2012-12-13 Leeward Exh B - Bill No. 291

Home

The Director has a few concerns with Bill 291. The primary concern that she has is changing the approval process from an administrative decision made by the Director to the County Council may be in conflict with the County Charter, because, as you can see, the County Charter states that the Planning Director shall render decisions on proposed variances. Since a P.U.D. is a set of variances, it may be that the authority to approve a P.U.D. cannot be shifted to the Council without first amending the County Charter. So the Planning Department obviously reviewed Bill 291, and tried to understand the intent of the bill, which was to provide greater community involvement and design P.U.D.’s that are in context with a surrounding community. At the same time with the concerns that the Director had, we also, the Director felt it would be prudent to initiate a different bill that would implement the intent of Bill 291 but also address some of the concerns. So, before I go too far into this, we should have on the agenda included the County Council initiated bill, and then also included as an agenda item the Planning Director’s initiated bill that you have as Exhibit 3. We did not do that; so we didn’t agendize this correctly. So as far as our th recommendation, we’ll just be focusing on Bill 291 today, and then at your January 24 meeting we will include the Director’s proposed bill on that agenda and we can discuss her initiated bill. And we apologize for the oversight. LEITHEAD TODD: I should also mention just informationally there are two other bills that are currently being drafted by staff, which I’m not sure if they will make, probably more like February. Those would be bills that are taking those provisions of the Kona CDP that were in attempt to amend Chapters 23 and 25, and making proposed ordinances to amend the County Code to conform to the intent of the Kona CDP. So those will also be coming along. And some of that will also address the P.U.D. application process. GIFFIN: Good. COTTLE: Okay, so I’m just generally going to go over what the Director’s bill is proposing, and then we can take up action on that at your next meeting. The alternative bill would propose that applicants conduct a community meeting prior to submitting a P.U.D. application, and that P.U.D. developments be consistent with the intent of the recently adopted Community Development Plans. Holding a community meeting prior to submittal of a P.U.D. application, we feel, is beneficial to the applicant, as well as the community, because it allows areas of community concern to be identified early on in the process so that the applicant can modify their development plans as needed before submitting the application. And this just generally describes the P.U.D. approval process under the Director’s proposed bill. The applicant would conduct a community meeting to solicit concerns from the community, and again the same notification requirements that currently exist, notification of the application in a newspaper, the sign posted on the property, and notification to surrounding property owners, and then the Planning Director would consider all those comments and concerns and make a decision. So, as I mentioned before, at this time the Director would request that the Commission send an unfavorable recommendation to Bill 291 in its current form to the County Council, and then we will be initiating an alternative bill at your next meeting. Are there any questions? GIFFIN: Commissioners, any questions of Maija? Lani. 3 EXHIBIT B