2020-02-20 Leeward Exh D (AMEND REZ 2004-024 & AMEND REZ 2004-025)

Home

the applicants represented that they were separate entities and under 15 acres; therefore, they were processed at the County Council and not the State Land Use Commission. The Land Use Commission commented that they had strong objections to the manner in which the boundary amendments were being processed. Under HRS 205-3.1, Amendments to District Boundaries, they believed that both the Village Center, Puaa, and rental housing project were part of the same Pualani Makai master planned community, which is consistent with the site plan that they provided to us today, or for these applications, and that permitting was deliberately incrementalized to evade the jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission. Although the original 2005 boundary amendments were approved in an incrementalized manner, in order to implement the TOD concept and Project District zoning recommended by the Kona Community Development Plan, the applicant will be required to seek a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Land Use Commission from Agricultural to Urban district for the surrounding properties under joint ownership. And then, finally, the proposed request will not result in a more appropriate land use pattern that will further the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare. Based on everything that we've mentioned prior, the Director feels that approving the requested amendments and retaining the existing zoning would no longer result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare. As an alternative, the Director recommends the applicants pursue a State Land Use Boundary Amendment for the remaining adjacent properties and submit a Change of Zone to a Project District for the approximately 60-acre area to establish the Kahului-Puapua`a Village Neighborhood Transit-Oriented Development as recommended by the Kona CDP. So, based on all of that,the Director is recommending that we,the Commission forward an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council for amendments to the rezone ordinance No. 05-113 and the rezone ordinance 05-115. Since the information was sent to you, today we received two pieces of information, three pieces of information from the applicants' representative. We handed those out to you earlier. In the absence of a favorable recommendation from the Department, the applicants themselves offered a favorable recommendation for the Commission to consider sending up, should you decide you want to go with a favorable recommendation. Also, there was a set of plans and other information that the applicant is desiring to walk you through as part of their presentation. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have. Thank you. CARR SMITH: I have a question. Whose documents are these? KAY: This was handed to us, again, by the applicants' representative CARR SMITH: These are the applicants' documents. KAY: Sidney Fuke. Correct, yeah. CARR SMITH: Okay. I couldn't tell. 7 EXHIBIT D