My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0331.003 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2006-2008
>
COM 0331.003 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2008 6:12:58 AM
Creation date
5/8/2008 5:42:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2006-2008
Communication
0331
Point
003
Author
Christopher Yuen
Communications - Referred To
PC
Comments
Presented: PC - 5/15/07
Document Relationships
AGE PC 05/15/2007 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2006-2008\Plannning Committee (PC)
COM 0331.000 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2006-2008
RES 158 Draft 01 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Resolutions\2006-2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Honorable K. Angel Pilago, Chair <br /> and Members of the Committee on Planning <br /> COMMITTEE ON PLANNING <br /> Page 5 <br /> May 14, 2007 <br /> From the standpoint of the current administration, the main difficulties with the current <br /> subdivision process are: <br /> 1. The very limited ability of the county to require improvements to public streets <br /> leading to the subdivision. There are many subdivisions occurring on very substandard <br /> <br /> public streets. The administration expects to introduce an amendment on this shortly. <br /> 2. The use of water and road variances. Rule 22, regarding water variances, is also being <br /> challenged in the board of appeals. <br /> 3. Current road standards mandate excessively wide roads in neighborhoods. <br /> 4. The current Subdivision Code does not give the administration the authority to require <br /> sidewalks, at least when the zoning for the property does not call for them. <br /> 5. The difficulty of integrating the plans for neighboring areas that maybe subdivided at <br /> different times, so that roads and other infrastructure are developed in a coordinated way. <br /> One of the goals of the community development plans is to set overall infrastructure <br /> <br /> plans for various areas. <br /> Most of these are issues that we want to address in an overall Subdivision Code reform, <br /> <br /> which is currently waiting for the development of street standards. <br /> Resolution 158-07, as amended, also contains a bill that would give the council the final <br /> authority to approve PUD's and CPD. Currently, the planning director can approve both <br /> of these. The process requires notice to neighboring properties and published notice. <br /> A PUD or CPD allows the developer to vary From the normal Subdivision Code standards <br /> to achieve a more planned development. They do not change the uses allowed on the <br /> property. They can result in different lot sizes, but within the overall density allowed. <br /> For example, in an RS-10 zone, a developer with a 200,000 square foot lot can create a <br /> 201ots (200,000 divided by 10), but instead of having all lots be 10,000 square feet, the <br /> developer can make all the lots be 7500 square feet, leaving a 50,000 square foot lot for a <br /> park or other open space. The developer maybe able to get a slight increase in the <br /> number of lots by doing a PUD, because the area of streets is not deducted, but this is <br /> offset by the fact that `ohana dwellings are not allowed in a PUD. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.