with the planning committee meeting of may twenty fourth two thousand and fourteen please come to order it is about one thirty eight apologize for coming in late we have some tech and no difficulties with our district office sites but actually it's the difficulties are here in talking with the district office sites scuse me my name is don couch i'm the chair of the committee i'd like to welcome  chair let's see gladys spice michael vick to reno are coming in the little bit later and mike white is excused we don't have any non voting members mr holcombe would like would have hockney chair pardon just now good afternoon mary jorgensen i didn't get and we have in the back some more members who may need to come up here more members of the staff and we have d corporation counsel michael hopper good afternoon legislative attorney greg our no good afternoon and committee secretary pauline martin and len i district office denise fernande good afternoon ladies on a district office is closed today members and members of the audience please turn off your cell phones or put them in  nobody's reaching for their phones hopefully we won't hear one ring members today's agenda item is one item piece eleven lanai community plan update for we're going to start with testimony for individuals testifying in the chamber please sign up at the desk outside the chamber door if testifying from remote testimony site please sign up with the district office staff testimony will be limited to the item listed on the agenda today pursuant to the rules of the coun be allowed to testify for up to three minutes per item i will also be allowing an additional minute to conclude testimony you will get a green light for three minutes and then i'll go yellow for one minute and when it turns red please conclude your remarks when testifying please state your name and any organization you may be representing members without objection which will open public testimony ok right now i have you know that have since we only have one testifier here we'll have them first and then we'll go right to lynn i and get their testimony i'm sure we have a few there first to testify in the chambers and the only one so far to testify in the chambers is  you have any test fires today ok hang on though i will go to you guys one more time at the end of the testimony right first to sign up first to sign up to testify as our president you find your stuff ok and following albert is tom blacker and rodriguez thank you gerri appreciate your indulgence i'm albert press testifying on behalf of my tomorrow foundation and the executive director  i wanted to bring your attention to page nine dash to this is in chapter nine land use second to last paragraph there was some language that was removed and it was easy to see because it's in ram's here format and says unless specifically prohibited the use is permitted by zoning and the standards of political to the typical zoning district apply to the corresponding community planned as in nations so that was removed it was easy to see there was some other language in appendix nine point two on page eight as fourteen that was very similar just kind of different wording that was not removed and i think if you're going if you're intending to remove the unless specifically prohibited language usage you should remove this other part to prohibits or restricts a particular use so that one is easy to miss it's not in ramsey or format it should also be removed the other change that we would like to see in the table itself appendix nine to you have a column that used to be entitled description describes a land uses that are appropriate to pretty particular community plan designation that heading was changed to envisioned uses and also the heading that used to say the corresponding county zoning district was changed and now says typical counties are in districts this type of language is much looser less specific and provides more will  room and the fact is to make it easier to approve development proposals that the community may not have had in mind just a little bit on the process we talked about this morning i want to spend too much time on that but  clearly the process was moving along fine until this type of language is added into the plan and yes the council gets the final say but if you want to and  was talking about creating trust in the community if you want to preserve the trust of the community then this type of language if it's in if it's something the department wants to insert should be inserted early in and so that they can see it at the community plan advisory committee level and finally i just want to recommend that at this point this type of language be removed and that it be sent back to the community plan advisory committee for their quick review there haven't been a lot of other changes and the planning commission should have a quick review of it as well i also wanted to talk directly to all of the council members on some comments this morning referred to special interest groups having an undue influence on the planning process i can only speak from our tomorrow but one of the main reasons that we were formed was to bring balance to a process that had previously been dominated by the development community so here we are in the middle of the day everybody's at work including a lot of our supporters that can't come down tomorrow doesn't fact represent a broad broad segment of the community and we're working for a better future our voice is as valid as any other thank you thank you mr prez members any questions to the test fire i have i have one you said page nine wanted to get that correct on the record is ninety three on the grand jury forty ok members any other questions seeing none thank you next up is tom blackburn rodriguez followed by dick parcel instead of course ponding zoning designations the lanai community plan is addressing this inconsistency between and zoning code and the general plan by establishing what permitted land uses are governed by the language in the zon code it is a legitimate policy issue there are no council members with evil intent and there is no need to send out excited e mails in order to generate a huge crowd in emails this is a very serious policy issue and should be addressed that way the use of zoning to determine permitted land use is in my county goes back to the one nine hundred forty s and is how property use is determined regulated and property tax assessments made the a gateway maw the realtors association of mali's own office and the list goes on they would be affected because well they're used in zoning matches just fine there is a conflict with this in listing description in the area community plan goal now is supports lanai community plan before the committee today because it avoids these potential future problems and clarifies the relationship between land use designations in the community plans and zoning the t plan preserves the law that nothing band in an area by a community plan can be built without a community plan amendment for example if an area were designated the community plan is park then only