Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PC 2017/07/06 (2016-2018) Committee on Planning 9th Session Hawai`i County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai`i July 6, 2017 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Planning was called to order at ORDER: 11:05 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair Ms. Eileen O'Hara, Vice Chair Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Mr. Dru Mamo Kanuha, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Ms. Valerie T. Poindexter, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Ms. Jennifer Ruggles, Member Absent& Excused: Mr. Aaron Chung, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: (There were none.) COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 340: NOMINATION OF BRYANT Y. CHING TO THE KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION From Mayor Harry Kim, dated June 15, 2017, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Requires Council Confirmation by: August 3, 2017 (Section 13-4(1), Hawai`i County Charter) Motion to Approve: Mr. Kanuha moved to recommend confirmation of the appointment of Mr. Bryant Y. Ching to the Kailua Village Design Commission. Seconded by Ms. David. PC-9 July 6, 2017 During discussion on Mr. Ching's nomination, the following amendment was made to Communication 340 and voted on by the Council Members as follows: Vote on Motion to Mr. Kanuha moved to amend the term-end date from Amend: June 30, 2019 to December 31, 2018. Seconded by (Approved) Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff— 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung— 1. Excused: None. Vote on Comm. 340: The motion to recommend confirmation of the appointment (Approved) of Mr. Bryant Y. Ching to the Kailua Village Design Commission was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff— 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung— 1. Excused: None. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. EOFF: Thank you Mr. Ching, we all congratulate you and thank you for serving. You don't need to come back to our Council meeting, but we look forward to seeing you on the commission. MR. CHING: Thank you very much. CHR. EOFF: You're very welcome. Okay, Mr. Clerk, does that take care of that one? We'll move on to Communication 341. Comm. 341: NOMINATION OF ALEX AKAU TO THE CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION From Mayor Harry Kim, dated June 15, 2017, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Motion to Approve: Ms. O'Hara moved to recommend confirmation of the appointment of Mr. Alex Akau to the Cultural Resources Commission. Seconded by Mr. Richards. Page 2 PC-9 July 6, 2017 During discussion on Mr. Akau's nomination, the following amendments were made to Communication 341 and voted on by the Council Members as follows: Vote on Motion to Ms. Poindexter moved to amend Mr. Akau's district from Amend: District 9 to District 1. Seconded by Mr. Richards and (Approved) carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung— 1. Excused: None. Vote on Motion to Ms. Poindexter moved to amend term-end date from Amend: December 21, 2021 to December 31, 2021. Seconded by (Approved) Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff— 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung— 1. Excused: None. Vote on Comm. 341: The motion to recommend confirmation of the appointment (Approved) of Mr. Alex Akau to the Cultural Resources Commission was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung— 1. Excused: None. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. CHR. EOFF: Thank you very much. And thank you, sir, you don't have to come back to our Council meeting, but that's when your confirmation is complete, and that's two weeks from now. I'm sure Ms. Bautista and the Planning Department will be in touch with you, as far as your next meeting. We'll take a quick recess just to congratulate you and shake hands. So we're in recess, Council Members. Thank you. Page 3 PC-9 July 6, 2017 Recess: At 11:34 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 11:43 a.m. CHR. EOFF: Okay, Council Members, I'd like to call the meeting back to order. MS. POINDEXTER: Madam Chair? CHR. EOFF: Ms. Poindexter. MS. POINDEXTER: Can I I know this might not be appropriate at this time, but I'm going to do it anyway, because I forgot to do it in the Governmental Relations and Economic Development Committee. But I just wanted to congratulate Council Member Kanuha as he took on a new role as President for the Hawai`i Association of Counties (HSAC). So, beginning July 1st, we have the President of HSAC here in Hawai`i County, which is Council Member Dru Kanuha. CHR. EOFF: Congratulations, Mr. Kanuha. Alright, thank you, Ms. Poindexter. I've called the meeting back to order and we are going to take Communication 342. Comm. 342: NOMINATION OF MICAH KAMOHOALI`I TO THE CULTURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION From Mayor Harry Kim, dated June 15, 2017, submitting for the Council's review and confirmation the above nomination. Motion to Approve: Mr. Richards moved to recommend confirmation of the appointment of Mr. Micah Kamohoali`i to the Cultural Resources Commission. