Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-27-14 minutsKA.UA'I PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 27, 2014 . The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kaua' i was called to order by Chair Kimura at 9:09 a.m., at the Lshu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting room 2A- 2B. The following Commissioners were present: Mr. Sean Mahoney Mr. Wayne Katayama Ms. Angela Anderson Mr. John Isobe Mr. Jan Kimura Absent and Excused: Mr. Hartwell Blake Ms. Any Mendonca The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Michael Dahilig, Leslie Takasaki, Ka'aina Hull, Kenneth Estes, Marisa Valenciano; Office of Boards and Commissions — Cherisse Zaima; Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Chair Kimura called the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m. ROLL CALL Planning Director Michael Dahilig noted that there were five Commissioners present. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mr. Dahilig requested that Item. H. Executive Session be moved to immediately follow Item G. Consent Calendar. On the motion by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve the agenda as amended, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Page 1 of 13 MINUTES of the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission Meeting of f Mgy 13, 2014 On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to approve the minutes of the May 13, 2014 meeting, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. RECEIPT OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Sean Mahoney to receive the items for the record, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT Continued Agency Hearing There was no continued agency hearing. New Agency Hearing Class 1V Zoning Permit Z -N- 2014 -12, Use Permit U- 2014 -11 and Variance Permit V- 2014-3 to allow installation and height variance for a 100 ft. High stealth monopine tower and associated equipment on a parcel situated in Lihu`e, immediately west of the Kauai Humane Society facility and along the mauka side of Kaumuali`i High a further identified as Tax Ma Key 3-4 -005: 018, affecting a 2,500 sq. td. portion of a lamer parcel approx. 25.42 acres in size = Verizon Wireless [Director's Report received 5/13/14.1 On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Wayne Katayama to close agency bearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Continued Public Hearing Zoning Amendment ZA- 201.4 -6, Amendments to Chapter 8 of the Kauai County_ Code 1987, as amended, relating to the incorporation of non -zoned lands into the County„ of Kauai Agriculture Zoning District. These amendments identif lands not currently zoned by the County of Kauai and re- designate them within the Agriculture Zoning District = County of Kauai. [Hearing continued 3/25/14.1 On the motion by Sean Mahoney and seconded by Angela Anderson to close public hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Page 2 of 13 New Public Hearing Zoning Amendment ZA- 2014 -7. Amendments to Chapter 8 of the Kauai County Code 1987, as amended relating to Article 17 — Nonconforming Use Certificates for Single Family Vacation Rentals. This amendment proposes to increase annual renewal fees from five hundred dollars ($500.00) to seven - hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) which shall be deposited into the County General Fund = County ofKaua `i. On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Sean Mahoney to close public hearing, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. New Public Hearing There was no new public hearing. All public testimony pursuant to HRS 92 The Commission received testimony from Mr. Manini, representing the Kanaka Hui. He stated that an attorney has already gone to Congress and filed a claim on all these lands, which was posted in the Garden Island (newspaper) on February 21, 2013. He challenged the County to try and claim these lands through the Fifth Circuit Court, noting that it is not an issue for that court as these are international lands that sit on international waters. He added that the County has no right to claim these lands, and if they decide to sue, they will sue individuals as well. Mr. Manini referenced the shaded areas of the map provided, stating those lands the County holds are all fee simple, which he feels is immigration law. He stated neither the people nor the County own anything. Mr. Manini stated that he worked for the Robinson family for 45 years, and that they along with the Knudsen family were the ones who started the County back before many of the Commissioners were even born. He cautioned them to be careful what they say. Mr. Kimura stated the County is not trying to claim the land, they are just trying to zone lands that are not currently zoned. Mr. Manini replied that when.the County rezones something, they try to claim it as theirs and then begin to tax it. He feels the County does not have the right to tax any of the lands as they have no way of knowing which are Kanaka Hui lands, and which are Hawaiian Kingdom lands. Mr. Manini feels that some of the tax money collected on these lands belongs to them. Mr. Maninni stated they never complained before because the Hawaiians were challenging the State, and they had to wait 20 years for the Hawaiians to stop contesting. The Hawaiians.have nothing to contest because the Hawaiians do not own anything, which was proved by the State. Mr. Jung explained that the County is not trying to claim the land, but are