2004-02-06 Planning Commission Minutes

Home

Commissioner Graham expressed his concern of not wanting to see over the long-term all large developments become project districts because he felt there is some loss to the public for the publicÓs input through the whole development process. Commissioner Graham read portions of the October 16, 1996 transcript from the County Council public hearings on project districts and the new Zoning Code, where Councilman Keola Childs questioned whether 50 acres was larger than necessary and thought for something to be creative it had to be a large-scale project with plenty of buffering. He said Sandra Schutte at that meeting said the reason why it was put at 50 acres is because it does relinquish a lot of Council control, noting the Council sets the conceptual guidelines for the district and then the specific boundaries, etc. gets determined administratively and would be for the kind of comprehensive project used under limited circumstances like the Mauna Lani situation. Commissioner Graham expressed his concern that in order to meet the requirement of the Zoning Code, that the request for a project district will not result in a substantial adverse impact upon the surrounding area, community or region, adequate buffers would have to be required. He also expressed his concern that Councilperson Schutte referred to a project district as a resort project like the Mauna Lani situation, which he said he did not think this project was. In response to Commissioner GrahamÓs request that Ms. Goldstein address his concerns and explain her understandings of how things went when the Zoning Code was adopted, Ms. Goldstein said the idea behind the project district was that the developer would describe the overall project area by metes and bounds but not describe by metes and bounds the pockets of single family residence, commercial, etc., so that if there was a need to make some adjustments to the uses for the area, such as the golf course as it was being laid out would encroach into a single-family residential area, etc., the developer could come in and make the necessary kinds of adjustments without going through the cost and long process of going to the Planning Commission and then ultimately to the County Council for approval. She said the other idea was because there were many areas that had restraints on it such as natural hazards, and for cultural reasons or whatever, this would allow some give and take. She clarified that the project district cannot exceed the overall density set by the ordinance and it becomes an administrative matter for Planning Department to detail out how that capacity can be achieved through the site plan and process that is laid out in the project district. Commissioner Graham questioned if any large project that wishes to do it in the same manner that Mauna Lani Resort has done suitable for a project district, or should the use of a project district be constrained somewhat to certain situations? In response, Ms. Goldstein said it would be the applicantÓs responsibility to justify their project district; and, in their instance, there are constraints on the subject property, such as the flood hazard areas, that still need to be further detailed as they provide areas for the different uses. She added that the applicant is considering a buffer on the north side of the overall property area because of the concerns of the neighboring residents, but they have not established how exactly it will be 4