2017-11-15 KCDP Minutes Final - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PolicyTRAN-2.1: Connectivity Standards. Mr. Takemoto explained that they propose leaving the "shall" language in this policy due to the importance that new developments in Kona follow the connectivity standards mentioned. PolicyTRAN-6.1: Official Concurrency Map. The changes proposed included new wording to define when a project triggers "area mitigation", this would not include small projects that do not require a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR.) This amendment would also make it so that a developer may define a right-of-way on their property if it overlays with a proposed road area, in lieu of constructing a new roadway in the project's concurrency zone. It also adds that area mitigation can also be deemed satisfied upon guaranteeing the performance of that commitment through bonds (or an equivalent security) as defined in HCC §25-2-46(f)(2). He explained that in the concurrency table they proposed removing concurrency requirements from new developments within many of the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) areas as a way of incentivizing more projects in those areas as well as giving developers a choice on which road projects they will work on instead of making all the road projects within a concurrency zone mandatory. Ms. Pisicchio explained that the motivation behind changing this policy, in general, was that the current Kona CDP has resulted in creating an unofficial developmental moratorium in the Kona urban area. Ken Melrose brought up that he felt without a public facilities/infrastructure financing package in place, the County would need to take additional steps in order to prevent new projects from being halted when they can't afford to comply with the concurrency requirements. Roger Harris asked rhetorically in what order road segments need to be completed within a specific concurrency zone and why longer portions of road are not broken down into segments or phases with an implementation scheme. Various members of the public questioned as to which party should be responsible for building new road segments (public or private); what other means might be available to make financing these projects a possibility; the disproportionate burden on developers to guarantee corridor on land they do not own in order to be consistent with the requirements in their concurrency zone; the idea of organizing future financial commitments from developers; and keeping the conversation in context with HCC §25-2 —46 and understanding the CDP policies as a supplement to the County Code. Councilmember Karen Eoff suggested an idea of scheduling required or county -provided road improvements to correlate with the timeline of the completed development in order to account for new roadway demands when they occur. It was responded that tweaking of a developer's required Traffic Impact and Analysis Report (TIAR) may be required to accommodate that phased concurrency objective. Hawaii County Code may be viewed and downloaded here from the following website: http://www.hawaiicounty.gov/Ib-countycode/ (Concurrency requirements are on page 43 of chapter 25: Zoning) Policy LU -2.4: Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Floating Zones Established. A proposed change to this policy included changing the minimum land area for a new community to be consistent with the zoning code's requirements for project districts (50 acres) rather than 80 acres as currently stated. This was explained to improve consistency with zoning code as well as encourage more condensed TOD areas. Policy LU -2.5: Village Design Guidelines. Concern was raised over the potential of eliminating the effectiveness of implementing the Village Design Guidelines through the amendments. Mr. Takemoto requested help from the Action Committee to improve the language of this policy to clear up any confusion. www.hiplanninjdept.com kona(iihawaiicountv.Qov Page 5