placing different zoning on those lands, which would then place different sets of rules for those lands. Mr. Manini replied the Kanaka Hui does not want the County to make rules on their lands. They do not need the County to zone their lands and make rules. He reiterated that they are'not Hawaiian lands, noting what the County and the State claimed were Hawaiian lands; these lands Page 3 of 13 are not Hawaiian lands. Mr. Jung stated. the ultimate decision maker on this issue is the County Council, but it is the Planning Commission must look at whether it is good policy to make non - zoned lands Agriculture. Mr. Mann' insisted it is not State land, and the State still needs to prove it is their land; the United States, the State, and the County have no jurisdiction on international lands, and international waters. He pointed out these are international lands on international waters, part of the Polynesian triangle, and stated that the County should not try to change anything because they will not be able to. Mr. Jung stated that is an argument that can be raised in the courts to which Mr. Manini replied they have a deed that is ready to go to court. He cautioned. the Commission to watch what they are doing as the Kanaka Hui is watching them very carefully as both a body and as individuals. Mr. Jung pointed out that Mr. Manini's statements are for a different discussion, and right now the discussion should be on the zoning issue alone. He explained to Mr. Manini that this will ultimately go to County Council, so testimony can be given there. Mr. Kimura stated he would be allowing Mr. Manini an additional two minutes to provide testimony to which Mr. Manini stated he is answering to a letter sent to him by the Planning Department. He expressed his frustration with the limited time being offered to him, and stated. that the Kanaka Hui does not accept what is being presented. Mr. Kimura thanked Mr. Manini for his testimony. Mr. Jung stated that Mr. Manini's opposition to this proposal will be documented for the County Council. CONSENT CALENDAR Status Reports There were no status reports. Director's Report (s) for Project(s) Scheduled for Agency Hearing on 5/27/14 Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2014 -13 and Use Permit U- 2014 -12 to allow establishment of a group child care center facility on parcels located along the mauka side of Oka Road in Kilauea Town situated approx. 150 ft. north of the Oka. Road /Moroi Street intersection further identified as Tax Map Keys 4 5 -2 -014: 021 & 5 -2 -015: 079 and containing a total area of approx. 18,469 sq. ft. = Patricia & Gabriel Padilla. Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2014 -14 and Use Permit U- 2014 -13 to convert existing residence into a commercial operation for shipping, printing and storage services. on a parcel located along the makai side of Kuhio Highway in Kapa`a Town situated Uprox 100 ft north of the Panihi Road /Kuhio Highwgy Highway intersection further identified as Tax Ma Key 4 4 -5 -003: 01.6, and containing a total area of approx. 11,250 sq. ft. = John & Catherine Gillen. Page 4 of 13 Class TV Zoning Permit Z- IV- 2014 -15 and Use Permit U- 2014 -14 for a development containing a mixture of commercial use and multi - family residential units. on a parcel located along the western side of Po`ipu Road in Koloa, situated )ust north of the Koloa Estates Residential Subdivision and approx. 850 ft. from its intersection with Lopaka Paipa. Boulevard_ further identified as Tax Map Key (4) 2 -6 -004: 032, and containing a total area of approx. 63,815 sq. ft. = Gwendolyn A. Mocksing, et al. Shoreline Setback Activity Determination Shoreline Setback Commission Review SSCR- 2014 -25 and Shoreline Setback Determination SSD- 2014 -62 for a shoreline activity determination, Tax Map Key 5 -3 -012: 01.1 Princeville, Kauai, for acceptance by the Commission = Tatyana Khein, .Applicant. Mr. Katayama referenced Item G.2.a regarding the compatibility of the surrounding area, " and asked what is the closest agricultural zoned land identified to this child care center. Mr. Jung stated these are items that will be up for hearing at the next meeting at which time specific questions can be raised. Mr. Katayama replied he feels the application should be amended to be more specific. On the motion by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Sean Mahoney to accept the Consent Calendar, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Sections 92 -4, 92- 5(a)(4) and (8), and Kauai County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County Attorneyre,_quests an executive session with the Planning Commission to provide a briefing _regarding _legal issues related to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and federal preemption. This briefing and consultation involves the consideration of the powers, duties privileges, immunities and /or liabilities of the Planning Commission and the County as they related to this agenda item. On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Wayne Katayama to enter into executive session, the motion carried by .unanimous voice vote. (The meeting resumed in executive session at 9:37 a.m.) (The meeting reconvened in regular session at 10:27 a.m.) GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS Page S of 13 I Appointment of alternate member to the Subdivision Committee Mr. Dahilig explained due to recent personal matters, they have been unable to maintain quorum for the Subdivision Committee, and recommends an