part could be there unless there was a community plan a me this legislation does not change that this community plan does not change at the ballot county comprehensive zoning provisions for by and for a tiered or euclidean approach to permitted uses that are not specifically stated in the community plan zoning code except in certain instances allows for less intense uses such as retail in areas zoned light industrial community plants currently use descriptions that are silent as to whether less intense uses are allowed and if read literally could be interpreted as not including such intensive uses in addition the zoning code is the only reference for performance standards for specific uses not the community plan goal now is supports lanai community planet supported by the plain department is now before the committee this community planned legislation will not despite the misrepresentations on the internet which are just that deliber misrepresentations in order to stir up a fight this community plan legislation will not allow folks to go around land use designations in the community plans and that is critical thank you very much for allowing me to testify on this at this point to sign up to testify thank you very much very much mr chair members i come here and for two two items one is i think the letter that sally kay wrote to you is worth quoting in a couple of places here one is and i think she's represent the fact remains that neither the c pac nor the planning commission your community members were advised that they had to consider whether to hit certain uses in community planned land used as a nation's if that language retroactively now after the community plan was finished on the island is now inserted into the text it would be i think appropriate to give them the opportunity to look at the pings are there some areas that they wish to object to and i would urge you to send it back to the committees let them see maybe nothing that they object to or they may want to put language in but that process needs to be held really sovereign for the people on the second question second item somewhat related is that some statements were made this morning that the it's now one point two nine dash two is really a combination of two previous tables into one that's missta really what happened it's not just combining the two it's totally changing the wording in there so that each of the now each of the kerry plan land use designations now has a long description much longer than was previously there so the wording was changed and you start off with the word envisions which is vague as to what it's made me would mean and when a planet goes to review a project what does that mean envisions it's i don't think the type of specifically that we would usually find in a legal document of this kind and then it goes on in almost each one of the categories to add words like and support and related and compatible uses again relatively vague as to exactly what is  within that plan and finally by the inclusion of the various owning districts that are put into the commute plans or use the light industrial as an example there has been an example and that's why this is all coming up in south where the planning director did not properly i believe use the zoning law and that allowed for large scale commercial operations to be permitted in the recommendation to the commercial accessory uses and i'm very concerned that if this ordinance goes through the way it threatens that that will be a continued practice of the kind apartment to allow in incorrect use of the zoning regulations you and somebody was waving their hand did you fill out the form you had do it at the end when you're done come testify then fill out the form at the end oh i don't want to  thank you can you give us your name my j c long spell l a w from cooler thank you for let me talk today i didn't know you guys were having this meeting i saw some in a newspaper about you guys were unable to put your seal of approval on it when you're over it and i know you guys are trying to do a good job and nobody's perfect but you guys are pretty good so i was not able to read the letter i community plant when i was when i came up to the desk up there i saw they were handing out to the newest color copy that you guys got there and i asked them for a copy but they said i could have one those only for you guys so i don't know what the guy's talking about when he says turn to page whatever so if you guys could like i said nobody's perfect but if next time they make copies could you make a couple actually for people that are interested so that only the only thing i idea that come up and i was just on i just happened to be in the building today and i saw my friend rosemary and she told me you guys were having a meeting as watcher but as myself like a crazy idea a local idea for lanai but you guys know they just started that dispensary thing here on maui and i don't know we're going to where they're going to grow that stuff but i've been in there we got thirty six thousand acres from the sugarcane plantation was somehow i don't think it's going to be a good idea to grow poppy harlow on maui right there so they're going to have to dispensary is going to have to get somewhere so i'm thinkin you know you big shots probably know better about these big deal me but maybe we can make a deal with that ellison guy and cut him off and on some of the profits and then useful and i to be the world's best facility and then we could export it and we won't need any more federal government he would just tell him to keep their keep their own money and yeah it would have poor all the money back into education ran out i'm usually like i'm usually like this but it really helps me with deal with all the problems that we've got in the world so any questions thank you m allow members any questions is a test of our missile out this is the copy that you were looking for were saved trying to save taxpayers money it's three inches thick so that's read in is there one in the press book over there i don't know probably probably ok and there's nowt on the seventh floor you can certainly read it in that little cubicle that they have there for you t hank you members nobody else is coming down the testify i'm giving a little bit of time time ok i will go to the district offices mogae anybody th ok thank you ladies will drop you off the line now members with nobody coming down from the gallery and nobody in line i look i without objection will close public testimony ok full right members were on p c eleven you know members this item was recommitted by the council at this special meeting of april one to twenty sixteen that was recessed and reconvene on april  and sixteen and was recess to and reconvene on april fifteenth two thousand and sixteen since the matter was before council the planning department has submitted additional information for the committee's consideration these documents are intended to explain in more detail the evolution of law and i community plan update to show the amount of work that went into the development of the plan and