2003-03-07 tkic - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HAYASHI:Thank you, Madam Chair. The Applicant is requesting to develop a 200 unit condominium project or multiple residential project o which is situated at the corner of Ali`i Drive and the proposed Kahului-Keauhou Parkway, or formerly referred to as Ali`i Highway. Just as a matter of orientation, this is Kuakini Highway leading south, Kamehameha III Road, and this is property is located in this location at the corner of the, again, Kahului-Keauhou Parkway and Ali`i Drive intersection. The Keauhou Shopping Center is located in this general location. Other land uses in the area or existing uses in the area includes the Ohana- Keauhou Beach Hotel, the former Kona Lagoon Hotel, which is curr several condominium projects. The Keauhou Golf, Kona Country Club Golf Course is located in this general configuration. Just as a matter of orientation, also, this is Makolea Road that stubs out through the proposed Kahului-Keauhou Parkway. And the reason why I mentioned that, there is reference to that particular roadway in one of the letters that we received from a concerned citizen. The proposed project will consist of a number of one-, two- and three-story structures, housing which would be for the multiple residential dwellings, u residential dwellings. The other size of the units would be approximately 1,100 square feet. The Applicant, the Petitioner, intends to develop the property as soon as it receives approval of this SMA Use Permit application and receipt of development financing. The overall cost of the development is estimated to be at $35 millio Just as a matter of orientation, also, between the subject property and Ali`i Drive, there is the Great Wall of Kuakini. This particular wall and the lower p and Ali`i Drive will be placed into the adjacent archeological preserve, that is the lands currently owned by Kamehameha Investment Corporation. Staff is recommending that the SMA Use Permit be approved with several conditions. And we did present this, I believe, early enough for you to review, so IÓll dispense with the reading of the proposed conditions. Are there any questions also had a letter for, a request for contested case hearing by John Tapocik dated, which was received on December 18, 2002 through the petitionerÓs representative, Carlsmith Ball. Since there was no filing fee attached to the request for intervention, we had sent a letter to Mr. Tapocik to submit the requested filing fee. The letter that we sent to the address that was noted in his petition was returned to us as being unclaimed. We also then sent the letter back to him to a California address. To this date, we have not received any correspondences or the filing fee from Mr. Tapocik. So we determined that that petition is not valid and not timely. We also received a letter from a Mr. Dale Jesse concerning, expressing their concerns about the project accessing off of Makolea Street. Again, as I indicated to you, the 2