alternate member be appointed to achieve quorum in the event of an absence of another member. On the motion by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Angela Anderson to appoint Jan Kimura as alternate member of the Subdivision Committee, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Petition to Appeal the Decision of the Planning Director by Jonathan J. Chun,.,_)Jsa., representing William and Mw at et Hosmer concerning the non- issuance of Transient Vacation Rental Certificate TVNC -4120 (TMK No. 49004008) filed on 4/15/14 Contested Case No. CC- 2014-2) Mr. Dahilig stated the clerk of the Commission would recommend the matter be referred to a hearings officer. Mr. Katayama asked what is the issue being appealed to which Mr. Dahilig replied the applicant was denied a TVNC. Mike Laureta, Planner explained this TVR application was submitted three months after the implementing ordinance expired. The intake personnel at that tinie were instructed to receive everything, and put it aside; no action was taken on the application because there was no ordinance to guide it as it had sunset. The applicant is appealing the fact that the TVR certificate was not issued, and that the Planning Department should have processed the application when the subsequent Ordinance 904 was implemented. However, that was not the way things were done. After the fact applications either went dead, or were resubmitted when 904 carne into effect. An after -the -fact application does not carry forward and must be re- applied for. Mr. Katayama asked if there had been other applications that had fallen into a similar situation to which Mr. Laureta replied no, all the applications dealt with to date were re- applied for. On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Sean Mahoney to refer the contested case to a bearings officer, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Petition. to Appeal the Decision of the Planning Director by Ed Bert Dor Concenim Illegal Transient Vacation Rental (TMK No. 55010032) filed on 9/11/13 (Contested Case No. CC- 2013 -75) Mr. Kimura asked why this TVR is considered illegal to which Mr. Laureta replied this case is a pure, illegal TVR operation that never applied for the certificate. Inspectors went out based on a complaint, and the owner acknowledged and admitted he was running the operation, Page 6 of 13 was served a cease and desist, which they appealed. There have been several requests for deferrals as they try to come up with an alternative method to address the use. It has been determined that because there is no TVR ordinance in effect, a TVR certificate cannot be issued. The only option is a homestay, or bed and breakfast application. However, that will not be addressed until the issue with the illegal TVR is resolved. On the motion by Angela Anderson and seconded by Sean Mahoney to refer the contested case to a hearings officer, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. COMMUNICATION (For Action) There were no communications. COMMITTEE REPORTS Subdivision No subdivision meeting was held. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action) There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS Class IV Zoning Permit Z -IV- 2014 -12, Use Permit U- 2014 -11 and Variance Permit V- 2014-3 to allow installation and heidt variance for a 100 ft. highh stealth monopine tower and associated equipment on a parcel situated in Llhu`e, immediately west of the Kauai Humane Socie facifi and along the mauka side ofKaumuali`i Hi>hwa further identified as Tax Ma Key 3 -4 -005: 018, affecting a 2.500 sq. ft. portion of a larger parcel approx. 25.42 acres in size = Verizon Wireless iDirector's Report received 5/13/14.1 Staff Planner Ka'aina Hull provided some background on the application. He noted that prior approval had already been given; however, an 18 -month time limit was placed on that approval, which has now lapsed and nullifies that approval. According to the applicant the reason for the time delay was due to environmental studies to meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife standards for endangered species in and around. the area. When it was originally approved, staff did not anticipate this requirement. Mr. Kimura asked how long after the permit was issued did the applicant begin the study to which Mr. Hull replied he is unsure. Page 7 of 13 Alisa Haynes, representing Verizon Wireless was present. She stated the environmental study was obtained soon after the approval, and did take well over the 18 months to complete. It was found that some species identified were on the endangered list, and they have agreed to do financial restitution and mitigation actions as a result of the influence the project may have on Hawaiian seabirds. It was not a huge impact, but was of concern. Mr. Katayama asked what is meant in the last sentence of Paragraph 7 on general descriptions of environmental conditions where it references financial restitution and actions. Ms. Haynes replied funds will be placed back into wildlife services for further protection of the seabirds; it is a condition required by U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Katayama asked if that was the only environmental impact that was found to which Ms. Haynes replied yes. Ms. Anderson asked why that was not included under the Flora and Fauna section of the report to which Ms. Haynes replied she is unsure as she did not prepare the initial application packet. However, it is under the general description of