how recommendations were made by the advisory bodies along the way the transmittal includes a matrix of the community plan land use designation recommendations a a copy of the c pac final draft compared against alumni planning commission final draft a copy of the law and i planning commission final draft compared against the planning committees most recent draft complete meeting summaries from the c pack meeting showing the recommendations that were made to revise the plan the list of recommendations made by the one i planning commission at this time i would like to ask director will spends in is similar to the major cities that you have used in the past associated with community plans and in it there is a number of columns that give a matrix number and name there's one thousand items in know there aren't that many parcels that there's some very large parcels these represent portions of some of the large parcels that are online a mystery some married up to permanent i'd like to welcome  pack the department recommendation which was really in line with both the seed pack and the planning commission so there's a column for the planning commission and then the current two thousand  put together some map so you can see where these items are and a little bit of what they look like on the ground so the first item in the matrix is this the nicety mixed use residential but was just traced in red there and the mixed use residential extends illinois city area and provide single family and multi family housing and it includes parks school and perhaps neighborhood commercial like a small grocery store could be in this area and this is four hundred and fifty seven acres you can see in this for the the lot i see expansion the red showing the area the larger the thicker red line this is showing what the land area looks like underneath it there's a i don't know if you can quite see the little arrow there but the wastewater treatment plant is currently in that location and then this other parcel that's in there that i'm tracing is where the county affordable housing seventy eight acres is and you'll see this more as we go through these different layers this shows the state land use and there's it's residential waste treatment plant was put in public caused by public with some small areas a park and then the rest being agricultural land so this shows the current proposal two thousand and sixteen and this proposal of makes use residential this area was recommended by the c pac and the planning commission department agreed and the planning committee has said it makes use of residential as well i don't know about the other members but we're pretty familiar with what is the for us and i feel q is a movie and if we have a specific place you can ask ok members any quote any objections to doing it that way eight are all in the lanai city area saw go rather faster them so you can see the different images of this was a park tennis proposes a tennis academy has existing parkland within it and some yards it's state land uses agone urban and most of it's either park open space or interim with a little bit ag and ninety eight c p had it as a expansion area and you'll see that in the slide set as it grew from being a line about in here to expanding and then expanding a little bit in this area so the gateway park was  for the change in road alignment minelli road and it currently there is nothing built on it it's ag with a little bit that has a park area or development proposals so the proposal is to just have that the park and the road to be realigned kind of through the middle of it and then along through the the new  development the university area and the gulch are probably going to be built much later in the process of the mixed use residential was in terms of phasing it would be one of the first some green infrastructure and storm water management in the gulch and the university campus would be adjoining this mixed use residential so there was a little bit of light industrial by the town where there was some that was existing and got expanded as well as just as you're entering town second circle  and it's on industrial land and cultural land and it's in the urban district and am part of it at this parcel up of the top as is own for industrial and and part of it had open space in the one nine hundred ninety eight plan over it even though it was zoned industrial so the proposal for the two thousand and sixteen plan is to expand it and also remove where there's existing industrial the rural residential was proposed by the c pac this was all something that they really wanted to see one of the members was i wanted to have farming close to town so they discuss the size of the farms and all that and what that meant to be rural what the sizes of the lots would be and they decided they'd have it just be rural whatever size was in the current zoning it's currently and it's located and the state land uses a mix of rural and ag and it's located next to the project district the stables em this is one item that i don't believe that the planning committee has thoroughly reviewed it was in the beginning in the process we proposed removing the open space layer that was over the state land use conservation lands because the county does not have jurisdiction in state land use conservation and it was a little bit difficult to see where those lands were i want to point out on this map you see there is rural along the coast and urban areas and then also some ag lands a little bit of rural and here that was retained by the sea to be an open space but all the yellow that's in conservation that was in the one nine hundred ninety eight plan in this image shown in in open space a lot of it was removed so that all of the state land use district of conservation is visible and but then some open space was retained along the coast and down here at the bottom you see these little patches of green that was to add extra protection along the coastline of open space over some world as some rural state land use districts the lower was the area that's on the eastern coast so you can see here in the of this was the only one that there's a difference between the different committees reviewing it so the sea power and planning commission want proposing twenty acres of a hotel and a rural development two hundred fifty acres and this was an area where they did prohibit the use of rural would normally allow less than five acres and they said they only wanted five acres or larger because they didn't want to have that many lots within this acreage and they also wanted to have a permanent conservation buffer around this area that's about a thousand feet and with  it to not have any expansion in the future the current proposal in two thousand and sixteen shows that this was not accepted by the planning committee so it is restored to how it was in the one nine hundred ninety eight plan the airport areas you see here in the center and below the city had three areas of the airport expansion and some industrial at mckee basin where there's some currently some existing industrial here you'll see up here at