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. Vote on Comm. 342: The motion to recommend confirmation of the appointment (Approved) of Mr. Micah Kamohoali`i to the Cultural Resources Commission was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff—8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung— 1. Excused: None. Committee Members spoke in favor of the appointment. Page 4 PC-9 July 6, 2017 CHR. EOFF: Communication 342 is filed. You don't have to come to our Council meeting, but on the next Council meeting is your official confirmation date, so Ms. Bautista will be in touch with you, and the Planning Department. So we'll take a quick recess so we can shake your hands and say congratulations. Recess: At 11:54 a.m., the Chair called for a recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 12:01 p.m. ORDER OF The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, RESOLUTIONS: Order of Resolutions. (There were none.) CHR. EOFF: Council Members, we're going to call the meeting back to order. Mr. Clerk, I'd like you to please read Bill 49. BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, Bills ORDINANCES: for Ordinances. Bill 49: AMENDS CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE 1, ARTICLE 2, ARTICLE 4, ARTICLE 5, AND ARTICLE 7 OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR MEETING FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY BUILDINGS (Planning Director Initiated) The Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions forward their favorable recommendations for this amendment to the Zoning Code, which would remove all references to community buildings, amend the definition of meeting facility, and identify what zoning districts require a special permit or a use permit to allow for a meeting facility. Reference: Comm. 333 Intr. by: Ms. Eoff(B/R) Motion to Approve: Ms. O'Hara moved to recommend passage of Bill 49 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. CHR. EOFF: Council Members, before we go into discussion and before I ask Mr. Arai to come forward and explain the bill, there were some structural problems with the bill, as first submitted, and so our staff in LRB (Legislative Research Branch) has worked with the Planning Department to produce Communication 333.1, which you all should have. And I think it would be best at this time to just amend Bill 49 with the contents of Communication 333.1 for discussion. Page 5 PC-9 July 6, 2017 Motion to Amend: Ms. O'Hara moved to amend Bill 49 with the contents of Comm. 333.1. Seconded by Ms. Poindexter. CHR. EOFF: Any discussion? Mr. Kanuha, on the amendment. MR. KANUHA: No,just what kind of structural problems? CHR. EOFF: There were some MR. KANUHA: Because I mean this is pretty substantial, so I have no idea what CHR. EOFF: Okay, well at this time, I think we should have discussion on the amendment, so maybe it would be a good time to have Mr. Arai come forward. (Note: At this time, Deputy Planning Director Daryn Arai came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR. KANUHA: The structural CHR. EOFF: Yeah, he can explain the amendment. MR. KANUHA: Okay. MR. ARAI: Good morning once again, Daryn Arai with the Planning Department. CHR. EOFF: Mr. Arai, could you explain just why the—I mean we have to amend Bill 49 with this communication, and then we can go into discussion on the bill as amended. But do you want to,just briefly, let us know why it's important to do that at this time? MR. ARAI: Well we apologize, first of all, it was unintentional. As we were going through the bill, we were processing two amendments to the Code, one was for the golf course and to align it with State law which now prohibits golf courses on ag land, as well as doing meeting facilities. As both bills were being processed by the department, the golf course amendment went first and then became codified. And as we continued to process meeting facility, we overlooked that once adopted into the Code, that amendment needs to be reflected in the meetings facility's amendment that subsequently was brought before the Planning Commission and Council. So it was due to that oversight. What the changes that you see now, is to simply reflect what occurred in sequence, first with the amendment to the Code regarding golf courses, to align it Page 6 PC-9 July 6, 2017 with State law, and then secondly, the meetings facility. So that's really the substance of why you have this more recent communication. MR. KANUHA: So you basically just added the golf courses into this amendment as well? MR. ARAI: Right. And there was one oversight as well in the meeting facility's description where if you look at the communication, section three on the bottom of the first page, you may notice where it says, "`Meeting facility' means" and then that whole section is struck out, "facility", and then following that, "which is not operated primarily for financial gain" you may notice that it's struck out and underlined at the same time. So in Ramseyer, it's like do you want to take it in or take it out? And it was something we overlooked, so in essence, our intention was to take it out. So, that is clarified now in the latest communication. So I'm sorry for the confusion, but it was because of things we overlooked and it didn't get structurally defined in the bill. