2006-04-21 Tgp-amendment - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

recommendation of the K to K plan. The General Plan that was just amended in February of 05 included Resort designation. And so the Resort designation in the General Plan until early last year was the basis for the State agencys pursuing their development proposals, their RFP. So I recognize the K to K plan is an important document and the General Plan was the basis of what the State was going on in their RFPs and thats what the developer is responding to. Last comment, one of the alternatives in that was evaluated under the K to K plan community process included resort development in the area. It was not selected as the primary land use recommendation in the end but it certainly-. In Jacobys view a mixed-use development is really going to be the most successful there to achieve the public purposes under the RFP. And that mix of uses right now cannot include residential under the terms of the agreements. Theres no permanent residential allowed under the lease or the development agreement. So because of that restriction the only other way to have this be an economic successisprovide for transient accommodationsand instead of the permanent residential. And so its really with that reality that the State is moving forward in making that RFP. A mixed-use development is the model for smart growth. Thats what Jacoby would like to be able to do here. You cant use the permanent residential use and then instead using the transient accommodations as the way to create that mix of uses. ALAMEDA:Follow up? GRAHAM:Thanks for your clarifications. TARNAS:Thank you Commissioner. ALAMEDA:Other questions for David? Seeing none. Thank you very much you may be seated. TARNAS:Thank you Chairman. ALAMEDA:Okay, state your name and address sir for the record. FORD:The name is Larry Ford. I live at 81-950 Makahiki Lane in Captain Cook. ALAMEDA:All right you may proceed with your testimony. FORD:I have a serious problem with the F-2, Important Ag lands to Rural. And that particular one I-, for one problem I have is the density number 2 I have a problem with the traffic, number 3 I have a problem with the flood areas which were discussed briefly prior to this. And the sewage is, which was briefly described is another concern. On the density portion thats about 92 and a half acres and that had 38 lots approved some time in the past. Right now theres a pending subdivision for 33, 2-acre parcels. Now that is pending. If we change this to Urban the person that has that pending can then let that particular subdivision request die and come back theres nothing stopping him from putting half acre lots in. Now weretalkingaboutwhatisthat132lotsandonthe66acres.Andthenwehaveanadditional26acresifwe make that rural and we go half-acre lots, which rural says you can have. Gone is all the Important Ag lands, theres52otherpeoplethere.BythatIcountaboutahundredandeighty-fourlotspossiblethere.That,half of those lots would be on the floor plane, a flood location. Impossible to keep those people from being hurt andfrom,theirhomesfrombeingdestroyedwhenwehaveareallybigfloodcausewevehadafew through there. And as far as not being able to have Ag in there, theres presently on the corner of that EXHIBIT D 13