Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0225.001 2004-2006 Apr 30 OS n2: 13p [8081 325-1120 p.1 RECErvc~ oaa~_._MAY--g-~.-208~~- County Count ~ Date: April 30, 2005 To: Donald Ikeda, Chair, Committee on Public Works & Intergovernmental Relations Fax No.: 961-8912 from: Mary Ann Todd-Waller Phone No.: (808) 325-3183 Subject: Resolution 84-05, Condemnation of Road Parcel 7-3-005-111 Number of pages inducting this cover sheet: 28 Mesaagc: I am faxing additional information for resolution 84-05. Please distribute to all committee members before May 3,2005 PWIRC committee meeting. If this fax should fail, please call me Monday on my cell phone 756-7411. Mahalo Comm. No. S' Ref. To:pre~ed«I tN 1120 Ref. Uate 3 Rpr 30 OS 02:13p (8081 325-1120 p.? Mara. ,4vth, fC. Todd- Waller ~3-4.280 /CCOk'CO StrCCt; lCatlup-/COnA, HCtwGlii~6~T40~500, PhOVr,C (gOR) 325-3163 April 29.2005 Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Streel Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RE: Resolution 84-OS and Portion of Keokeo and Holu Street Connector Road, TMK 7-3-005-10] also known as Lot B. Road B and Foster Road Dear Council Members, I'd like to take this opportunity to inform the Council Members Resolution 84-OS addresses only 1 of the 2 privately owned sections of roadway needed to complete the connector road. Road parcel 7-3-0OS-101 is located between the Mastumoto road parcel TMK 7-3-00~- 111 and the County's portion of Keokeo Street. I am one of the l4 Mastumoto Subdivision lot owners with an ownership interest in road pazcel 101. Collectively 1:hc Subdivision owners have a 25% interest in this road parcel. Many of us aze concern about the County's plan to open the road without addressing our ownership interests, possible liability and safety concerns as was done on July 11, ] 996, when the original barricade was removed using an expired Construction Right of Entry Agreement obtained from an individual with no ownership interest in either of the privately owned road pazccls, no meeting as held with the azea residents to address safety concerns as specifically asked by then Chairman, Brian DeLima. It is promising that this time communication has begun with Corporation Counsel znd Public Works. Attached find copies of my written communications to Gerald Takase, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Jiro Sumada and Bob Yanabu of Public Works, copies of communications supporting my statements and 2 maps depicting the planned road connection for your information. Sincerely, C. ~~ct ~ . Mary Ann K. Todd-Waller Apr 30 OS OZ:13p (8081 325-1120 p.3 .Mary inn x ?o~Zi'alZer 73 :¢zBo .xea,Feo Street, .xailua :xanq ~la~vair 9674° 9500 Phone (8a8f 313' 3183 April 29, 2005 Gerald Takase Assistant Corporation Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RE: Matsumoto Subdivision Lot Owners' Ownership interests in TMK 7-3-005-101, road parcel referred to as "Lot B", portion of Keokeo and Hotu Street connector road and s<rfety concerns Dear Mr Takase, Thank you for explaining the County's reasons for not ordering a title search of the road parcel referenced above. Enclosed are documents I have supporting the Matsumoto Subdivision Lot Owners' 25% interest in the road parcel between the Masumoto road parcel TMK 7-3-005-'11 ~ and the County's portion of Keokeo Street abng with other documents relating to the barricade removal, and safety concems of the area residents for your review. The safety concerns wera also hand delivered to Jiro Sumada and Robert Yanabu of the County's Department of Public Works yesterday when they met me on site to view our safety concerns. They are going to have Stanley Nakasone of the Highway Division look into what can be done to correct the problems. To the best of my knowledge and research the folbwing describes the history of transactions on the road parcel. Please be advised not all of the transactions are in the County's Parcel History sheets and road parcel 101 transactions are not listed in chronological order- As of 9/15/89 