HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP PC 370 09/11/1984 1980-1984 w O • •
Report Of .The
COMMITTEE ON PLANNING -
DATE: September 11, 1984 Re: Comms . 1474 &
TIME: 9 :30 a.m. 1474.3
PLACE: County Councilroom, Hilo
Chairman and Members
Hawaii County Council
Hilo, Hawaii
Your Committee on Planning to which was referred Bill No. 1065
regarding the rezoning request of the Association of Casa de
Emdeko, TMK: 7-5-20 :portion of 7 , reports as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to change the district
\classification of a portion of the property from a
Resort-Hotel - 1,500 square foot (V-1 .5 ) to a Multiple Family
Residential - 1,500 square foot (RM-1.5) zoned district at
Puapuaa, North Kona, Hawaii .
The petitioner intends to retain the present use of the
property for residential or timesharing purposes .
Originally the entire Casa de Emdeko property was zoned
Y
RM-1 .5. However, at the request of the developer, Emdeko
International, Inc. , ..the property was rezoned to Resort-Hotel,
to accommodate resort-oriented commercial purposes. The
petitioner, representing the Association of Casa de Emdeko, has
indicated that the developer did not obtain the necessary
consent from the condominium owners to obtain the Resort-Hotel
zoning. The petitioner is requesting the rezoning of property
on which buildings A and B, the manager 's office and lobby is
situated, back to the original RM zoning designation. The
property on which buildings C and D is situated will remain
Resort-Hotel to accommodate its existing commercial uses .
The granting of this rezoning would not affect the timesharing
units, as the property is situated in an area designated by the
General Plan for resort use. Transient vacation rental units
are permitted within such designated areas .
PC Report No. 370
Adopted: �y
M,& A70. 305`0 -- 305
: / 66 tuck, '-C
m- 4 /9 / -211,6=e7,7
2 6—
•
1 <,
i
PC- 370 Page 2 September 11, 1984
Your committee has received numerous correspondence both supporting
and opposing this rezoning request. Proponents for the rezoning
seek to rectify the problem that the original rezoning was done
without the consent of the condominium owners. They further contend
that the change of zoning to Multiple Residential would lower the
real property taxes, and restore privacy to condominium owners
through the elimination of timesharing.
Those in opposition to the rezoning argue that the rezoning of
buildings •A and B to Multiple Residential would restrict the use of
the commercial buildings (C and D) . They further argue that the
rezoning 'would restrict their timesharing units and decrease the
value of the property and rentability of the units.
The expressions of concern indicated much confusion and
misunderstanding as to what would be accomplished by this rezoning.
Corporation Counsel ' s response to your committee ' s inquiry as to the
legality of this rezoning action clarifies many of the issues
presented by the condominium owners .
Your :.-committee is satisfied that rezoning of the property is in
order . As such, your Committee on Planning is in accord with the
intent and purpose of Bill No. 1065 and recommends that it pass
second reading.
s '
"c741,44444:--5,
i
TAKASHI DOMINGO, CHA 'ttliA
I
S ' 'CER K. SCHUTTE, VICE CHR. JA S L. K. DAHLBERG, MEMBER
(ABSENT & EXCUSED)
FRANK D: LUZ, III, MEMBER TOMIO FUJII, MEMBER
1
(ABSENT & EXCUSED)
WILLIAM . KA AHARA, MEMBER MERLE K. LAI, MEMBER
LA/CM