the top in a moment they're going to disappear because the committees agreed to consolidated in mickey basin where they put and and also swung by the airport so you'll see that industrial is a hundred acres of light industrial and heavy industrial and this is where they're consolidating the industrial area and then the slight expansions of the airport area to have some diversity in residential opportunities as this site was considered advantageous because it's a long minelli road and so you have and you're also close to some of the in proposal is to have mixed use and here the sea pack had single family and some commercial in this area but through the planning commission process it moved into a mixed use and then there's the rural seventy eight air seventy eight acres in the lower parcel is down at the harbor area over here on  west coast and and you can see the harbor there and if you look along the roadway you'll see some quarry areas that are currently one of them's active  and you'll see the change in land use this is the proposed area and it's state land use rural urban conservation and the zoning has down there the harbor some an industrial plus or some rural and there's a there are some residents in that area as well the ninety eight c p a expanded the heavy industrial quite a bit into this o the rural area was covered with open space land use designation for this two thousand and sixteen proposal and again your heavy industrial primarily went to the mickey basin area with a little bit of that this is about ten acres here to connect with harbor area and have the advantage of maybe some fish processing and things that are harbor related for me the sticking point is what all the testimony is from one that you write no it's that one sentence if they keep bringing up and so i was trying to see if what you're presenting here it has to do with that how is this sentence is unless specifically prohibited the use is permitted by zoning and standards and so on that since we all know what it is we can practically say it by memory so maybe within show the different areas that there was setting questions in this matrix rather than going through the individual makes the language that is that the community would like to address i believe will can answer much better than and then i can because or my copper because it's more of a legal question or and they have the scotts whether that being removed in this in this committee in the past so this was just trying to address what was asked for by chairman mike white at the council meeting to make sure that everyone understood what was the different areas and how the different committees what recommendations they had and the only one that has there's only one difference between the different reviewing bodies maybe i can help because i had a question as well one of the questions was or one of the comments and testimony was that back in the planning commission we're told that they can specifically prohibit is that that's one of the questions that is a big yes and we discussed that at the march twelfth meeting on illinois and that about  prohibition you know whether there were the opportunity to do that and and they did have an opportunity many meetings we brought there was about eight meetings that we discussed the land use specifically from starting in april workshops that were about land use all the way through september and back the focus of many of the medians was on land use and at those meetings we brought a variety of  understand the different layers from state land use to sony md to land use designations and how they were originally table nine point two was developed was to explain those differences and it was just a tool for the committee to use and so they they had an opportunity and over in the third resort area they did exercise you know like what they didn't want to see for most of in chapter nine for future land use that section of future land use they expressed it more in a positive sense of what they would like to see and by defining that such as the rural area that they did buy the coyly stables they said they would like to have farming specifically even though farming is allowed in rural they wanted to call that out so they had the opportunity to either add more emphasis on what they'd like to see as well as over in the third resort area the opportunity to say what they did not want such as future current state land use the county and what's in vision or courage whatever word we want to use here in the upcoming plan where is the match or mismatch or what that any of the members have any concerns or questions with ok by the the lack of anybody coming you know grabbing their microphone let's go to  the a moment some reforms members the item let's see when when council had to help the public airing in a special council meeting for the lanai community plan we heard from the community that they wanted to revise chapter nine page nine dash three of the proposed plan to remove certain language if you look on page ninety three it is the last sentence of the second paragraph and states and first of all let me see if you guys have  up ready ready ok and the the language states unless specifically prohibited the use is permitted the uses permitted by zoning and the standards apply couple to the typical zoning district applied to the corresponding community plan designations and k the identical sentences in appendix appendix nine point two of the plan on page fourteen is the second sentence in the first paragraph on page fourteen there we see that unless specifically prohibited language from page nine dash three and a fourteen of the plan so we are both in agreement on making that change in addition council member who comest proposal asked to delete the first full sentence of the second paragraph on page a fourteen this sentence reads that our properties community plan does the nation in zoning correspondent as listed in the table below the community plan land used as a nation does not limit any a staff any use established by the particular property zoning unless the community plan specifically prohibits or restricts it particularly use its council member of a comma and i are in agreement as to the deletion of the unless specifically prohibited language i think i want to take up county communication with the planning committee meeting on tuesday may twenty fourth please come back to order all right members i think everybody's got everything we have some issues with minders so we're we're good to go at this moment if everybody can look at the amendment that i proposed at the council meeting it's an amendment summary form and it has the amendment it has the language that on page nine daschle to be taken out it's in man's or format and then it has the new table it's exactly the same as the language is exactly the same as mr hall commas except for there's a sentence and will if we accept mine and then we'll go to mr hall commas and do the language of the sentence the language in page fourteen and mine and mr whole commas is mr okama has another sentence removed and we'll get to that if mine