the Morris Scanlan Trust and Harry Foster each owned 50% of the road parcel. Scanlan Trust Ownership Interest Transactions In 10113/99 the Scanlan Trust conveyed its 50% interest in the parcel described as lot B 9676 SF to Kevin and Patricia Rinkenbach noted on parcel 98. On 5/7101, the Rinkenbachs conveyed 50°~ of their 50% of the road lol to Charles Adams noted or parcel 98. Parcel 98 is subdivided in 2004, built out, sold and their combined 50°k interest is conveyed to the County. FosterlFoster Trust Ownership Interest Transactions On 1!29/92 the Harry Foster Trust conveyed 50% of its 50% interest in the road parcel to H arue Matsumoto for access to the Matsumoto Subdivision. (Note: "Keyed only' is used by the Real Property Mapping Section in this case because Harry Foster as the individual owned 50% of the roadway not his trust which conveyed 25% to Matsumoto.) On 2!3/92 Matsumoto conveyed her 25% interest to the 10 parcel owners for $1,500.00 each. Isemoto Contracting's parcels 94 and 108 and the Maiers' parcels 93 and 103 paid $3,000.00 each for the 2 parcels they each owned. The top of pa~e 2 of parcel 101's history sheet shows all 10 Matsumoto Subdivision parcels having a 1140 interest in the roadway as the result of a warranty deed dated 215!93. Parcels 93, 103, 104 and 110 were later condominiumized resulting in a 1180'" interest for each of those eight CPR lots. I do not know what transpired in the correction deed of 2/18/94. On 4/21197 the Foster Trust conveyed 50% interest of the road parcel to Hawaii Land Partnership noted on parcel 99 as road lot B, when the Trust only had a 25% interest in the road lot. !'agc I of 2 Rpr 30 OS 02: 13p f8081 325-1120 p.4 I believe Frederick Giannini, Deputy Corporation Counsel's conclusion of 4!15/97 regarding Bnan McCourt's (TMK 7-3-0OS-104-0001) interest in the roadway is key in validating the rest of the Matsumoto Subdivision Lot owners' interest in the road parcel. 1 understand Mrs. Matsumoto and/or her representative has already agreed to the County's condemnation offer. The Matsumoto Subdivision Lot Owners would like to resolve the ownership, possible liability and safety issues before the barricade is removed again. Please help us avcid the Juty 1996 fiasco. The subdivision lot owners would appreciate being notified how the County of Hawaii plans to address our concerns. If I can be of further assistance, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Mary Ann K. Todd-Waller TMK 7-3-005-093-0001 Enclosures: 1 County's Parcel History on TMK'S 7-3-005-101, 98, 99 and 93-0001 2 Mayor Kim' response and my letter to him of 1!14/04 3. 5/5/97 letter to Hawaii County Council Planning Committee 4. 11!3!96 letter to County Council 5. Maier Condo 1'r amendment to declaration of CPR under the Condo Act (Road Lot B is referred to on page 2 of Exhibit A) 6. 1/3/95 and 7/12196 letter from E. F. Gianotti 7 8/29/96 Letter from Richard Lincoln 8. 4/15!97 memo from Deputy Corporation Counsel Frederick Giannini to the Planrnnc; Department regarding Brian McCourt's ownership interest in Road Lot B/Parcel 101 9. Warranty Deed for Road Lo! B recorded 2124/92 to Brian McCourt from Harue Matsumoto 10. 8113103 Title Search done for Brian 8 Elizabeth McCourt (Road Lot B is referenced or; page 7 of Schedule C as PARCEL SECOND) 11. 4128105 correspondence to Jiro Sumach and Robert Yanabu Page 2 nC2 Rpr 30 OS 02:13p f80R1 325-1120 p.5 Apnl 28, 2005 Jiro Sumada and Robert Yanabq Dept. of Public Works, With the ezceptiur~ of iten~~_, S eud 9, which have been recently requested, the residents who use Keokco and Holu Streets along with the Kona Palisades Estates Community Association have communicated ~.he following safety concerns and suggestions to the County as far back as February 1995_ (Sec sample attachments). 1. 