|
central to the development of the area, and not just as an add-in of a bus transportation as is proposed
<br /> by the applicant. Now, the TOD development really allows for mixed several different uses,
<br /> including—within this pedestrian shed area, which is indicated by this dash circle these include
<br /> mixed-use residential and commercial, with higher intensities and densities in the core around the
<br /> transit, as well as high density and medium density housing, which, as you get further out in the
<br /> pedestrian shed, you see some of those designations, some civic spaces, and then high medium
<br /> density live-work spaces, which means both residential and commercial in the same buildings, or
<br /> within the same block with each other. So, really, not wanted to get too heavily into the particulars
<br /> of this TOD, but just kind of give you a graphic representation of what it could and should look like,
<br /> and kind of comparing this graphic to what's being proposed for Puaa and Suffolk. Extending the
<br /> zoning under the existing zoning, the Neighborhood Commercial and Multiple-Family Residential,
<br /> would really only allow for kind of two of these colors, and that's, you know, commercial in the
<br /> Neighborhood Commercial area, with some separated multiple-family residential, and then another
<br /> separate multiple-family residential development,which is largely constrained by our existing
<br /> Zoning Code in terms of permitted uses and again densities that would be allowed under the existing
<br /> zoning. So, again, I'll just reiterate that the only way to really created a compact walkable
<br /> mixed-use neighborhood TOD development that's recommended by the Kona CDP, is through this
<br /> larger, more comprehensive project development and planning that's allowed by the Project District
<br /> zoning in, as recommended by the CDP and allowed for in our Zoning Code. And at this point I just
<br /> want to reiterate that although it would require a bit more of planning work on the frontend, it also
<br /> offers the developer some significant benefits in terms of increased density and a broader mix of
<br /> permitted uses than what's currently allowed.
<br /> Getting back to the question of the minimum 50 acres required for the Project District, and we
<br /> showed this the last time, this is just the ownership of the parcels in the area. This shows the
<br /> properties owned, the subject property here, the Puaa property and Suffolk property are the subject
<br /> properties, but the other remaining properties are also owned by Puaa Development, with the
<br /> exception of Suffolk. And according to DCCA records, the listed managing partner for Suffolk
<br /> Investment is Puaa Development. So there is an ownership connection there, and we believe that it
<br /> would be possible to consolidate those parcels to come up with the minimum 50 acres required, as
<br /> the parcels together are approximately 60, 61 acres.
<br /> So, getting with the next stated reason for our unfavorable recommendation, "The proposed request
<br /> does not conform to the goals, policies, and courses of action of the Land Use–Commercial
<br /> Development& Land Use–Multiple Family Elements of the General Plan." The proposed time
<br /> extension and amendments do not comply with General Plan Policies: 14.3.5.7.2 of the Land Use–
<br /> Commercial Development section states that"Controls to prevent speculative practices on
<br /> commercially zoned lands may be established"; and, 14.5.3(e) of the Land Use–Multiple Family
<br /> section states, "To assure the use of multiple residential zoned areas and to curb speculation and
<br /> resale of undeveloped lots only, the County may impose incremental and conditional zoning, which
<br /> shall be based on performance requirements." And we believe that that's what the original
<br /> ordinances did; they put in place several conditions that locks the applicants into performance of
<br /> developing multiple-family residential and commercial development. And, you know, a lot of the
<br /> requested amendments are asking for relief from those conditions. Construction was supposed to be
<br /> complete by 2015. Last time we made this presentation, we were unable to confirm that an
<br /> administrative time extension was requested. After the fact, the applicant did provide us with those
<br /> 7
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|