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Poindexter. MR. KANUHA: Wait, I'm thanks. Okay so, I'm just seeing golf courses, meeting facility, I just want to make sure I got it all. CHR. EOFF: And I know Council Members have questions about the purpose of the bill and the entire bill, but before we get to those questions, I just wanted to make sure that we take care amending and so we're talking about the proper version of the bill. MR. KANUHA: For sure. Okay. I just answered my own question by reading this one. Okay, I yield. CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Ms. Poindexter is going to wait until we get this done. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Just really one quick one for Mr. Arai. On Communication 333.1, we're deleting that entire paragraph in section three, and the one on the next page is what we are proposing the amendment with, right? Because the first one is what it looked like previously. MR. ARAI: Exactly what document—? MS. DAVID: On Communication 333, the proposed amendment. MR. ARAI: Okay. Page 7 PC-9 July 6, 2017 MS. DAVID: So, section three,that first section that says, "Delete this version." So this entire paragraph is going to be deleted, and the next paragraph is going to be substituted in its place? CHR. EOFF: On the top of page two. MS. DAVID: On the top of page two. Is that correct? MR. ARAI: That is correct. MS. DAVID: Yeah. Okay so I'm not going to even read the first one. MR. ARAI: In essence, our attempts to Ramseyer it actually made it more difficult to read, so in the end, it was just cleaner to wipe it out and just kind of plop— MS. DAVID: I agree. Thank you, I'm done. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: And I would also like to thank Leslie Chow and the staff at LRB for helping work through this. MR. ARAI: Absolutely. CHR. EOFF: Okay, so if there's no further questions, I'd like to MS. O'HARA: I have a question. CHR. EOFF: On amending—? MS. O'HARA: On the Communication 333.1? Yes, I have some questions. CHR. EOFF: Okay. MS. O'HARA: Daryn, thank you for being here to answer these questions. I think I'm finally understanding how it's structured, and that's great and I understand more or less the intent here is to clarify, but I don't think we've simplified. I think we've made it more onerous for certain uses, and that's my concern. Now that we have defined meeting facility in a clean passage, underlined at the top of page two, I understand that, "Typical uses may include private clubs, union halls, community and association centers, but not schools." Well that's great. And then if you read further in section six, which replaces or makes changes to what is currently in the Code as Section 25-4-11, you've removed the word"community buildings" because you now redefined it as meeting facilities. Am I correct there? Page 8 PC-9 July 6, 2017 MR. ARAI: In my copy of the communication, I'm missing section six. MS. O'HARA: It's on page seven, kind of in the middle of the page, if that helps. MR. ARAI: Okay, I see. Section seven of the bill, got it. MS. O'HARA: Okay, so that says, "Public uses, structures and buildings are permitted CHR. EOFF: Ms. O'Hara? Thank you, Mr. Kanuha. I realize that you are now speaking on how the bill would look as amended, which starts on page five. Right now, we're just trying to amend Bill 49 with this Communication 333.1, which is up to page four. It's just those mentioned in the communication, those things up to page four. And then once we amend Bill 49 with that, it will look like what starts on page five and then we can have the discussion on all of that. MS. O'HARA: Okay, I yield then. CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Is everybody okay with that? Vote on Motion to The motion to amend Bill 40 with the contents of Amend: Comm. 333.1 was carried by the following voice (Approved) vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff— 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung— 1. Excused: None. CHR. EOFF: And so now we will go back to the discussion on Bill 49, now as amended with the contents of 333.1, and that is now what you can look at starting on page five, okay? Mr. Arai, do you want to go ahead and give us a little bit more information about why you're bringing this forward and what the significant changes MR. ARAI: Sure, I'll be glad to. Over the years, the definition of meeting facilities and community buildings got really confusing for us because many uses had purposes similar to both definitions. So to make it clearer, we decided to combine the two definitions into a single definition of meeting facility. And by doing so, we had to strike out all references to community buildings because again, that definition will no longer exist. And then also, given that we have had