'The intersections at Holu and Ahikawa Streets and Keokeo Street and Kaiminani Drive arc dangerous because of poor visibility due to the steep inclines [hat limit sight-distance w cressine; downhill and crossing uphill traffc. The hazardous situation is further intensified with the speed vehicles are coming down the hill, accelerating going up [he hill on Kaiminani Drive, and 'he blinding sun going up and down the hill at cer4nin times of the day. 'I'hc Kona Palisades Association has suggested [here he no IeR [um from Keokco onto Kaiminani. No parking ~.hould he allowed along the shoulder of Kaiminani near [he Keokeo intersection Curther restrictint; the sigh[ distance of vehicles coming out of Keokco S[rect. Robert Aeder, a resident from one of the small subdivisions otT Keokeo Street wrote in his letter of 3!13/04 to Councilman Aaron Chong, he clocked the time a vehicle becomes visible coming over the hill on Kaiminani makai o(Keokec and reaches the Keokco intersection to be typically between 5 and 6 seconds. 2. The intersections at planned North/South connector streets KiekieAliili and Nana/Holoholo have a far greater sight-distance visibility on Kaiminani Drive. This was confirmed a8er a visual inspection ofthe intersections in late 1996 by former Councilmen Wayne Easley and Keola Childs and later by Councilman Curtis Tyler. 3_ A dangerous situation exists on -fMK 7-3-0OS-I 11, the Matsumoto roadway lot due to limitec. sight-distance in both directions of oncoming traffic because of its sharp sloping curves. 4. A vehicle traveling north on Keokeo to Holu Street launched into the air and landed in the front yard of the property on the north-mauka side of the barricade when the subdivision was being built because of the lack of a smooth transition between the roads. 5. The south end of }Iola Street where i[ connects to Keokeo Street is substandard; less than 20 it wide, making it difficult for 2 full-sized vehicles to pass each other while traveling in opposite directions. 6. The makai side of Holu Street has almost no shoulder and adrop-off of approximately I S Lc[ ir. one area. 7. In the past a vehicle ended up in the north-makai property at [he comer of Holu and Ahikawa Street when it failed to negotiate the IeR turn on to I lolu Street while Iravcling in the makaUdownhill direction due [o the sharpness of the IeR turn, which is especially dangerous in rainy weather. It has been suggested the County install a guazdrail at that corner. 8. Request the County install speed humps to deter the speeding that occurred the 2 days the r.,adway was open to the public. 9. Request the County connect power to the existing streetlights on road parcels 7-3-5-101 and I I I . i t ~ ~°~l~/-GJ4~ C~ Mary Rnn K. Todd-Waller Rpr 30 O5 02:14p [8081 325-1120 ~~.6 J~YY O~-N~K 4~'~-• ' JOHN RAY Hilo Fhoner (g'< f I .C E Cnvncilman Aaz: lBi; .l 1. ' j'~ NJairnr~ F! one: 8" 3 ~ 1P i- ' ' ~l•~or NFL' Fax: (8G3) 8&i-71E t COUNTY COLiiVCIL Coanty oJHawaii Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Sfrnf Hilo, Hawaii 96720 April 6, 1995 "f0: RICHARD WURDEMAN, CORPORATION COUNSEL COUNTY OF HAWAII FROM: JOHN RAY, CHAIRMAN '~(L" COMMITTEE OF HUMAN SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS RE: COMMUNICATION NO. 247 AND 247.01 Communications No. 247 and No. 247.0] were addressed at the April 6, 1995 Committee on Human Services and Public Works meeting. The Committee chose to refer this matter to your department for review and comment. The Committee is particularly concerned aboert the I~gal issues involved and the County's options in this case. In light of the residents concerns frc~n the azea, we would like to ensure that the situation is addressed earefnuy and appropriaU;h . Please be aware that although this situation has some history behind it, some of the new Cu uncil persons are not familiar with the details" 71fat being the case, any and all informatioin you provide about the community's concerns, and the hisTory behind the situation, will be enlightening. Please also be aware that we are planning to agendize this matter agave for oi.r May 31, ! 