that the construction plans are good for one year... Staff: From the time the Planning Director signs. Mr. Diamond: Once construction has started, as long as there is construction ongoing the permit is automatically extended by that amount. It is one year of non - activity and then they would need to be recertified. As long as there is activity during that period of time, it might take two years to build the project but the plans are still certified for that period of time as long as the construction is ongoing. Chair: Seeing no motion what does the committee want to do with the report? Mr. Kimura: Make a motion to move to approve the tentative subdivision extension request, S- 99 -49, Kapa`a 382, LLC /Kulana, AOAO, TMK: 4 -3- 003:005, Kapa`a, Kauai. Ms. Matsumoto: Second. Chair: I kind of forgot something. Does anybody in the public want to speak on this application? Seeing none, moved and seconded to approve the subdivision report, all those in favor say aye, opposed, motion carries. On motion made by Jan Kimura and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto, to approve subdivision extension request for S- 99 -49, motion carried unanimously by voice vote. ADJOURNMENT This portion ended at 9:02 a.m. Respectfully Submitted. Lam L. Agoot Commission Support Clerk Subdivision Committee Minutes November 23, 2010