goes in currently the language exists in the in the in the version that we have before us the language exists in the motions are to remove some of the language that makes sense some  last sentence of the second paragraph and states unless specifically prohibited the use is permitted by zoning and standards of political to the typical zoning district applied to the corresponding community plan designations that identical sentence in appendix nine dash two on page a fourteen is this it's the second sentence in the first paragraph on page eight is a short game that language is i also asked to remove so that's you need emotion shared well i'm just as everybody's got that clip in the chair when are ten demotion to delete the language from page nine dash three of the bill unless the specifically prohibited the use is permitted by zoning and the standards  ok so it's moved by mr carroll and seconded by mr victor reno ok members if you note the table as well it's in landscape form now and there's an extra column added state land use districts that was put in at by request of mr gamma and chair y at a at a meeting on march twel believe that meeting over on the night so i asked i told mr game and i believe that was in public record actually that he wanted that put in so we added that column everything else is the same as the old nine dash two that we have passed out ok department you've heard the motion in the second you have any comments law you know to mean that provide some clarity that when you know provide clarity when you go for conditions of zoning and in those kinds of things ok the table in adding the state land use districts this table is not entirely accurate when you get to if you turned to page a seventeen and you look at open space to me open spaces not just in urban use it could be were all it could be ag we don't really have any authority over conservation but it could be under those park the same thing you can have parks in the urban rural or agricultural districts park golf course we we have some called courses that are in the a district that are left over before it was prohibited we have non conforming golf courses in other words i haven't thought about the project district that's pretty much urban i suppose you could have project districts i don't know why you couldn't or agriculture public cause the public we have quite a number of public wired quasi public use is designated in our community plans  that are in the ag district we have a gosh quite a number of churches schools those kinds of things like landfills the corey that you saw on  the presentation earlier today of course but i think those are easy fixes i can i'm happy to work with them with your staff and just clarify that i don't think that's a substantive change i just don't want to go adopt a plan and all of a sudden duck if we can't do the quarry that the island needs because this table says urban only that's my concern that that's pretty legitimate concern so you're saying essentially anywhere it says public cause a public it could be in state land use district urban or rural or ag probably i mean the designation can be in agriculture or urban i think we can apply public order public in the rural district i think to me it's not a well i mean if you're talking about making substantive changes you're that's normally when you're going from making changes its second reading i mean if you write if you want to have the planning department before at first reading have a table revised u p to the chair of the council at that time i suppose and consider replacing that the table at that time with the table that the director comes up with that's not something that could happen if you if you would like if you would like to wait for that table that's fine too substantive changes issue comes in generally when you're at second reading and want to make a change that's why when we recently had the short term home issue when a substantive amendment was made that had to be posted in  action deferred for the next meeting in that case but only yeah you could you could make an amendment like that now it's up to the chair the chair may say no subs might change we want to go back to committee so that's up to the chair but i think your rules allow changes at first reading just not necessarily in that second reading and maybe stuff can correct me if from if i'm wrong if that's the intention ok members mr spence brought up a couple of questions as far as the state land use districts column some of these can be and both in several of the state land use districts and he just wants a list which is of allowable i'm fine with the department coming up with the alternative to that column at first reading as long as it gets to learn i with plenty of time you know for them to take a look at it and it gets to the posted on the our website i don't want to i don't want it coming in being introduced to the public on the day of the council meeting i would need it prior to posting of the council this to the council can i get that from you guys mr spence or mr chair the other option would be to delete the the state reference table is well understood but that was a request of the folks on line i e members of the c pac so i'm willing to leave again for right now and that's why we put it in there at their request and you know mr chairman i i understand the desire to have that  on the one hand i want to be correct because we do have quite a number of like i said we have quite a number of these designations throughout our community plans and all the different districts understood so if that's the case i would like to see a table replacement table prior to the posting ok ok and you can have those designations in all the different districts i'm not sure you could have all those zoning laws and all the district or public i don't know if we've ever owned anything public by the public in the ag district but we certainly allow special uses for them and right scraps of things so well and if you decide that you think that the table needs to be removed then that's something we can discuss and again then i community has to be able to weigh in on that so if you think i'll get you something if you think that it's too convoluted to put everything in there and will mess things up potentially the other option is to remove the table as mr hopper said but i believe that call him that kong yes i'm sorry i really need to proposals here with a you know overall glance and on your appendix nine point two versus mr commas one point two he has a different opening statement there just below the title so this is very different from what you're submitting and i believe in the second paragraph or sentence people issue with that but yet you are looking to keep it commas proposal is is that actually what you're saying you want to do so i'm wondering why we're doing this do yours and then go to mr commas and when it looks like all of his stuff is what this one ok mr carroll you willing to withdraw that motion overlooked with robin hood thank you so now world understand what the heck we doing don't get we don't like we know what we