COM 0952.001 2022-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

So, I've spoken to them about it and maybe they'll be able to get one of those things to be my neighbors. Alright,thank you. PIPAN: Yeah, thank you, Dr. Chen. Thank you, Chair Vitousek,Planning Commissioners. You folks are so dedicated, you spend so much time not only here in person but at home, evenings, weekends revieing the voluminous reports we send to you. So,mahalo you plenty and again, thank you for your attention and care throughout this process. Thanks also to Deputy Director Darrow, the favorable recommendation, working hard with us on our conditions so they can be crafted so they are achievable, we can actually accomplish the things that we're setting out to do in a reasonable timeframe and not relying on the actions of others who we can't necessarily compel. So,the proposal is for FA-la on 14.9 acres and change. One of the recent testifiers bought up the difference and the line between the urban expansion and important ag on the LUPAG maps. That was settled in 2010 and reiterated that it was settled in 2013 by then Planning Director Leithead- Todd. So, I've included in my latest communication to the Planning Department, Planning Commission, and apologies for the late communication. I always try to wrap these things up well ahead of time. We had some late testimony come in last week that I wanted to also include in our response.But the determination of the LUPAG line and therefor the Kona CDP urban area line is settled as an attachment in that communication that was sent to you yesterday. I hope you all had a chance to see that. So, the first thing when Dr. Chen came to us last year that we looked at,his idea to rezone this to create 10 new lots. We look at the guidance. The CDP, the GP, the agricultural potential of this land, and everything checked out. There's a lot of history with this property. It had previously been put forward for RS-10, RS-15 development in that 2010 to 2013 timeframe along with State Land Use Boundary Amendment to bring it into urban to permit that higher density. And they got pretty far in the process. You know, a lot of testimony revolved around is this too high density, you know, the traffic impacts, and there were traffic studies done and updated throughout that process that showed that there were no impacts significant from the proposed 43 lots that would occur on this property. And this is after the neighboring lot to the south, to the west sorry, on the makai side 42 had previously successfully been rezoned to RS-10. So, we look at all these things as background and we say does this fit with the area? We've got Ag-1 on the mauka side and on the north side. We've got Ag-5 to the south,the neighboring smaller parcel. We've got RS-10 which is kind of funky because the ordinance has expired and has gone stale so that one will have to be kind brought up again to the Planning Commission to go forward and we got all the residential development to the south. So,this seems like a good fit in terms of complying with Ag-1 and being kind of transitionary between that higher density to the south. It's not within any TOD area. We can pull up a map from the Kona CDP if that's in question. But that is not true. I think that testifier was confusing this lot with the neighboring one. So, there's not a lot of adverse impacts here. This is 5-acre lots being turned into 1-acre lots. We're leaving the State Land Use as agriculture. So, agricultural uses are mandated by state law. So, any dwelling has to be associated with the farm in State Land Use Agriculture. Enforcement 10 EXHIBIT F