2013-02-21 Leeward Exh A - Director Initiated Amend re PUD

Home

ERROR: I’m here to plea for more transparency in the P.U.D. approval process, and I’ll tell you why. Our neighborhood has already suffered from a project that slipped through a couple of years ago because the Planning Director did not have enough staff to make a proper review. And I don’t believe that situation has changed, and we would like to have the opportunity for a final hearing with the County Council before a P.U.D. approval is given. I know the Planning Director feels that it would solve the situation, if the developer met with the surrounding property owners to work out their differences. And that’s a good idea, but it’s not enough. What if they meet and still cannot agree on what is appropriate? In this previous situation that slipped through, the developer, after approval, asked the Planning Director for 17 variances to the regulations, and 15 were approved without further opportunity for the public to object. In addition, as it turned out, a full 68 percent of those lots were below the minimum size for an RS-10 zoning classification. Why have a minimum? Please do not leave us without recourse to at least present our case. It’s all about transparency. Thank you. GIFFIN: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Ms. Error? Hearing none, thank you very much. Ken? MELROSE: Good morning. My name is Ken Melrose. And I’ll submit this afterwards; I apologize for not being timely. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the proposed revisions to the very useful P.U.D. process. I support the Director initiated version, and offer the following comments. Like subdivision applications, a P.U.D. is the division of existing zoned land, and the process should remain ministerial. The use of P.U.D. guidelines allows flexible configurations of newly created lots in a way that allows preservation of sensitive areas, open space and agricultural uses while also permitting realization of the potential of existing entitlement densities in a way that is compatible with surrounding community. The recognition in Sections 25-6-3, 6 and 10 of the applicable community development plan is a very significant addition. The Kona Community Development Plan proposed a paradigm shift in land use towards smart growth policies, which concentrate growth in compact nodes and preserve our rural sense of place and our agricultural potential, without affecting existing landowner entitlements. The P.U.D. revisions proposed seem to further reinforce and help implement our policies, and for this I’m grateful. There are a couple of portions of the proposed wording that concern me, however. In 25-6-6 (d), as a potential applicant, I do not like the change from automatic approval to automatic denial of an application by untimely review by the Department; the timing for it being proposed is being extended from 60 to 90 days to help with the paperwork flow. In 25-6-7 (b), the new pre- application community meeting “shall be served” causes concerns. This is on community members around; as I’m only aware of a form of service being by a sheriff, that wording concerns me and I think it might be revised appropriately. And lastly, in 25-6-11, the height exemptions authorized should be those already allowed in the zoning designation and not increased to 75 feet. For Ag zoning, the height is 45 feet, and to my knowledge the only places where zoning is allowed, excuse me, additional height is allowed by zoning is in Resort zones and in the Hilo area where zoning 6 EXHIBIT A