My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 1077.000 2018-2020
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2018-2020
>
COM 1077.000 2018-2020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/30/2020 10:25:26 AM
Creation date
9/22/2020 12:03:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2018-2020
Communication
1077
Point
000
Author
Michael Yee, Planning Director
Communications - Referred To
PC
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 2020-10-21 2018-2020
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2018-2020\Council
AGE COUNCIL 2020-11-06 2018-2020
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2018-2020\Council
AGE COUNCIL 2020-11-18 2018-2020
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2018-2020\Council
AGE PC 2020/10/06 (2018-2020)
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2018-2020\Planning Committee (PC)
BIL 200 Draft 01 2018-2020
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2018-2020
REP PC 056 2020/10/06 2018-2020
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Reports\2018-2020\Planning Committee (PC)
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
494
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
Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair <br />and Members of the County Council <br />County of Hawaii <br />Page 3 <br />93,600 square -foot complex which would house varied commercial uses, such as <br />financial institutions, restaurants, grocery store, office space and possibly a gas station. <br />Also proposed was 500+ parking stalls with appropriate accessibility requirements. <br />According to the applicant, the shopping center project concept is part of this current <br />proposal but includes a proposed reduction in the size of the commercial project from <br />93,600 square -feet to 72,600 square -feet. Also included in this current proposal is the <br />inclusion of a "transit hub" in the form of a public bus transfer station, as well as the <br />addition of 100 multiple -family residential units. <br />There were several reasons cited for the amendment requests. According to the <br />applicant, one of the reasons for not completing the project within a timely manner is that <br />due to the global economic meltdown that occurred over a decade ago, securing the <br />required financing to initiate and complete the project as represented was too difficult to <br />obtain and thus they decided to prioritize exploring alternative uses of the property, and <br />exploring sources for construction financing. The applicant believes that the current <br />economic outlook is amenable, however time is still needed for the applicant to address <br />the various conditions of approval, to incorporate and finalize plans, and to secure the <br />required financing. Another reason given is that they have worked on compliance for <br />several conditions, including the conveyance of a 5 -acre site for a future school as <br />required by Condition V, but it ultimately did not get approved. The subdivision of the <br />school site from the subject parcel received tentative approval, however final approval <br />was contingent upon making substantial infrastructure improvements that would be <br />feasible only if the commercial and residential project were developed simultaneously. <br />Lastly, although there has been no physical construction that has occurred, the applicant <br />states that they have expended a considerable amount of "soft" funds. These funds <br />include nearly $1 million spent for more detailed land use planning and the preparation of <br />infrastructure construction plans for this project, as well as the adjoining residential <br />project proposed by Suffolk Development, LLC. <br />While the proposed requests meet the Urban Expansion LUPAG designation and <br />are in an area served by existing infrastructure, several primary factors necessitate this <br />unfavorable recommendation. First, the zoning of the subject property is not consistent <br />with the goals, policies, and actions of the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) <br />and the General Plan. Second, the retention of the existing zoning would not result in an <br />appropriate land use pattern at this time, therefore the Planning Director believes that a <br />Project District zoning designation is more appropriate. Additionally, the Director feels <br />that the requested time extension and amendment requests would support the <br />continuation of a speculative entitlement of the subject property for the purpose of resale. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.