some occurrences where proposed meeting facilities and the like did meet with some concerns by adjoining residence, we felt that instead of making it a Page 9 PC-9 July 6, 2017 permitted use, having it go through the special permit or use permit process would at least provide a venue by which surrounding property owners can express their concerns. So that is how we kind of structured the Code amendments, is for areas that can accommodate the type of traffic and activities associated with such facilities, like commercially-zoned areas, meeting facilities are defined as permitted uses. In residential areas, we understand that community buildings that support the community but there's also homes nearby, so best to have a venue by which they can express those concerns and we can then mitigate them, which is why, for residential zoning, meeting facilities will now need to go through a use-permit process. In the agricultural-zoned lands, we understand that some ag-designated lands fall within State land use urban, and some of them fall within State land use ag. So the Code as structured, will basically say go through either the use permit for urban, or the special permit for ag. So again, it's not necessary the only two zoning districts that it would be prohibited is general/industrial, which is your heavy industrial, you don't want people congregating there, and open-zoning districts, because open zoning is meant to not have structures on them. So those are the only two zoning districts where it's prohibited. Other than that, it's either a permitted use, like in commercial-zoned areas or you have to go through a proper permitting process for the other zoning districts. So in a nutshell, I hope that explains why this amendment is before you. CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. And I will let Council Members ask their questions now. Go ahead, Ms. O'Hara. MS. O'HARA: Thank you, Chair. :[just wanted to get back and try and understand it better, Mr. Arai. We do have this much cleaner definition of meeting facility, in section three, and then in section six, which is on page seven of the communication we're holding, it states, "Public uses, structures and buildings are permitted uses in any district, provided that the director has issued plan approval for such use." But when you go back to your definition, it doesn't seem to cover the same verbiage. I mean we're talking public uses, structures, and buildings. Is this a meeting facility? MR. ARAI: If I understand you correctly, public uses are actually defined is a separate definition in the Zoning Code. MS. O'HARA: Right. MR. ARAI: So Page 10 PC-9 July 6, 2017 MS. O'HARA: Is that government use only? MR. ARAI: Or it's basically uses typically performed by the government, and that doesn't necessarily mean that anything associated with the government is automatically permitted. For example, schools, even State DOE (Department of Education) comes in for special permits and use permits. MS. O'HARA: But the definition excludes schools, so that's in the meeting facility, it's excluded. My problem here is public uses cannot be considered nonprofit buildings or anything like that? MR. ARAI: No, which is why we made a distinction to accommodate them within the meeting facility definition. MS. O'HARA: Okay, so this section no longer applies to meeting facilities in Section 25-4-11? MR. ARAI: That is correct. MS. O'HARA: Okay. That clarifies something. Then it does say that, "Additionally, a use permit shall be required in the RA, FA, and A districts if the building site is within the state land use urban district." But you just said that if it's State land use urban, and it's a mixed zoning like 1A, State urban,they could come in for either, but that isn't what this says. This says only a use permit, not a special permit. MR. ARAI: The amendments that we structured, basically would make a distinction I'm sorry again, could you point out the section that you—? MS. O'HARA: I'm sorry. This is nine on page six. Sorry. MR. ARAI: Section nine on where? MS. O'HARA: It's page six, nine. CHR. EOFF: No, on the white—on page six on the white communication, there's number nine, it's underlined, and the text is underlined. MS. O'HARA: "Meeting facilities in RS, RD and RM districts, provided that a minimum building site area of ten thousand square feet shall be required. Additionally, a use permit shall be required in the RA, FA, and A districts if the building site is within the state land use urban district." So if it's urban but it's 1A, you would have to get a use permit, not a special permit because I thought I heard you say either/or. Page 11 PC-9 July 6, 2017 MR. ARAI: Right, because this section, 25-2-61 is actually the use permit section of the Zoning Code, and that only pertains to urban classified lands. MS. O'HARA: Okay, so if it's state urban, it has to be a use permit, not a special permit? MR. ARAI: Yes, if located MS. O'HARA: If it's in RA, FA, or A? MR. ARAI: That's correct. The only reason we don't cite any reference to special permit is because this definition this provision is within the