Laserfiche WebLink
lighter green, which is the subject property, represents Agricultural-5 acres, the darker green <br />represents Agricultural-1 acre, and even darker green is Agricultural-20 acres. There is some <br />Multiple-Family Residential zoning, as well as some Commercial and Resort zoning in the area. <br />This is the State Land Use Boundary Map; the green represents Agriculture and the pink represents <br />Urban. The subject property does have a small portion of Urban located on it; a majority of it is <br />located within the State Land Use Agricultural District. This is the General Plan Land Use Pattern <br />Allocation Guide Map; the mustered color represents Low Density Urban for single-family type <br />uses, the green represents Important Agricultural Lands. Approximately more than half of the <br />property is affected by the Low Density Urban designation. This is a close-up aerial of the <br />property. Again for reference, we have Hooper Road providing access, we have Old Māmalahoa <br />Highway, as well as Kuakini where they all meet at the junction. This is the Kona Coffee Villas <br />multiple-family residential project. And the subject property is identified with the black outline. <br />There are two permitted dwellings on the property; one is located in the rear of the property, the <br />other one is located near Hooper Road. <br /> <br />The applicant is requesting a change of zone from Agricultural-5 acres to Family Agricultural-2 <br />acres for a two-acre portion of the 7.6-acre parcel of land. The reason for the request is that the <br />subject property is jointly owned by various members of the Teshima family. Family members, <br />Yoshiyuki and Irene Izumi live on a mauka five-acre portion. The landowners wish to subdivide <br />the property consisting with their proportional interest in the land for estate planning and real <br />property tax purposes. Should the rezoning and subdivision get approved, the applicant would <br />secure his two-acre interest in land fronting Hooper Road while the Izumis would retain the <br />balance. <br /> <br />This is the applicant’s site plan submitted with the application. Again, we have Hooper Road <br />located at the bottom portion of the map, which provides access. You have the upper portion, <br />which would be over five acres, it would be approximately five and a half acres, which would retain <br />one single-family dwelling. The lower portion of the property would be two acres and would be <br />zoned Family Agricultural-2 acre, and would retain one single-family dwelling. <br /> <br />There are two issues that we ran across on this subject application, and just to bring them to your <br />attention, one of them was the comments from the Department of Water Supply; they were not <br />supportive of this application for the reason that they said even though there were two water meters <br />issued to this property, they said that the water, the pressure standards were substandard, the water <br />pressure standards, yet, they still said that there were two water commitments already issued to the <br />property. In reviewing this application and looking at the concurrency requirements in the Code, it <br />specifically states that if the water supply can meet and issue water commitments to the property, <br />then we can go forward with the rezone. The Planning Director feels that as a result of this <br />application, which is not going to result in any additional dwellings, there’s only going to be two <br />dwellings. We have a restrictive covenant condition that will not allow any additional dwellings to <br />be built on either lot, so there won’t be an increase in density; that we felt it would be appropriate to <br />move forward. The other issue is archaeological. Let me just get through this, so, the Department <br />of Land and Natural Resources had requested that an archaeological inventory survey be conducted <br />at the rezoning area. It was, we had approached them and asked them, do we hold off on this <br />application or can we go forward with a condition requiring them to submit the inventory survey; <br />they said that they had conducted a field inspection and they felt that at this time they are looking at <br />mostly walls and things like that. The applicant had actually had Haun & Associates do an arch <br />assessment and give us a preliminary read, which was submitted to the Planning Commission, this <br />2 <br />EXHIBIT A <br /> <br />