the environmental consideration. Ms. Anderson stated for clarity that the Flora and Fauna section contains a statement that says flora and fauna should not be affected, and would. like to distinguish that there has been a noted effect to the endangered species. Mr. Kimura asked for the previous height of the antennae that was located on that site before to which Ms. Haynes replied she does not have the history on that, and does not know. Mr. Hull stated the current project is not located at the same specific site. Mr. Kimura asked if the location is in Princeville to which Mr. Hull replied no, it is near the Kauai Humane Society. Mr. Kimura asked what the normal height requirement would be to which Mr. Hull replied the agricultural district generally has a height limit of 50 feet; however, utility facility installations are allowed to go up an additional 20 feet of a respective zoning district's height requirement; that would bring the agriculture district to 70 feet for utility installation. The original application requested 120 feet, but at the Department's recommendation the Commission restricted it to 100 feet, and a variance was required. Mr. Kimura asked why 100 feet is being asked for to which Ms. Haynes replied it is necessary for the objective coverage areas along the highway and down into the valley area. The structure is considered a co- Iocatable structure. Mr. Kimura asked if a condition could be included to require the applicant and landowner that if asked to co- locate, they sign a document prior to the permit being issued requiring co- location. Mr. Hull replied under Federal law that telecommunication carriers are required to make their sites available for co- location. Mr. Hull further explained there was an accusation by another carrier that some of the companies secure entitlements and prevent other companies from going up in and around the area, which is the reason for the time restrictions. Mr. Jung asked the Commission to look at Condition 6 which contemplates the possibility for co- location. Mr. Hull added that one of the barriers to co- location was the requirement that any amendment on an existing site required the applicant to come back before the Commission for review and approval. Many carriers saw that as a reason to obtain their own Page 8 of 13 site. Condition 6 eases the burden of having to apply for co- location, and is an over - the - counter permit if it meets the height requirements set by the Commission. Mr. Kimura asked should another carrier wants to co- locate, would the applicant come back for another height variance to which Ms. Haynes replied they would not be coming in for another height variance. In response to Mr. Kimura, Ms. Haynes stated the other carrier could potentially come in for a height variance if they determined the 90 foot height was not adequate for them. However the monopine to be constructed is proposed at that height for additional carriers to be co- located below. Mr. Kimura asked whether she foresees a company wanting to co- locate to which Ms. Haynes replied yes, it happens very often. Mr. Isobe asked to clarify that Mr. Hull stated the Federal government requires co- location to which Mr. Hull replied it does not require co- location, and explained under the Telecommunication Act of the FCC rules, the Federal government prohibits a carrier from denying a co- location request from another carrier, as well as providing reasonable, leasable space. It prevents them from blocking co- location, and ensures that should another carrier requests use of the space, it has to be made available at a reasonable market value. Mr. Katayama referenced Exhibit B map of Kaua`i's current telecommunication facilities sites, and asked if this proposed site is marked on the map. Mr. Hull replied no it is not, and added the map shows only existing sites; there are others that have been permitted that are not constructed yet, and not reflected on the map. Mr. Kimura asked if the dots on the map reflect only the projects that have come before the Commission to which Mr. Hull replied no, they reflect all the sites. Mr. Katayama asked if the applicant has approached any of the existing sites for co- location. Ms. Haynes replied the area was researched for existing locations and coverage opportunities, but none of them were found to be suitable for their needs. Mr. Katayama asked what the limitations were to which Ms. Haynes stated the limitations were height availability and tree lines blocking the RE propagation. Mr. Katayama asked whether a height variance at those sites would accommodate their needs to which Ms. Haynes replied no, the locations were not optimal for the coverage objectives. Mr. Kimura asked for clarification that the tower is 500 feet from the highway to which Ms. Haynes replied yes. Mr. Kimura asked if the pole is visible from the highway to which Ms. Haynes replied it would be briefly visible as you're driving by. However the frontage along the road has thick vegetation that would make it difficult to recognize. Mr. Dahilig stated recommendations have been included in the report for the Commission's review. Those conditions are crafted around the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which determines what a municipal body can and cannot regulate. Though there has been concern expressed by the public, issues relating to the effects of radio frequencies or radio waves on health cannot be regulated by the Commission. Ms. Anderson asked if there are any reporting requirements