use-permit section of the Zoning Code, which only applies to urban classified lands. MS. O'HARA: Right. It's just a bit confusing. We have these cross-zoned properties, I happen to live in one of those areas where it's state land use urban and 1A, and I don't know why that is, but it gets very confusing. We got bounced around for a long time on this particular issue. MR. ARAI: I get it. I'm 30 years in the department and I have to read twice, so I get it. But again, this really is an attempt to at least clean up this one particular provision, and we're trying to accomplish it without upsetting the existing structure of the Code, which makes it really difficult. In fact, Ms. Chow is such a bright lady. I think she mentioned to one of our planners that eventually, we want to get away from just the numbering schemes here because once you amend something, you have to adjust all the numbers and all it does is it creates more confusion. So it's those types of suggestions we'll keep in mind for the future. MS. O'HARA: It's a complicated Code to modify. MR. ARAI: It is. MS. O'HARA: The underlying concern here is maybe you can explain why for instance, a community center that is in urban 1A, that's pre-existing or what not, why that has to now get a use permit versus a plan approval. Why is a plan approval not sufficient for mitigating any concerns? MR. ARAI: A plan approval is just a ministerial function by which we make sure that whatever is being proposed complies with all the various components of the Zoning Code, whether it's setback, height, parking, landscaping, and so forth. It doesn't necessarily approve a use. We just make sure that whatever you're proposing is consistent with the zoning district requirements. I hope that's clear. MS. O'HARA: Yeah, I see where you're going, it's just we have had this experience in my community with our community association built in 1971 and Page 12 PC-9 July 6, 2017 when we came in for renovations, we got bounced back and forth because of the interpretation of the Code as it exists. And since there was a pre-existing use of the community center for what is that, forty years or something, whatever that time is because I think that was 2012 or something, we came in for that. It just seemed like a lot of additional work. We were even told that we had to rezone initially because of the mixed zoning. That did not make sense, and that's a lot of expense and time and trial for a community association, which is nonprofit and doesn't have the money to apply. So I'm just wondering if there's some way for that kind of situation to be mitigated in more in a better way without having to jump through too many hoops. MR. ARAI: Well right off hand, I don't have too much background on your particular situation, but I know there's a provision in the use permit section that talks about conditionally permitted use. And if it says if conditionally permitted by the County, then such use can be expanded upon the same property without the need for a use permit, where you got to go to a hearing all over again. So I would ask you to kind of look into that part to see if it could help your particular situation. Maybe the situation you encountered was just because you had these two different definitions. Meeting facility versus community buildings and maybe community building wasn't clearly expressed within the use permit provision. But because we are now lumping it all together under one definition, I encourage you to look at that possibility and it could help your situation. M S. O'HARA: Okay, thank you. I'm just not sure—I understand where you're trying to go here and the clarifications needed, but I'm just not sure that this is going to improve and streamline for community uses. So I'm still not decided. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Thank you, Ms. O'Hara. I'm going to Ms. Lee Loy. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Arai for being here. The Code is extremely complex. First and foremost, I'm going to stand by supporting this. I completely understand, having done this type of work for a very long time, exactly what you folks are trying to achieve. A lot of the complexities, and you know this, Mr. Arai, is the various layers of land-use designations. And so what Ms. O'Hara is experiencing is those layers. So we have to take a look at what the State land use layer is, on top of the County's zoning layer, on top of the General Plan, on top of plan approval, and all the other ministerial permits that go with that. So I completely appreciate what you folks are doing, I really think it is cleaning up the section of the Code and getting to a nice defined use that can be applied throughout all the different zoning districts. And if it is not a permitted use, there is a process, special permit use permit, whatever that process, it's kind of like Chutes and Ladders, right? You go down this chute because you fall in this particular zoning district. So thank you very much. Page 13 PC-9 July 6, 2017 My question actually is, we have a number of existing special permits, or use permits, or even zoning that has