995 Committee meet'sng. In order to include yotu respotL;e on the agenda, we need to receive it by May 18, 1995. Your assistance in meeting this deadline would be greatly appreciated. I have enclosed copies of the Communications for your convenience, and if you havr. any questions or concerns, you can reach me at extension 8265. "Thank you. attachment ~ rm~r. _ XC: MAYOR YAMASHIRO /t r r .i-~ !C~ ~-~:':'~.Y COUNCIL CHAIRMAN ~ ; ,,<< ~ L ; . . . , (Similar letters sent to Public 1Jorks and Planning nirect~il ~ 1`~ , Rpr 30 OS 02:14p f9091 325-1120 G~.7 i~ 8th SEi I^~ AGENDA COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES AND PUBLIC WORKS John Ray, Clwirrnan Keiko BOnk-Abramson, Vice Chair~eom~n; Keo1a Childs Ilrian J. De Lima Al Smi-th E7 roy Osorio, Er-Officz:o ,tifember HATE: April 6, 1995 p?~CE: Councilroom (Thursday) Tllv[I 10:30 a_m. CALL TO ORDER STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS ON 'THE AGENDA REFERRALS: Comm. 59.D1: RECYCLE HAWAII From Mary Helan Vesenka, Ph.D., Managing Director, Recycle Hawaii, dated March 12, 1995, regarding _lieir organization. Informs that about two months ago th<;; submitted a 12-month proposal which, if fully implemented, would contribute to the daily dicer:;ior at least 90 tons of solid waste. States the C"ount-~ t . not completed its decision making with respect to thEi plan. If this continues much longer, there is a strc. possibility that Recycle Hawaii will have to disband. Comm. 247: CONCERNS OF KONA PALISADES ESTATES PROPERTY OWNEF.; REGARDING MAUKA-MAKAI CONNECTOR ROADS. NORTH KONA From Barry & Louise Christian, dated February 22, 159 , requesting that the Council direct a study to 3et~~rmir.~. where connector roads are needed and to provicl~ a timetable for construction of these roads. State:; the= study should fully address Ka'imi'nani Drive wit:Yi respect to what, if any, safety improvements coup. be implemented as interim measures, in particular thF~ Keo-Keo/Ka'imi'nani crossing, which they feel will create a potentially and extremely dangerous intersection due to poor visibility and steep :nc:in:-->:, preventing sight distance to downhill or cross.nq traffic uphill. j (Note: 84 similar letters from property owner: ai.d ,1// residents of Kona Palisades Estates were received anc are on file in the County Clerk's Office.) Rpr 30 O5 02:15p (8081 325--1120 F>.8 Hawaii County Council "L5 Aupuni Street FLu ; ~ 1_ jr Hilo, Hi 96720 Honorable Elroy L L.Osorio Chairman Attn: Honorable Jim Rath Vice-Chairman SUB~ECT:_ MAUKA-MAK~II.CONNECTOR ROADS. NORTH KONA I am an owner and resident in Kona Palisades Estates, and wish to adv se you of a situation of great concern Lo us the property owners. The safety o= our children, residents and travelers on Ka'imi'nani Drive, the only mau<a maka~ • connector close to the airport, is a serious concern which must be addreesec. Potential liability to the County should a serious accident to life and property occur is very great, since we have had a fatal accident in 199], a runaway ruck near miss in 1994, and a runaway fork-lift truck which broke loose fror~ :.h F• trailer. Ka'imi'nani Drive is a four mile street with a drop in elevation from approximately 1700 feet to 300 feet. This street has no curbs, sidewalks or even a white stripe to define the pavement edge and delineate a separa?-.inn r vehicle/pedestrian right-of-way. This connector street 1993 traffic count is 3887 vehicles up and 4164 clown Tyr day. Over 100 driveways, and 50 side streets exit to Ka'imi'nani within ~hrr~ miles of its four mile length. About 120 children use the school bus earl dzr for K-8 and 94 students grades 8-12 of which 32 walk down hill from the 'pop ~f the development. The speed limit is 35 MPH with no speed bumps or warni-rg devices to insure traffic does not exceed the posted speed limit. Our concerns rest not only with today's heavy traffic on this steep strut .its no safety ramps or barriers but with the projected increase through the ~pering Keo-Keo street and other side-streets from Kona Coastview, Wonderview and Ke:1a T: Highlands Subdivisions. As an owner and resident of Kona Palisades Estates I request the Council direct , a study to determine where connector roads are needed and provide a timetable for construction of these roads- The study should fully address Ka'im~'.