The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-03-23 KCDP Minutes Final Kona Community Development Plan Action Committee 1 ‘ County of Hawaii 2 MINUTES 3 Meeting Date: March 23, 2011 4 Time: 2:04 pm 5 Place: Kona Planning Department Conference Room 6 ‘ West Hawaii Civic Center 7 nd County of Hawaii Planning Department, Bldg E, 2 Floor 8 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway 9 ‘ Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 10 Roll Call: 11 1Members Present: Maralyn (Marni) Herkes, Ken Melrose, Robert (Bob) Ward, Mike 12 Matsukawa, Janice Palma-Glennie, Fritz Harris-Glade 13 2Absent/Excused: Bo Kahui 14 3Planning Department: Deanne Bugado, Margaret Masunaga, Bennett Mark 15 ‘ 4County of Hawaii: Alexandra Kelepolo 16 5Public in attendance: Peter Young, Wilma Matsumura, Sarah Moon, Michele Otake, 17 Race Randle, Nancy Pisicchio, Riley Smith 18 STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING ITEMS ON AGENDA 19 Race Randle, regarding the Village Design Guidelines, a couple of issues regarding setback 20 depths, 1) lanai depths, the VDG has a 8 foot minimum while Kamakana has a 5 foot 21 minimum; 2) Rear Yards, the VDG has 6 feet while Kamakana has 5 feet The issues revolve 22 around how the primary and secondary are defined and there is a need for clarification for 23 what is secondary. 3) How is the frontage calculated, does the calculations include the side 24 yard setbacks? If the side yard setbacks are included then it is hard to meet the 75% 25 requirement. Will be submitting written testimony for the next meeting 26 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 27 Minutes of the Meeting of January 26, 2011 were circulated. Marni Herkes motioned to approve 28 and Bob Ward seconded. Minor corrections requested and then unanimous approval given. 29 The Planning Department has had to limit the Action Committee to meet every other month due 30 to staff shortages and budget constraints. With the April meeting the meetings will be held on the 31 “even” months for the rest of the year (April, June, August, October, December). The Sub- 32 Committees are allowed to continue to meet as often as necessary to continue to work on projects 33 and programs. There was discussion for the December Meeting to be held in November and for 34 the possibility of longer meetings (and the hours of start and end). Both of those requests have 35 been given approval by the Planning Department however the Action Committee chose to “table” 36 the discussion for future action. 37 NEW BUSINESS 38 1. Public Access, Open Space & Natural Resources Preservation Commission. 39 Page 1 of 4 Sarah Moon, the Chair of the Commission, introduced Wilma Matsumura, new Commissioner 40 and Alex Kelepolo, from the County’s Department of Finance, Property Management 41 Division. The Action Committee were provided an overview of the Commission, the status of 42 the lands that have been or are in process for acquisition, the process for Lands and/or 43 Property Entitlements for Acquisition and the difference between the comprehensive list and 44 prioritized list. Information provided was the following: 2011 Commission Roster, 45 Information Fact Sheet, a suggestion form, and the 2010 Annual Report. 46 Suggestion was made to have the Commission add in a criteria for Plans such the CDP 47 support/identification for parcels. 48 Clarification was sought for why the use of the funds, that are generated by urban area 49 parcels, which seem to be utilized for the acquisition of remote parcels rather than for more 50 urban parcels that would be accessible to more of the population. There was a lively 51 discussion regarding how to promote more urban parcels for consideration. 52 Funds are not available for the upkeep and maintenance of lands that have been acquired. 53 2. Village Design Guidelines. 54 Allen Salavea, who managed the contract for the Village Design Guidelines, has left the 55 County. Per Bennett Mark, the management of the contract and Village Design Guidelines 56 will be overseen by April Surprenant, Manager of the Long Range Division of the Planning 57 Department. 58 The discussion on the VDG continued. 59 At the Action Committee’s direction a re-drafted Article 1, which was a merge with the 60 original Article 1 and the draft Rule that PlaceMakers created, was passed out for review and 61 discussion. Corrections were made to the draft during the discussion. However, concerns 62 were raised that the language found within Article 1 is not sufficient to be defendable should 63 there be an appeal regarding the governance of the VDG over the provisions of County Code 64 and Planning Department Rules of Procedure. 65 Motions 66 Marni Herkes withdrew the original motion made in October 2010 which was to approved the 67 draft VDG with in insertion of Article 1 back in. Bob Ward withdrew his second. 