a number of conditions of approval that may require them to, or permitted them to have a meeting facility or a community facility. How is the administration going to address the existing regulatory permits that have been issued now that this Code changes being applied? MR. ARAI: I don't think, and I do appreciate the question, very thoughtful question. I don't think there'll be any severe ramifications based on this Code amendment. I'm just trying to think off the top of my head right now. If a facility there was somehow permitted, whether by a previous permit or by virtue of a plan approval being granted, they can be considered either a conditionally permitted use or just simply grandfathered in, depending on when they were established. Usually grandfathering is when it was established prior to 1967. So I don't see any implications there. Where you might have some difficulty is if you wish to expand, and that's when I think, within the office, would need to determine how the existing state of the law is now and apply it to that particular situation. Typically, expansion may require a permit, unless it's within an area that out rightly permits it, which is like say in the commercial zoned district. MS. LEE LOY: Chair, follow-up question? CHR. EOFF: Sure. MS. LEE LOY: In addition to this Code amendment, the Planning Department has their own rule and procedures. Would those rules and procedures need to be amended as far as the processing of a plan approval or a special permit or use permit at it applies? And then is the department also going to need to modify any of the application forms, like for plan approval or the use permit or special permit as it applies to that? So that's part one. And then part two, which I'm guessing the answer will be yes, what's the timeline on updating all of those forms and applications? MR. ARAI: You can really tell she has worked a lot with our department in the past, but I don't believe any amendment to our rules or practices and procedure, which is why we tried to we're just modifying the definition and where it is permitted, where it's not permitted, and what type of requirements need to be met. But we're kind of we're aligning everything based on existing processes, whether it's use permit, special permit, plan approvals. So I can't envision any additional amendments to those operating rules will be necessary. It would just be this Code amendment. Thank you. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Mr. Arai, you're super smart. Thank you, I yield. CHR. EOFF: Okay. Thank you. Ms. David. Page 14 PC-9 July 6, 2017 MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair. Aloha, Mr. Arai. Thank you, I know this is it's been confusing for me just reading it so I can imagine how much time and energy and thank you for mentioning Ms. Chow in our LRB branch, because she's very awesome. MR. ARAI: Totally agree. MS. DAVID: So I have a really simple question and I think I know the answer to it, but I just wanted you to clarify. On page five on the amendment, the section four, it says, "The following uses shall be permitted within designated County zoning districts"blah, blah, and"only if a use permit is obtained for the use from the commission." Is this the Planning Commission? MR. ARAI: That is correct. MS. DAVID: Thank you. That's all. I kind of figured it was. Thank you very much, I yield. CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Ms. David. Ms. Ruggles. MS. RUGGLES: Thank you. Thank you for the explanations, Mr. Arai, it's very easily understandable. MR. ARAI: You're welcome. MS. RUGGLES: From what I'm understanding, is that this amendment is doing two things. It's consolidating community facility and meeting facility into one simple definition, and it's also, with that, comes a process for neighboring—or within a residential area for neighbors to express concerns for that use. MR. ARAI: Correct. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, great. Thank you. For somebody that's in a zoned residential area, what is the permitting process that they would go through to use a meeting facility? MR. ARAI: It's the existing use permit process. We have an application form, and along with that application are various documentation that the applicant will need to provide to demonstrate that the proposed activity would not have an adverse impact upon public facilities, like roads, water systems, and the like, as well as will not have an adverse impact upon the character of the surrounding community. So whatever justification or documentation they can provide that will support their arguments, they are welcomed to attach it as to make it a part of the application that they file. We as a department have 90 days in which to schedule that particular application. Once completely filed with the Planning Page 15 PC-9 July 6, 2017 Commission,the Commission will then conduct a public hearing and make a decision on the request. As part of that public hearing process, we do publish the agenda in the newspaper, roughly 15 to 20 days before the actual hearing date. The applicant is also required to serve notice