~ani c' drive with respect to what, if any, safety improvements could be implementer. as or interim measures in particu'.ar the Keo-Keo/Ka'imi'nani crossing which wE~ fc=1 will create a potential)y extremely dangerous intersection due to poor visibility and steep inclines preventing sight-distance to downhill or crossing traffic uphill. y Your early attention to this serious problem is appreciated. r; 1 Respectfully, ~ ~ ~^1 / u i ~ ~ ~q ~ / Date: ~~~"~G'~- ` - Resident/` ~n r, Kona Palisades Estates ~ ) ' TMK (3)-7'3~` _ l;omn. D~la~'" ~ ' _ flnr & /guise ChrBtimi r~• 73 J376 Aakalunkn St. A"ai(ua Anon FI:13P~ **Similar letters flnwnrf 967x0 Tor__~»..... received - i tr,,cr:__~Q `l 195`._._ Rpr 30 OS 02:15p (8081 325-1120 ~,.9 ¦ Ill l~a~r~~ hal~sades ~str~tes G'o~nruN~tt~ ~ssacr~rt~~ Post Office Boz 2223 Kailua-Kona. Hawaii 96745-27.23 August 20, 1996 Mr. Brian DeLima, Chairperson Hawaii County Council ZS Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Subje KaimiNani Drive Traffic & Connecz„r Dads: Dear Counc.ilm ,a: The matter of. traffic density and vehicle mix cn Kc~ m`.- Nani Drive in the Kona Palisades subdivision has been of- seri- ous concern of the residents for several years. The toc..;s of our concern is SAFETY. KaimiNani Drive was originall;~ de- signed and built as only a residential access road, and is such has well over 150 direct access driveways along .ts length. After the road was dedicated to the County, an tension from the makai end of the Palisades subdivisi-. Queen K highway was built by the county, thus creating t~= mauka-r~iakai Mamalahoa to Queen K connector road. Traffic surveys show an average daily flow of about 4000 vehicle going through the subdivision. Moreover, this topic ;:as been discussed with various Council members, Planning Di~ec- tors, State legislators etc., and resulted in passage of a County ordinance limiting the size of trucks using ti i_ n~ad only as a by-pass. Again, the motivation was SAFETY. P - other action by the County was to agree to delay new ~dj~~- cent subdivision developments until a new mauka-makai__. cc~.- nector road NORTH of the Palisades was constructed. Lhen when the so called~YO-TSA c-"-onnector road was opened ;Oli"'H of the Palisades, the adjacent development restricts>-s '.:ere lifted in spite of the Association's protests. Subs e.~:uei-.~ traffic surveys showed a negligible reduction, if any, caused by the new connector road, proving that a road NORTH .f KaimiNani is badly needed. Now we are encountering the matter of north-sour cca- nector roads from the new adjacent subdivisions to K:3imil~ani Drive. While we understand the motivation for such ::_oss- connectors, we again wish to emphasize our opposition bec:aus~ of SAFETY concerns. Rpr 30 OS 02:20p 18081 325-1120 p-~ ¦ Ill ~CvN~l p~tlrsades 'states G'anr~ruN~t~ ~ssvc~~~ tt~~u~r Posl Olf~ce Box 2223 Kailua-Kona. Hawaii 96745-2223 August 20, 1996 Mr. Brian DeLima, Chairperson Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni. Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Subje KaimiNani Drive Traffic & Connectc,r roads Dear Councilm c~a: The matter of traffic density and vehicle mix on Kaia,i- Nani Drive in the Kona Palisades subdivision has been of seri- ous concern of the residents for several years. The loco- of our concern is SAFETY. KaimiNani Drive was origin?11! clr--- signed and built as only a residential access road, .ar:d ,is such has well over 150 direct access driveways along its Length. After the road was dedicated to the County, ~r, ex- tension from the makai end of the Palisades subdivisi:~r. Queen K highway was built by the county, thus creatiar ti-._ mauka-makai Mamalahoa to Queen K connector road. Tr.atfi,. surveys show an average daily flow of about 4000 vehi._Ies going through the subdivision. Moreover, this topic :,as been discussed with various Council members, Plannin;~ Di:-=c- tors, State legislators etc., and resulted in passag~_ of a County ordinance limiting the size of trucks using the c~aC only as a by-pass. Again, the motivation was SAFETY. P.:- other action by the County was to agree to delay new adja- cent subdivision developments until a new mauka-maka:L con- nector road NORTH of the Palisades was constructed. ~'The:~ when the so called-"YO-TSA c-" onnector road was opened SOU:iI of the Palisades, the adjacent development restrictic:,s were lifted in spite of the Association's protests. Subse~uer._ traffic surveys showed a negligible reduction, if ana, ca~.~sed by the new connector road, proving that a road NORTH :f KaimiNani is badly needed. Now we are encountering the matter of north-sou,eh con- nector roads from the new adjacent subdivisions to Kai;ai2;ani Drive. While we understand the motivation for such c=oss- connectors, we again wish to emphasize our opposition becausa of SAFETY concerns. Apr 30 O5 02:20p (9091 325-1120 p 3 -2- One specific cross connection in particular has been opened arbitrarily as well as illegally_ I refer specSfi- cally to the Holu-KeoKeo street connecting the Coast Virw subdivision, through the Masumoto subdivision to Kaimi°]ani Drive. Our primary concern is SAFETY. The KeoKeo-MaimiNlci intersection is "blind" because of the extremely steep grad<_ immediately mauka the intersection. _If the expected s.it:- stantial flow of traffic from Coast View will use this con- nector route, the dangerous intersection especially during morning and evening rush hour periods will be of g~rea_~t ;or- cern. As regards the illegality of opening that roams ~,y removal of the barrier, Mrs. Mary Ann-K. Todd-Waller is separately corresponding with the council on that matter. We strongly urge the County to refrain from remov.:.i. c the barrier on KeoKeo Street for all of the reasons cited above, but primarily for SAFETY reasons. Sincerely, ~r Rby us rus Vice-President Enclosures (Thirteen): 1. Regional (local) map of area of concern. 2. Attorney E. F. Gianotti letter to Brian McCort 2/Ii 3. Attorney E. F. Gianotti letter to Carl Matsumoto 1/f3/9`.. 4. KPECA letter to County Council 6/6/88. ,5. County Council letter to State Department of Transpo_ta~ion .-6. County Council memo from Merle K. Lai 3/29/88. 7. KPECA letter to County Council 3/21/88. -8. County Engineer Department letter to KPECA 2/10/88. 9. Invitation to County Council Erom KPECA 1/8/88. 10. KPECA letter to County Planning Department 1"2/13/87. 11. County Council letter to KPECA 11/25/87. 12. KPECA letter to County Council 11/10/87. 13. KPECA letter to County Planning Department 11/9/87. Rpr 30 OS OZ 25p f8081 325-1120 p.t FROM Ff1X N0. 37` Cd435 ~e~. _'001 ;')b ~C^ ~ ~ 111 lCv~a ~"'altsudes estates G'v~r~ru~r~tt~ ,,4ssvruit~v~r Pas, 016ce Box 2223 K,~~i~a-Kona. Hawad 96745-2223 Mayor Harry Kim February 20-2004 County of Hawa; i 25 Aupuni Strcct }filo, Hawaii 9G720 RE Opening of Crossroads: Dear Mayor Harty Kim, Kona Palisades Estates Community Association was informed of the County's plan to open our roads as connectors between the subdivisions in the Greater Kalaoa area. The residents blocked the initial cotutection of Keokeo Street in Kona Palisades with Holu Street in Coastview. They blocked it because Of various reasons of property ownership and safety. We in the Palisades aze very coocernedabout the safety aspect of this particular KcoKeo street Opening to Kaiminatu. A- 'ihestreets arc twt lined up, and we understand that at the previous opening a truck drove off the road witfiin the first hour. B- Afterseverai calls to the County Council, three Councilmen (Former Councilmen Keola Childs and Wayne Easley, and Councilman Curtis Tyler) took the time to investigate our concerns reference the safety aspect Keokeo Street intersects Kaiminani Drive at a dip in the road. All three Council members concumd that the lack of risibility makes this a hazardous intersection for large volumes of traffic. Kona Palisades Estates Community Association suggest the following; cross connector street opening scyuence which would provide the safest and best approach to Kaiminani drive, originally a residential access road that the County made into a mauka-makai connector l Open HolohololNana Street first. 