on the amounts of electro- magnetic radiation that emits from the cell towers. Ms. Haynes replied the antennas comply with Page 9of13 the FCC requirements as far as limiting the radiation factors, but they are. not required to report the amount of radiation emitting from the site as it is already registered when the antennae are produced. Mr. Katayama asked what the Department's position is on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service negotiations on the project's mitigation attempts. Mr. Hull replied the Department does not hold a position, noting they strongly advise the applicant to meet the requirements put forth by U.S. FWS. In response to Mr. Katayama, Mr. Hull explained the language in the report is fairly standard when habitat conservation standards are established, and is more anticipatory. No impact to endangered species has been demonstrated yet because there is no structure at this time. There is a negotiating process the applicant and U.S. FWS goes through to establish the impact to a species; that is outside the purview of the Commission. Mr. Isobe asked if the application is approved, what would the coverage be like. Ms. Haynes stated coverage would be substantially improved along that corridor of the highway and down into the valley. Mr. Isobe asked for more specific description of the corridors being referenced. Ms. Haynes replied she does not have a map for reference but coverage would range along the highway between Puhi and Koloa and the valley area. Mr. Isobe stated his experience has been a lot of dropped calls around that area, and stated for clarification that it would improve the signal strength in that area to which Ms. Haynes replied yes. Mr. Kimura asked where the applicant's existing tower is located to which Mr. Hull replied it is in the vicinity of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Mr. Kimura asked where the next tower is heading north. Mr. Hull replied it is here in Liliu'e near the hospital. Mr. Kimura asked whether there are any existing in the Koloa /Po'ipu area to which Mr. Hull replied he believes there are facilities in Po'ipu, at,the Lawa'i Beach Resort. Mr. Kimura asked to clarify that this is to enable a signal along the highway to which Ms. Haynes replied it is for the highway, and to potentially replace another site that is not providing adequate coverage. Mr. Kimura asked if the coverage is mainly for the public or for emergency services to which Ms. Haynes replied it would provide services for both. Mr. Hull added that there is another site on the Haupu mountain range which has been reportedly problematic. In response to Mr. Kimura, Ms. Haynes stated the coverage is not penetrating down into the levels needed given the location; it's overshooting the coverage and Verizon's equipment will be removed. Ms. Anderson referenced Condition 2, and pointed out the applicant is in negotiations with U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and have admitted on the record that there may be potential effects to the fauna and endangered seabirds. With that, she reminded the applicant that this permit may be changed if it is proven there is adverse impact to the environment. On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Wayne Katayama to approve the Class IV Zoning permit and Use permit, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. (The meeting recessed at 11:07 a.m.) Page 10 of 13 (The meeting resumed at 11:16 a.m.) Zoning Amendment ZA- 2014 -6, Amendments to Chapter 8 of the Kauai County Code 1987, as amended, relating to the incorporation of non -zoned lands into the County of Kauai Agriculture Zoning District. These amendments identify lands not currently zoned by the County of Kauai and re- designate them within the Agriculture Zoning District = County of Kauai. [Hearing continued 3/25/14.1 Staff Planner Kenneth Estes read the additional findings of the Director's report into the record. (On file) Mr. Katayama asked whether the owners have been identified to which Mr. Estes replied yes, a public hearing notice was sent out to all the landowners and to landowners within the 300 foot buffer. Response was received in the form of public testimony from Mr. Manini, but they have not received any formal letters of response. Ms. Anderson stated it was mentioned it was proposed to change open lands to agriculture, and asked for the policy reasons behind that proposal. Mr. Dahilig stated he thinks it stems from past issues with open lands having a greater amount of unit density than agricultural lands. He provided extensive background on that issue. On the motion by John Isobe and seconded by Wayne Katayama to send the Department's recommendations to the County Council for consideration, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. - Zoning Amendment ZA- 2014 -7, Amendments to Chapter 8 of the Kauai County Code 1987 as amended, relating to Article 17 — Nonconforming Use Certificates for Single Family Vacation Rentals. This amendment proposes to increase annual renewal fees from five hundred dollars ($500.00) to seven - hundred fifty dollars {$750.00} which shall be deposited into the County General Fund = County ofKaua`i. Staff Planner Marisa Valenciano stated a copy of the report is enclosed in the packet, and welcomed any questions. Mr. Kimura asked why the increase to $750 and. not $ I.,000. Ms. Valenciano explained the amount was based on the percentage of staff time calculated along with active TVRs, which equated to a gradual increase