are doing and then we're going to you just restart of commerce verge yes yes all right thank you very much thank you specifically prohibited the use is permitted by zoning and standards approachable to the typical zoning district applied to the corresponding community plan designations and replace appendix nine dot two in its entirety with a minute version of the been assigned to so ok members so the only difference is i thought there was other differences in the table but there aren't so my apologies is that mr  the language that says if a property is community planned when used as a nation in zoning correspond as listed in the table below the community planned restricts a particular use that's what is removed from mr charlie just question the purpose of the amendment that the language states what is currently the law and the practice with respect to the designations would want to know what's the purpose of of deleting a language at this point the folks on law and i and their concern was that they weren't given the option opportunity to specifically which were that that was their testimony and that's why the discussions around the table was to indicate that if a zoning district matches the community plan designation agriculture agriculture residential single family and so on that the use is allowed  are considered a lot in the community plan district if the intent is to say that's no longer the case which would change the current practice i think that's something the committee should consider if the intent is to simply delete this language because the belief is that's the current practice that is what is already basically that's the practice of the department in what is already allowed by law and that restating it in this plan other than listing the fact that related incompatible uses can be allowed is is redundant then i think i could see that as a change but i would i would want the counsel to understand how the the designation is would would function if if the district matched the the land use designation and if the intent is to say no the not all of the uses in that district in the zoning district are allowed in a corresponding community plan district then that should be a position that's considered in discussed i think by the by the council to determine what effect that might have in if deleting this language is simply to say it's redundant the table already says that you can do related incompatible uses as has been the practice for i think over forty years than that i don't see that as as much of a change but i just wanted the council to understand that that would be a potential do to see what the council's intent is along those lines if there's alternative language we can look at that as well but as has been discussed before in the language essentially states which is already there going on in the county as far as as land use practice and how the community plan does it nation relates to the property zoning again if it matches the actual zoning as listed on the table ok that would be the question though so council i'm hearing that you're saying that if a property is community planned then used as a nation zoning correspond as listed in the table below the community plan line used as a nation does not limit any use established by the property zoning in the most the community plan specifically prohibits or restricts a particular use you're saying that that is a common that's what we're how we've been practicing it since zoning started and that you feel that that sentence is necessary to be on this table i'm not saying it's necessary i wanted to get the council's intention into leading it is it to change that that practice and if so i think there need to be more changes so actually this says that if you're if you're a single family community plan designation and you've got residential zoning you can do your other residential uses in in that that community plan designation even though in the uses in vision section it doesn't specifically list green houses parks and playgrounds and cetera oh ok i see what you're saying that's the  purpose and the table does say related incompatible uses which you which you could interpret as saying that allows things like parks or other things that the zoning would allow in that district so i just want to clarify that that's the council's understanding of of with the of how the the designations would relate to the zoning before deleting the language or if there's alternative language that can be dealt with to to deal with that to state that issue  because i wanted to as i have stated in the past with this issue that's a that's a that's an issue that has come up and should be addressed in it at least the department and the council should understand how that's going to work after the plan is adopted in k members it's my understanding and i'm sure i think the policy so far has been  i mean i have letters from several planning directors and they're saying yeah this is the way we've done it for since the beginning of zoning is that essentially if it says for instance single family if you take a look on page a dash nineteen that the intended zoning for our one our two our three r s zero duplex district and service business residential district and urban reserve district  all those uses are allowed and the reason i stuck in unless it's specifically prohibits or restricts a particular use is to to allow for a community plan advisory committee to say we don't want to do that in this area like they did in an area that we actually removed but they also i believe the film studio they said pretty much this is what can only be here is a film studio that's restricting the rest of the uses in my opinion that the correct and mr chairman when if polemic comes in for zoning on that property in dysart boundary amendment cetera we're going to look at that language and we're going to say  it's going to be used as related to film production sound stages those kinds of things we're not going to allow mcdonald's and you know kmart and all the other things that instances as well that is correct and another example is in the mixed use residential excludes light and heavy industrial because there is some light industrial that's nearby  that city extension and they want to make sure that none of that would be within that area ok all right so members you've heard corporation councils concern and some of the instructions and actual actions that were done by the sea packers and the land planning committee could planning commission sorry  i'd like to hear your thoughts on this if a property is community plan land used as a nation's only corresponded as listed in the table below any thoughts on that members  we intend it so that in single family you're allowed all the uses in our one are two or three r s zero two duplex service business residential and urban reserve district unless as they have done in and several different places they said no you can't do that there or you can only do this here which is in the film studio i think as they said you can only do that same with the tennis academy i believe as this sorry real