The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-08-31 TCOUNCIL-PUDCPD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 31, 2007 A regularly advertised hearing on the COUNTY COUNCIL INITIATED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25 RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND CLUSTER PLAN DEVELOPMENTwas called to order at 2:19 p.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: Takashi Domingo William Graham Shelly Ogata Andrew Iwashita Rene’ Siracusa Alvin Rho Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 27 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL Continuation of Public Hearing on an amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), as amended, relating to Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and Cluster Plan Development (C.P.D.) applications. The proposed amendment would 1) require P.U.D applications consisting of seven or more lots to be processed in the same manner as a change of zone in accordance with Hawaii County Code Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Sections 25- 2-42 and 25-2-43; and 2) require C.P.D. applications to be processed as prescribed for a subdivision application under Chapter 23 (Subdivisions), “Application for Subdivision of Seven or More Lots.” GRAHAM: And our Agenda Item No. 8, also initiated by the County Council, is continuation of a public hearing on an amendment to the Zoning Code, Chapter 25, relating to Planned Unit Development and Cluster Plan Development applications. And it would require such applications for seven or more lots be processed in the same manner as a change of zone, and that’s for the P.U.D. applications, and for the Cluster Plan Development applications to be processed as prescribed for a subdivision application under Chapter 23. Mr. Yuen gave us a presentation already on this, so I think we can forego that. I don’t have any public testifiers still. So do we have any comments or discussions by the Commissioners? Then I think we can accept a motion. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on their proposed amendment to Chapter 25 regarding the approval of P.U.D.s EXHIBIT G 1 based on, well, their lack of expertise and the potential undesired effect of discouraging people from using the P.U.D. as a solution. GRAHAM: Thank you for the motion. Do we have a second? WOODWARD: Second. GRAHAM: Seconded by Commissioner Woodward. Any discussion on the motion? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: I certainly, I’m going to vote in favor of the motion, but for the reason I stated. GRAHAM: All right. That’s a ditto from before. Commissioner Rho, did you have something? RHO: My understanding is No. 7 which we just dealt with – just talking off the cuff – but my understanding is legally the Council doesn’t have any control or right to taking over the duties of the Director in Item 7. That’s my understanding. GRAHAM: I think the Planning Director kind of reiterated that. RHO: Right. In No. 8 my understanding is that the Director talked about the Council could in fact adopt their change, and they would be in compliance with the law. Is that not correct? YUEN: Yes, that’s correct. The Planned Unit Development has an option exist in the Zoning Code because of an ordinance that put it there. And the ordinance now says that the Planning Director makes a final decision on Planned Unit Developments. But if the Council wants to change that so that the Council makes the final decision on a Planned Unit Development, it can do that. Our recommendation is that’s not a good idea, but they certainly have the power to make that change. RHO: Right, so that if they actually make the change, would it not put your Department in a bind in terms of manpower and additional workload, etc.? YUEN: If they made the change that was proposed, it would somewhat increase the workload in the Department, simply because, the Department would still have to review the PUD. We would end up bringing the PUD here at the Planning Commission and having a presentation, which involves a certain amount of work, as you know; we’d have a recommendation, we’d have a hearing. And so that would be on agenda. Then it would go to the Council. And again we would, you know, we would do all the same work we do now, but we would also make a presentation to the Council, and the Council would end up making a final decision. So, yes, there would be an increase in the workload to the Department just from the change in process. RHO: So just to share my thoughts, in No. 7, I mean I don’t have any problem with that because, you know, I suppose there is a legal basis which will prevent them EXHIBIT G 2 from actually adopting their change. But on No. 8, they can actually adopt it and proceed. And what I think the Planning Department is not doing is providing an alternative to what they’re at least thinking about doing. I don’t know whether I’m making sense, but if you combine with what I just said with what Commissioner Iwashita says – and I’m not saying that I’m in favor of his entire thoughts about planning and development – but you know there is this community pressure to change, and I guess the Council is reacting to that. And if the Planning Department doesn’t come up with an alternative solution, or convince the Council that what we are doing presently is the best way, and the public convincing them that this is the best way, we are going to have, I’m afraid, No. 8 adopted by the Council, which you know I guess everybody on this table agrees that we don’t want to happen. But at the same time, we don’t want it to happen, but we propose no solution whether political or whatever to assist the Council and getting them to think in a different way. That’s my whole thrust. Thanks. GRAHAM: Thank you for those thoughts. They seem very clear. Do you have any comment, Mr. Yuen? YUEN: I actually think that, I’m sure that there is more concern about subdivisions actually than Planned Unit Developments; and what you raised, it’s always a][ question when there is a proposal that may have some things wrong with it; do you simply oppose it, or do you present an alternative? In many cases, as you see, we presented alternatives. I don’t have a great alternative, particularly with respect to P.U.D.s because I think that the process is basically sound. The P.U.D., you are not making a basic change in the use of the property by granting a P.U.D. And my feeling is that if the Council fully reviews it, they will see that the P.U.D. process is not currently the problem. I did mention in the Recommendation, although we did not do a bill to this effect, that there is one aspect of the P.U.D. that I think is questionable; and that is the increase in height limits, possible for the Director to do under a P.U.D. That, I think, is a kind of thing that would concern and affect a lot of people, and I would have no problem if the Council took that out of the P.U.D. power. But we did not do a specific bill on that. And basically as far as the overall thrust of the bill, because it was a bill that took this and made it a matter that would be processed in front of the Council like a rezoning, we did oppose that. GRAHAM: All right. Any further comments? Oh, there is Jeff. I thought you disappeared. Would you take a roll call vote on that motion by Commissioner Watanabe? DARROW: Sure. The motion before us is to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for the County Council initiated amendment to Chapter 25 regarding P.U.D.s and C.P.D.s, and also to Chapter 23. With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? EXHIBIT G 3 ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, six to zero. GRAHAM: Thank you, Jeff. The discussion ended at 2:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT G 4