2013-10-23 KCDP Minutes Final - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

39 Duane Kanuha, Planning Director, presented comments on the review of the Kona CDP. The following 40 points were discussed: 41 Discussed work history from 1975 to show the intent of a CDP · 42 The mandatory review is 10 years, but annual reviews are also required. · 43 Questions to the Director about What are you going to do about the CDP? · 44 Staff was unanimous that the planning principles are sound except for some implementation · 45 problems including interpreting the code against existing statuory provisions and how to interpret 46 some concepts. So how do we fix it? Discussions occurred and three components were brought 47 to the Directors attention by the staff: 48 1.The first item involves a significant increace in the population to allow the concepts of 49 the CDP to function. An increase, greater that our current population of the Kailua-Kona 50 area, is needed to fulfill the housing requirements for the plan to be successful. 51 2.A second item involves concurrency. No program is in place for financing these 52 improvements. This lack of a program makes it very difficult to achieve concurrency. 53 3. The third issue involves integration into the existing codes and policies. This CDP is 54 adopted by ordinance and conflicts with other ordinances such as the General 55 Plan, zoning and subdivision codes must be resolved. 56 Planning Department is working on resolving these situations and wants to work with the · 57 community and the Action Committee through meetings and work sessions. 58 Planning is not taking away the basic concepts of the CDP, rather to allow things to happen. · 59 Appreciate the candor of the planning staff to resolve these problems. · 60 61 Questions to the Director followed. 62 Hiram asked if we fix one CDP will we fix them all? Director responded, yes · 63 When will Public Works get involve? The CDP can not be implemented without PW agreeing to · 64 the concepts. 65 Duane wants to hear the responses from the Action Committee so that he can move forward to 66 resolve these differences. 67 Director indicated that these problems should have been addressed at the time of approval. · 68 Ken Melrose said that the group thought that enacted by plan meant that it was enacted. The · 69 Ordinance was drafted by the assistant to the Mayor. Important to recognize that the Planning 70 Department engage fully in the review of the CDP. Disappointment that it is not working. The 71 public was heavily involved and it is important to everyone that the Planning Department confirm 72 their commitment to the concepts of the CDP. Calibrations of the VDG were processed without 73 the Planning Departments technical engagement. Welcomes the involvement of the Planning 2