of $750; that amount was determined to be enough to cover the fees. Mx. Isobe asked to clarify that the motion to adopt means it will be forwarded to County Council for approval to which Mr. Jung replied correct. Mr. Katayama asked if there is an escalation, or does the fee hold until the next amendment to the fees. Mr. Dahilig replied they do not have the ability to project whether Page 11 of 13 collective bargaining increases are going to escalate over time, and that when calculating the fee they just have to show rough nexus as to what the fee is meant to recoup. Mr. Katayama asked if it is the purview of government agencies to be self - funding with whatever activity it undertakes as opposed to a public service. Mr. Dahilig replied that this is one particular program that seemed to meet the criteria that it should be self - sustained based off of the activity proposed. Mr. Katayama clarified. that there are certain duties and responsibilities of the Planning Department, and asked whether those activities need to be self-sustaining. Mr. Dahilig replied that the particular narrow issue of the TVR fees deal with a fixed amount of people that make a lot of revenue off of their entitlement. He feels it is fair that if you have this high - performing entitlement you should bear the cost of what it costs for the Department to regulate it. Mr. Isobe stated it is his understanding that it is the Department's position that the amount of the TVR applications is already fixed, and as that number diminishes over time the relative costs will then increase. His concern is that in this particular instance the Department has decided to increase staffing and enforcement for TVRs, which has driven the cost up, and is now trying to cover those costs via fees. It is also his understanding that the County Council has decided to increase property tax rates on TVRs, and as a consequence, TVRs going forward will now pay a higher fee and higher property tax. As a result, these particular uses are going to be under more pressure to produce even more income. He does not agree that all TVRs are producing at the level that the Department assumes, noting he has been approached by TVR owners with complaints about the costs the government is imposing for this ]rind of operation. Mr. Isobe feels there needs to be a balance as part of Departmental costs should and is being covered by property taxes, which were increase for this particular use, and will be subject to fees by the Planning Department. His concern is that property taxes and fees are going up for this particular use, and the County has chosen to increase the fees for this use by administrative and management decisions that have been made. Mr. Kimura stated he feels just the opposite, and commented that is the price one pays for having a TVR outside of the VDA; making something illegal, legal is a small price. On the motion by Wayne Katayama and seconded by Sean Mahoney to approve and forward the zoning amendment to the County Council, the motion carried by roll call vote: 4 Ayes (Mahoney, Anderson, Isobe with reservations, Kimura); 1 Nay (Katayama) ANNOUNCEMENTS Topics for Future Meetings Mr. Dahilig distributed an updated list on pending applications that will be coming before the Commission. He noted the following two additional items: 1. ADU bill from the County Council 2. Cell Tower Page 12 of 13 Mr. Dahilig noted he will be attending the American Waterworks Association Conference as part of his Water Board duties. Deputy Planning Director Dee Crowell will be handling the next Commission meeting. Mr. Isobe stated the Commission recently adopted a rule change, and asked when a codified final version will be provided. He believes part of the procedures was to start the evaluation process of the Planning Director in a more systematic way, and asked when the Commission will begin that process. Mr. Dahilig replied the County Clerk has filed the rules, and he will follow up to obtain copies of the official rules for all the commissioners. In reference to the evaluation process, he 'will speak with the Office of Boards and Commissions to see where they are with that process. Mr. Isobe stated that he is looking for more specific goals and objectives of the Planning Director in terms of what exactly is being anticipated on a going forward basis. Mr. Dahilig replied he would go back and look at what he needs to deliver, but noted he thinks there was a desire to adopt Chapter 14 first, before any move was made on evaluative items. Mr. Dahilig pointed out that he did provide the Commission with a self. - evaluation along with some goals. Mr. Isobe asked for clarification that the Commission has not yet approved the goals and objectives to which Mr. Dahilig replied he needs to check. Mr. Isobe requested some kind of document to help him understand where they are at this point. W. Dahilig stated he would double check. Mr. Kimura asked that Mr. Manini's testimony be included when the item on non -zoned lands goes to County Council. Mr. Jung replied the meeting minutes do go up to Council. The following scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m., or shortly thereafter at the L3hu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha June 10, 2014. ADJOURNMENT Chair Kimura adjourned the meeting at 11 :42 a.m. Respectfully submitted by: Cherisse Zaima Commission Support Clerk () Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval). () Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting. Page 13 of 13