COM 1005.000 2008-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

you see both on the right and left portions of the map, indicate the actual boundaries of the Kona Urban Area. So you can see that the Kona Urban Area comes through this property, as well as the fact that this property is outside of the identified TOD for this particular area. This is an aerial photo. Again, we are showing the property identified with a red outline. We have Hualalai Road running in a mauka -makai direction. We have Queen Ka`ahumanu running in a north -south direction, as well as the subdivisions in the particular area. The applicant is requesting a State Land Use boundary amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a change of zone from Agricultural 5 acres to Single - Family Residential 10,000 square feet for approximately 14.968 acres of land. The reason for the request is that the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into 45 lots that will be approximately 10,000 square feet in size. The applicant is also proposing to submit a Planned Unit Development application which, if approved, will allow for flexibility in lot and roadway design that includes smaller lot sizes, approximately 7,000 square feet, to be accessed by non - dedicable roadways. This is a proposed layout of the subdivision submitted within the applicant's application. We have Pualena Street, which is identified on the south portion of the map — I just want to make sure I had said that roadway correct, I believe that's correct — as well as the proposed access that will be meeting up with Parcel 42 on the left side on the map; this is the access that will bring it out to Hualalai Road. Hualalai Road runs on the right side of the property in this general area. The Planning Department's recommendation for the applications is a favorable recommendation for both the State Land Use boundary amendment, as well as the change of zone request for this particular application. Are there any questions? I'm sorry, before I go onto that, let me take care of some housekeeping business. If I could bring to your attention that, No. 1, there was a revised recommendation that was passed out — it's the yellow copy that you have. There are also some recent submittals that were submitted that I just want to bring to your attention. One is the comment letter from the State Land Use Commission. Just to make sure that you folks have everything that has come in. We also received a letter from the applicant requesting for several revisions to some conditions, and we'll deal with that after, as well as a letter from the applicant in regards to responding to a letter from Mark Van Pernis. This morning we received a letter from Joel Cooperson, and it was stated on the record earlier that Mr. Van Pernis' letter, his second letter, is part of that letter in response to the applicant's response to his letter. And lastly, we have received a letter from Michael Matsukawa regarding this and the other two applications as well. In regards to the applicant's request to revise the several conditions, the Planning Director — if you folks have that letter, it's dated September 23, 2010, the applicant is requesting for a minor change on Condition F to just include the word "and" — and the Planning Director is okay with that recommendation. And then also a change to Condition S, which is the fair -share condition, he is asking two changes. One is to change the word "may" to "shall," and the Planning Director feels that that's not necessary, that she'd rather keep the language "may" within the condition, and then lastly to add the words "and the portion of the north -south connector road within the project as" and then goes on, and then add Condition E to the conditions that were referenced at the end. And we can go ahead and make those changes, if you folks agree with that. Other than that, I think that concludes our presentation. Are there any questions? 3