68 Marni Herkes moved to recommend that the draft Article 1 – General revision 1, under review 69 be added to the VDG with the modifications made during discussion to 1.3.4b, 1.5.2, and 70 1.7.2 with the understanding that the provisions in 1.5 are complete in context and language . 71 Bob Ward seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 72 Fritz Harris-Glade moved to allow staff and/or consultant to make adjustments to correct 73 typos, spellings, punctuation, numbering and references accordingly. Bob Ward seconded. 74 Motion passed unanimously 75 Marni Herkes moved to Adopt Article 2 – Process, as amended in the red-lined version, with 76 the following revisions: that within 2.3.2 that the removed text in the first paragraph be re- 77 inserted and within 2.3.3 b. and e. that removed text be re-inserted. Fritz Harris-Glade 78 seconded. Motion passed unanimously 79 Page 2 of 4 Fritz Harris-Glade moved to Adopt Article 3-Village Scale Plans-New Villages, per the red- 80 lined version, with the following revisions: that within 3.3.1b changed 40 acres to 14 acres as 81 the minimum; within 3.8.3 add back the sentence requiring 20% of the units be in affordable 82 range; and within 3.8.4 add back the second sentence related to affordable housing. Marni 83 Herkes seconded. Motion passed unanimously 84 Marni Herkes moved to Adopt Article 4-Village Scale Plans-Infill, per the red-lined version, 85 with the following revisions: that within 4.1.5 changed 40 acres to 14 acres as the minimum. 86 Bob Ward seconded. Discussion of the Article pointed out the need to have the County 87 comply with Thoroughfare Sections and the need to clarify the definition of what a mixed-use 88 corridor is. Motion passed unanimously. 89 Fritz Harris-Glade moved to Adopt Article 5-Building Scale Plans, as amended in the red- 90 lined version, retaining the 5.1.2 b. Architectural Standards reference but deleting 5.13 91 Architectural Standards Marni Herkes seconded. Discussion not only weighed the merits of 92 architectural standards established at the regional level or at the building scale level but also 93 addressed the need to clarify way the parking is valued/calculated/managed. It was also 94 pointed out that the limited/or reduced parking standards within the TOD is predicated upon 95 having a comprehensive transit system. Motion passed 5-1, Approved by Marni Herkes, Ken 96 Melrose, Bob Ward, Mike Matsukawa and Fritz Harris-Glade; Denied by Janice Palma- 97 Glennie 98 To be continued at the next meeting 99 2. KCDP Implementation. 100 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) – Bob Ward has worked incredibly hard on the information 101 presented and did an wonderful job on the testimony before the County Council. The Action 102 Committee reviewed the proposed CIP projects, that were developed from the priority 103 projects that the Action Committee have identified. 104 Fritz Harris-Glade made a motion to submit the proposed seven projects to the Planning 105 Department for inclusion to the Department CIP list. Marni Herkes seconded. Motion passed 106 unanimously. 107 th Impact Fee – There is the pending Impact Fee Bill 304 up for public hearing on April 6 in the 108 Planning Committee. It should be noted that the proposed fee is less than 50% of the fee 109 proposed by Duncan and Associates, Consultant, in 2008 as well as what the amount 110 proposed by the Public Facilities Finance Plan. It also does not propose an impact fee that 111 will be implemented “across the board,” since this does not include the DHHL lands. 112 3. Sub-Committee Reports 113 Transportation and Public Facilities 114  Department reviews for the Capital Budget will begin next week. There might be an 115 opportunity for testimony. However the next real opportunity for testimony for the CIP 116 will be after the May release of the County’s Budget. 117 Land Use, Environmental & Cultural Resources 118 Page 3 of 4  April 5, 2011 at 6:00 pm will be the next meeting regarding the Phase II Queen 119 Kaahumanu Highway and Kealakehe High School Cafeteria. 120 Outreach 121  Will be updating the Newsletter with recent activities. 122 Economic Development 123  The Highlights of the County’s Budget mentions the Economic Condition of the County, 124 the 10.4 % Unemployment, Tourism (Volcano National Park), small growth in residential 125 construction,scientific research and development (TMT), Makale Fire Station, South Kona 126 Police Station, Ane Keohokalole Highway, and the Community Development Plans. 127 STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING ITEMS ON THE AGENDA 128 None 129 ANNOUNCEMENTS: 130 Ken Melrose: Next Meeting April 27, 2011 – Planning Conference Room – WHCC 131 Possible Agenda Items for next meeting:, PFFP Dave Freudenberger, VDG. 132 ADJOURNMENT: 133 Meeting adjourned at 4:37 pm 134 Respectfully submitted, 135 Deanne Bugado, Planner 136 A T T E S T: 137 Ken Melrose, Chair 138 Kona Community Development Plan Action Committee 139 140 Page 4 of 4