quick this paragraph that's left in the midst of all commas amendment is leading all towards the community plan and you know and what are who want to call it and which is vetted through community and everybody so that to me this is what's kind of driving it to become more what the people in vision their districts to be like right in ten years  i mean that's the way i'm kind of interpreting this part right in relation to this table ok and the other members any other questions comments that mr lister hopper my intent was just to read the language think about why why it's a problem i think that some of the testimony was just hadn't been it hasn't been explained and the effects are on certain things along those lines but to to look at the language why is it objectional objectionable why it's been deleted and  general description that we currently have in the plans and some additional phrasing saying things like and related incompatible uses which i believe was intended to allow for the other uses that are other than for example and not a cultural district it says envisions agricultural uses and related incompatible uses well you can do other uses in the agricultural district as are permitted uses that aren't just strictly agricultural uses form growlings for example that's a related incompatible hughson and i think that's the intent of that make make sure that if there's any unintended consequences or if this is something that simply looked at is redundant and in deleting it the intent is not to limit the other uses in the zoning that are allowed that are listed in the zoning districts that match the community plan districts that that's essentially the concern that would be raised with deletion of this of the language ok interpretation that we've been using all along and that's what here i'm on about how these categories are never brought or whatever and if there's a use they need to play it could include many things like ok as you can see it's not very clear it never is and so we're trying to make it so that you know if if  i know right now and certainly in single family homes if there's a partner if there's a church in a single family home district or a nursery or an ohana that that they're not non conforming and that's what this language will do or in agriculture if we change process if we change the zoning in agriculture that this is before i think it's coming back to this committee the whole composting alone ok that would be allowed because that's what's allowed in the zoning in agriculture district now does that create a conflict in this is a good question for mr hopper say we pass this as is and then further on down the line we as a council member or the next council says ok in agricultural district we want to allow composting now but that wasn't an allowed zone of the earl out use in the zoning district at that time the community plan was made now is that is that against going against the community plan c that's the best where you have the catch twenty two in mr chair that's why the the language i think was intended to apply only to if you have a corresponding district and then it's going to say the use is in the zoning are allowed in the community plan district and so that would mean if your use if the zoning dish was amended to use that would be considered allowed in the community plan district and less there was a policy in the plan or something in the plan that said no composting in the agricultural district or or this table said except for composting use or something like that like that if that was used that wouldn't want to be allowed in that in that area i think with the with the language essentially says is that if your zoning in your community plan designation correspond then you can do the community plan allows any of the uses in the zoning district that corresponds to it otherwise there's no there's th at's all it applies to is corresponding districts that's an objectionable statement for the council then then i think the question would be why is that objectionable and what is the solution to it because it is currently the practice and currently with with the law is with respect to districts that are that match if you're in the agricultural district and in the planning director can correct me if i'm wrong if you if you're in an agricultural community plan designated district in agricultural zoning you can do the uses in that zoning in the community plan district that's going to agricultural district and so that's that was the intent because what you have in the current community plan is a one sentence description of what's allowed in the agricultural district in general and it's probably not going to be able to list every single use that can possibly be allowed right so can someone come in and say later this this wasn't specifically listed you can't do it even though it's in the agricultural zoning and so so the answer currently would be you can do it if it's in that in that zoning district and the community plan corresponds to that district and this was to to clarify that i think was the intent of of this language and if it's deleted that doesn't necessarily change the practice but i think the question is was that the counsel's intent in deleting the language was to to change that how that works and now the table itself as some of the testimony reflected does does add to the term related incompatible uses at the end of the one sentence descriptions so that does indicate that the intention is to allow additional uses which is probably a more clear reflection of what's allowed it also says in light industrial also may include business commercial operations so that's another specific use that's actually listed in there so so those are some differences between with the what generally the current descriptions are and w this table is but i don't think that it actually changes would has been allowed in those districts so i think that's important to note that just for the council to consider why that language is being deleted and what's objectionable about it there are ultimately that is the decision by council when you adopt zoning that's correct that's one thing that where we're missing in this whole thing the whole discussion is when we do  change in zoning we have to make sure that it complies with the community plan generally the staff does that and planning double checks to make sure and they say in their report that yes it is compatible zoning we would work with the applicant and say ok these are the things that line up with the community plan these are the things that don't line up with the community plan so it would be conditional zoning we make that recommendation to the planning commission they make a recommendation to you and ultimately the council is the one adopts the zoning with the restrictions on it in accordance with the community plan kid with the second thing is when we look at zoning district we look at the are one or two or three zoning district that's where we determine what are compatible uses we have a whole list of permitted uses with including parks greenhouses those kinds of things special