Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0064.001 2004-2006 „1=, SSFM INTERNATIONAL, INC. 74-5620 Palani Roatl, Suite A218 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 Phone: (808) 3264733 N T E H N A T I O N A L Fax: (866) 887-8885 Email: eharlow~ssfm.com Prolecl Managers, Planners, 8 Engineers American Council of Engineering Companies, Member January 10, 2005 2004_060.000 Fred Galdones, Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission c/o Planning Department County of Hawai' i 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 = - Dear Chairman Galdones and Members: Change of Zone Application (REZ 04-O18) Applicant: Ho'awe LLC 1 Request: Agricultural (A-la) to Single-Family Residential (RS-15) _ Tax Map Key' 7-4-480 81 82, 83 Thank you for your letters dated December 20, 2004, one of which was addressed to the undersigned and the other of which was addressed to County Council Chairman Gary Safarik and Members of the County Council. The purpose of these letters was to inform recipients ofthe Planning Commission's unfavorable recommendation on the above-referenced application that was heard on December 2, 2004. Both of these letters included the following paragraph: "In light of testimony from the public regarding such things as the project will not provide affordable housing and it will change the character of the neighborhood and the comments from the Department of Public Works regarding traffic and Palani Road, a motion was made to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. There were four votes in favor of the motion and one against. No other motions were made." For the record, we are compelled to point out that the reasons cited for the Planning Commission's actions in these letters are not consistent with our recollection of the hearing or the hearing transcript that we have since received from the Planning Department staff. Mr. David Clausnitzer, a neighboring property owner, testified against the project because, in his estimation, it would not provide affordable or meaningful additional housing in the Kailua-Kona area and would harm the values of existing lots within the Pamahoa Estates Subdivision. A careful reading of the hearing transcript reveals that none of the Planning Commissioners questioned Mr. Clausnitzer about his testimony nor did they voice concerns about any of the issues that he raised. Comm. No. ~V~• I Ref. To: Presoated Ref. Date „1=, 2004_060.000 INTERNATIONAL Paget January 10, 2005 Letter to Chairman Fred Galdones and Members ofthe Planning Commission Instead, all of the questions posed and concerns expressed by the Commissioners had to do with the Department of Public Works' comments regarding the basic inadequacy of Palani Road, the current traffic volumes in the area, and traffic safety issues. [n fact, when Commissioner McCall made his motion to send an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council, he stated the fo Ilowing: "Yeah, 1 guess, my comment really comes down to the Palani Road. 1 mean, I do see the need for more housing in Kailua-Kona, I can understand that. But the Palani Road, to me, is, I feel almost at the point where we would be in dereliction of our duty to approve any more subdivi-. I think Palani Road is a danger, we're endangering the public by putting more-. I don't know, I just feel very, very uncomfortable about this situation. You, if, 1 mean, I could see this in some other place or I could see if, if there was some promise that Palani Road would be made a four-lane highway at some point, at some point in the near future; but the reality is 1 really, you know, there just isn't, the money isn't out there. I'm, yeah, I, if we need to make a motion, I'd be willing to make a motion to send an unfavorable recommendation and see where they-." It is understandable that the Planning Commission and County Council would have concerns about Palani Road. However, one of the most notable aspects of the subject request is the fact that it will not increase housing density on the subject property. As such, the Applicant genuinely believes that project-generated traffic will not be any greater after the rezoning than if the four lots were to be developed with a total of eight homes as allowed by the existing County zoning and State land use classification. We respectfully submit that the Planning Commission's stated rationale for its unfavorable recommendation is incorrect. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned with questions about this letter. Sincerely, Pamela L. Harlow Planner/Project Manager cc: Ho'awe LLC Gary Safarik, Chairman, and Members ofthe County Council Planning Department Department of Public Works