|
rear setback – it’s not a front and rear setback – it’s a front or rear setback of 15 feet and no side
<br />yard setbacks except as required by the plan approval; it also states that all plan approval is
<br />required for all new structures and additions to the existing structures.
<br />Now the Planning Director has reviewed the Bill 326 and agrees that the new University District
<br />is warranted. The Director, however, is recommending the following changes to the bill that was
<br />submitted by the County Council, and you have a copy of Exhibit B, which highlights the
<br />proposed changes by the Planning Director, highlighted in red: Basically, under the permitted
<br />uses section, the Planning Director is adding other uses, such as student health clinics, university
<br />credit union, post office, fraternity and sorority houses and student and employee apartments and
<br />houses, under the permitted uses section; as far as the height limit, the Planning Director feels
<br />that an overall height limit of 60 feet would be more than adequate; the minimum building site
<br />area is also proposed to be 10 acres by the Planning Director, except that if someone were to
<br />lease a lot from the university or from the landowner, then the lease lot may be 7,500 square feet,
<br />for instance, if Pizza Hut wanted to come and establish a franchise and/or establish a facility on
<br />the university site, then it could be subdivided into a 7,500-square foot lot; and the minimum
<br />yards, the Planning Director feels that it should be a front and rear setback and that should be a
<br />20-foot setback; and also the sides would be minimum 10 feet; and finally, the Planning Director
<br />feels that a maximum of 20 percent of a University District’s land area may be in commercial
<br />use, and the Planning Director is also authorized to vary the parking requirements for on-campus
<br />housing, offices and pedestrian-oriented commercial uses.
<br />Again, this is a continued hearing and the Planning Director is recommending that the Planning
<br />Commission send a favorable recommendation on the Council’s bill with amendments that he
<br />has proposed.
<br />GRAHAM: Thank you. Do you have any questions from the Commissioners?
<br />Norman, I would just like to ask you as a fast speaking in a common sense way, what’s the real
<br />rationale and the real need for these minimums: The building site area, the building site average
<br />width, the yard? Something like the maximum height allowed is real obvious to us all, but can
<br />you just give us a little sense of that?
<br />HAYASHI: I think what they wanted to do is -. For instance the minimum building
<br />site area, we didn’t want some University District to be only, say, 7,500 square feet; we felt that
<br />the university and typical complex would be minimum 10 acres. If you look at the Waiakea
<br />High School complex, as the Planning Director previously indicated, that is about 10 acres in
<br />size, so we used it as the comparable. That would give adequate land area to establish some of
<br />these proposed permitted uses within a University District. And as far as the setbacks, I think we
<br />need to set a minimum; I think the minimum setbacks of front and rear 20 feet and 10 feet on the
<br />sides are comparable to our current Single Family Residential Zone District, and we don’t want a
<br />building to be set back right next to a residential property or the like.
<br />GRAHAM: Okay, thank you. On the building site area where you suggested the 10
<br />acres and we have in here that if it’s a lease lot, it may be only 7,500 square feet; if I had a
<br />problem with 10 acres and I wanted to get a University District for my 10,000-square foot lot,
<br />couldn’t I just kind of lease it to my friend here, Ivan, and have him apply for a University
<br />District, and sort of circumvent the intent that way?
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />2
<br />
<br />
|