REP PC 009 2019/02/19 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PC-9 Page 2 February 19, 2019 slated to be used as a senior living development. Council Member Eoff noted the need for more senior independent living facilities and expressed her desire to leave Condition B in the ordinance. Mr. Fuke questioned the legality of restricting the property to a specific use rather than what is allowed under its RM zoning. He noted that the current developer did not want to limit the project to independent senior living in the event there was not a sufficient market for it in the future. Council Member Eoff asked Planning Program Manager Jeff Darrow to clarify who added the condition in to limit the project development to an independent senior living facility, and asked for his suggestion on whether to keep or eliminate it. Mr. Darrow stated that generally the Planning Commission and the Council do not restrict the use of property in this manner as that is not the ultimate intent of zoning, which allows for a number of uses. He explained that most applicants will propose some details of their project, which in this case had been independent senior living, but oftentimes due to changes in the economy or other circumstances, other projects permitted under the zoning are considered. He explained that because of the specific language of Condition B, if the applicant no longer wanted to pursue an independent senior living facility they would have to amend the ordinance. Council Member Eoff stated that she had spoken with the applicant and they told her directly that this project would be for independent senior living. Mr. Fuke stated that the owner/developer did not want to limit eligibility to only seniors and reiterated that by eliminating this condition it would aid the island's overall need for housing. Council Member Maile David pointed out that Condition B stated that the proposed project"should" remain senior living, not "shall."Mr. Fuke wanted to clarify if it was the Council or the planning director who was responsible for defining the term"should."Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self interjected and stated that this was an inadequate way to state a condition of zoning. She explained that the language should be clear to whoever reads it and noted that the purpose of zoning is to describe permitted uses of what can be done with a property versus being tied to something so specific. Although the language came from the Planning Commission, as had been pointed out by Council Member David, it did not mean that it must remain as a condition. She reiterated that it was critical the language was not ambiguous, and be clear and understandable to whoever reads it. Planning Committee Vice-Chair Sue Lee Loy stated she would be willing to work with the Kona Council Members and assist in creating a second draft to make the condition more clear. She noted she wanted to help manage the expectation of the applicant and the potential uses for the project, and supported moving the project forward. Planning Committee Chair Ashley L. Kierkiewicz explained that Vice-Chair Lee Loy had assisted in this same way with Bill No. 1 and believed it was good practice that council members from the project's area also participate. Council Member Eoff asked if the plan was to remove the language only,to which Vice-Chair Lee Loy explained that they had an opportunity to do whatever was needed and would ultimately confer with Corporation Counsel, as she had done with Bill No. 1. Planning Chair Kierkiewicz noted it was the Council's responsibility to create good policy, and to ensure ordinance language was drafted clearly. She noted that the proposed amendment would encourage the developer to pursue development of an independent senior living facility, but not limit development to that specific use. Council Member Kierkiewicz requested that the Committee move the bill forward and that theCouncil would review and vote on the revised bill with amendments crafted by Council Members PC Report No.: 9