2016-04-27 KCDP Minutes Final - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

75 these changes supplement the code, which gives direction, but does not change the codes. These are 76 inconsistencies, so the suggestions are part of the plan and are operational considerations. This creates 77 opportunities for the AC to participate in the interpretations of the CDP. This is the intent of the letter. 78 Curtis Tyler III (Curtis) asked whether the Director was is going to answer the points listed in the last 79 meeting minutes. Hiram said no. 80 Doug Payne (Doug) mentioned the draft letter prepared by Hiram should be sent to the Director as well as 81 draft minutes. 82 Curtis commented on the Matsukawa letter and the possibility of its exposure to the County Council. 83 Also expressed were concerns about the legal exposure of AC members. 84 85 Bill Brilhante (Bill) commented that there is no legal consequences for members of the AC as they are 86 advisory. 87 The KCDP was adopted through Ordinance and became the vehicle that created the existence of the AC. 88 The specific purpose of the AC is to provide advice to the Planning Director for concerns and issues of 89 the community that are pursuant to the CDP. The Director will deliberate over the recommendations. 90 The Missler case has facts and circumstances that are specific as to what took place under the Missler 91 case PUD application. The facts in front of the intermediate Court of Appeals were specific, as they 92 related to Missler, and if these were properly applied. 93 94 Curtis noted that changes proposed to the AC from the Planning Department for necessary changes to 95 Chapter 25 and Chapter 23 were not recommended for approval by the AC. Discussion about proper 96 process in changing existing codes were again discussed. Is this the kind of action needed to move 97 forward? 98 99 Bill indicated that specific action from the AC would need to be submitted to the Director with all the 100 justification attached for these types of changes. Then, if approved by Director, the revision would be 101 sent to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the County Council for review and possible approval 102 and then finally to the Mayor for final review. Only the County Council can amend the County Codes. 103 104 Director said that was the process. Examples such as TOD were adopted by ordinance, but the CDP has 105 struggled with implementing this component. AC feels constrained by these initiatives which everyone 106 thought were approved by the ordinance, however, the ordinance did not change the code. Therefore, the 107 AC can review the CDP Ordinance and make recommendations to the Director for revisions if the AC 108 does not agree that the Ordinance adequately addresses the actual situation(s). The AC can also add 109 recommendations for additional regulations. 3