uses which are considered compatible with a little bit of additional review by the planning commission and we have a whole list of accessory uses where you have to have a principal use first and then you have something that's accessory to those because those zoning districts are adopted by council it's still the council that determines what the compatible uses are there was a long way around saying you guys are in charge of the zoning district and you adopt owning by or so you do you make that determination and you would look at your community plans when you when you the language that's being deleted is i think simpler it says it says if you correspond in the table below the use is allowed by the zoning are the use is allowed in the community plan district so it's saying you look at  zoning if you're an agricultural community plan designation you can do the use is allowed in agricultural zoning and so that's where you go to find your related incompatible uses i think that that adds is an attempt to add some some clarity there perhaps so that senses that we're trying to remove actually adds clarity i think so in my opinion it would add at clarity it it it i mean if if it's unclear then it can be revised but i think the  the purpose of that was to say it was that if you're in the because right now you you open your community plan and it is for the single family it would say i think something like houses are allowed  single family in your own residential then the residential uses are allowed in your single family district i think that was the part of the intent this is another word the sentence is the goal the sentence represents what you're trying  by making a community plan does ignition and then following up by zoning with all the uses per minute listed here what i'm hearing yes is that there are people in the community that don't mind that they don't want that to necessarily be the case because they want to put some restrictions and that is that what i'm hearing or feeling i know that that could be that i would i would think that's an accurate statement and that's a situation where this council has to say whether or not that's what we want go back i think that's the building of contains yes and in fact in pat past practices and prior to almost anyone on this council i believe certainly before maybe not mr carroll mr okama but there have been instances where piece of land has been zone the community plan says one thing and the plan department made recommendations said you should limit this this and this and the council did not take those recommendations they've done that before and i you know i don't know that we haven't taken the recommendations but ultimately the council made the decision and that's what they felt was going to be allowed there now there are other people who say that's not the way it is it's supposed to work and that's the way it has been working for the last fifty years so the question is do we as a council want to continue the way we have been the way it's been done for the last fifty years or do we want to set a policy that we need to change that and if we do change that clear with the intent of removing the statement is if if if there's an intent to make the community plan more restrictive than the zoning then that's going to have to be something that's that's discussed i don't think that's the intent here at all i don't i don't think anybody in this in this body intends that unless somebody wants to speak up and say that i don't think that's the intention here at all mr spence comment mr  the contention with the with the folks on when i lease the i don't want to candy crush them but what i hear through the testimony is they have a hard time with this unless strictly prohibited whatever that language was so emotional bend to remove that he didn't say anything about all the rest of perhaps we can get rid of the one part and just leave the rest   proposals so members miss cochran actually that's not what i'm hearing from the people this be like mr hall camas explaining i mean for as far as i can grasp what that one senses is trying to be too and explain and do i like the way this place looks after fifty years no you don't like the process so if that's going to change you make things different then let's try it out i mean we all make amendments all day long for different things i mean god forbid something you know catastrophic happens because this one sentence isn't there hey we can always revisit it reworded ever so that's just my take understood the other comments you plan land use designation i think it is this committee's that's what the committee wants even if we take out that language that's what this committee wants is there any concern any comment on that ok so you have that on the record mr hopper yes i do think though with that language being deleted it makes it less clear but it's  it's that's my comment ok yeah we've done a few things that we've put on the record and in case anybody needs to go back to the minutes we've done that before so i think this is a good compromise at this point any any other comments so the motion before us is to essentially take out the language if a property is community plan land used as nations on correspondence listing in table below the community plan and then used as a nation does not limit any use established by the property zoning unless the community plan specifically prohibits or restricts it particular white not only one ok there's six of us here all right so members that's the only item that we've had that we had concern about any kind of comments from either mr okama or me so if there's no further discussion on the whole community plan the chair will entertain incorporating as exhibit one the document in title of the ny community plan two thousand and sixteen transmitted by correspondence dated april eighteenth two thousand sixteen from the county clerk along with any revisions made by the committee at today's meeting and any non substantive revisions we pass on first reading in order to print and the filing of miscellaneous communication dated april eighteenth two thousand and sixteen seconds to ok has been moved by member victory no to recommend the passage of the revised proposed bill on first reading of filing of the miscellaneous communication any further discussion i just want to say thank you for talking this through and letting everybody know what our intentions are and and how this works and what kind of a mishmash that planning really is and very difficult situation so thank you thank you to the members of the public thank you to the staff so any further comments all those in favor please say i oppose but the records show that there are six eyes zero nose and one excuse member white chair white the motion passes thank you members let's see if this works again on the next reading we will get that out on the first next first reading we'll get that out as quickly as possible and get it to the lanai community i think everybody's happy with what we've got with that members thank you so much for the hard work and we will adjourn this meeting this meeting