on surrounding property owners within I think it was 300 feet of the property boundaries. And then we also have a monthly application notice, I think, I'm not sure what the terminology is, but we do publish in the newspaper a list of all those applications that have been filed with the Planning Department. So there's like three different opportunities where we try to get the word out that this is happening. And then the neighbors and the community are welcomed to speak, either for or against the project. MS. RUGGLES: That sounds very thorough. What is the process for those zoned in ag? MR. ARAI: If it's zoned in ag but within the State land use urban district, they can go through the same use permit process. If it's on State land use agricultural land, then State law prevails, so what we process is a special permit. The County has jurisdiction if the area encumbered by the use is less than 15 acres or less. So it would follow the same process as the use permit. The qualifications are slightly different because whereas use permit is more focused upon impacts to public facilities and the character of the area, in addition to that, the special permit is primarily about making sure that any use does not adversely compromise the County's ability to protect its important agricultural lands. MS. RUGGLES: I see. MR. ARAI: So that's the primary distinction, and that is actually governed by State law. MS. RUGGLES: Okay, great. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. MR. ARAI: You're welcome. CHR. EOFF: Okay, thank you. Any other questions, Council Members? Well thank you so much, Mr. Arai, and again, thank you to Leslie Chow from our Legislative Research Branch. And I think the way I feel, I want to support this. I think having worked with the Planning Department more this term, I see that your direction now is to not only clarify some issues in the Code, but also to protect communities. I think this is very important, what we're doing in different regards with that. MR. ARAI: Well I do appreciate that statement, and if I could add one thing, too? Page 16 PC-9 July 6, 2017 CHR. EOFF: Sure. MR. ARAI: In addition to your wonderful support staff, Leslie Chow, Jon Henricks, I do want to recognize the planners in our department as well. You'll be seeing more and more of this type of amendments because previously, we were so consumed with just processing of applications and requests that now, we're taking a step back and saying where we see functional problems or problems with the application of Code, let's just deal with it. Let's make the amendments and if it flies, great, if it doesn't, we'll tweak it some more if necessary. But we're trying to clean up the foundation, which is our Code, so it makes it easier for us downstream. So I really appreciate the hard work of the planners and the support staff at the Planning Department. CHR. EOFF: I'd like to thank my staff, too, and we're more than happy to work with you folks on this type of clean ups. MR. ARAI: We really appreciate it. Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Thank you. I'm going to go back to Ms. Lee Loy, she has one more thought. MS. LEE LOY: Yeah, real quick. And thank you, Mr. Arai because that's something I really did bring up at the very beginning of the administration process, when we were confirming a number of our appointees. And it really was a comprehensive overhaul of Chapter 25, which is what you folks are dealing with. And I also do want to say thank you to the commissioners. These are everyday people who serve on these boards, who actually take these types of applications and have a little bit of a limited understanding and ask those questions. So reading through the notes and the background on the report that came from us, they ended up asking a lot of the questions that I would have asked also. So I do also want to thank those boards, both the Leeward and Windward Planning Commission that vetted this bill and asked those common, everyday questions for people who normally just don't deal with the Planning Department every day. So thank you again. MR. ARAI: Thank you. CHR. EOFF: Thank you, Ms. Lee Loy. Council Members, let's go ahead and take a vote. Page 17 PC-9 July 6, 2017 Vote on Bill 49: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 49, as amended (Draft 2) to Draft 2, on first reading was carried by the following (Approved) voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff— 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung— 1. Excused: None. CHR. EOFF: Bill 49 will move to Council with a positive recommendation. Thank you again, Mr. Arai. ADJOURN There being no further business, at 1.2:37 p.m., Ms. Poindexter moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Ms. David and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Kanuha, Lee Loy, O'Hara, Poindexter, Richards, Ruggles, and Chair Eoff— 8. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Member Chung— 1. Excused: None. CHR. EOFF: Any objections? This meeting's adjourned. Approved: C>61.44t).4 7. 13. 17 Ms. Karen Eoff, Chair (Date) Planning Committee KE/jm Page 18