'fhe intersection has good visibility and is not on a steep grade. Turn-offand entry lanes are recommended. 2. Open OneunelKauhalc second At this point, a new traffec survey should be done to ascertain the traffic patterns with these two now outlets to Kaiminani 3 Open IGililKiekie Sweet third We suggest a "No Left Tum" resviction for southbound traffic for safety reasons. Rpr 30 OS 02:25p !8081 325-1120 p~.2 I-IU. i?5 IJ43~ ~eL. L'F04 i7~~'SUf ' FROM 4 Open Keokeo Street last after the first three are opened We recommend a "No Left Tum" restriction for southbound traffic because of extreme visibility limitations and very steep 6Radcs on Kaimmani at that point 5. We feel that there should be flashing warning lights at all of these intersccuotu for safety reasons. 6. And last, but not lease, we again would like to remind you, as we have done so many limes before, that the two main roads saving the Kalaoa subdivisions carry more uus than they are designed for. Both Mamalahoa Highway and Kaimmani Drive are overburdened There is a great need to open new avenues tha[ will defuse the load. and provide alternate paths This traffic condition will get worse, and a major accident is waiting to happen try the several future proposed housing developments planning to use Kaimmani Drive es an access and exit load. Most of this infotmntion was included in our draft response of the County of Hawaii Resolution No 20-97 entitled "Greater Kalaoa Community Plan" relating to a comprehensive development plan for the Kalaoa area of North Kona provided to County Councilman Curtis Tyler several years ago for final review. To our knowledge action by the Planning Department remains uncompleted, nor have we had a response from them to our draft proposal. We hope that this will assist you in the determination of opening the aforcmenhoned crossroads. Sincerely, Richard H Schenkel Generel Manager CC Board of Directors Curtis Tyler Rpr 30 OS 02:25p (8081 325-1120 p.3 March li, 2004 Councilman Aaron Chung 25 Aupuni St. Hilo, Hl 96720 REFERENCE:KEOKEOSTREET Dear Councilman Chung REQUEST: Reject any plans for opening up the street known as KEOKEO. into the subdivision known as Coast View, Holu Street. WHY?: 1. A significant portion of Keokeo between Kaiminani and Holu in Coast View is private];. owned. The cost of condemnation then purchase, presuming the legal criteria exists to do , is not insignificant, especially if the property owners in the Keokeo community should elect take legal action, if the criteria does not met the requirements for such action. It is the view of tl!e undersigned that a safety factor is not solved, if Keokeo is opened, but rather a convenience is provided to the Coast View subdivision while creating asignificant tratT-ic safety issue at the Keokeo/Kaiminarli intersection. 2. The cost to bring into compliance that portion of Keokeo and Holu which is substarc:ard is w additional consideration. Twenty (20) feet wide for the County owned portion. 3. The intersection of Keokeo and Ka;minan; is unsafe for those wishing to make a ]e:ft turn up Kaiminani Drive. The visual distance, down hill, to the right, is obstructed by a the fast raising slope in the road. By stop watch measurement, the typical time from when an oncorrLS,g vclucle comes into view and reaches the intersection, is some 5-6 seconds. That's scary. The r:t;ht hand rum is also in question due to the down slope and speed of automobiles from the left_ 4.The alternate connection at Holoholo to Nana is planned by a developer. This is neiu zhe middle of the two sub-divisions and is clearly preferable for access by residence and r}.e fire: department. 5. The additional traffic on Kaiminani, already heavily traveled, must be studied. Your careful consideration of the above is requested, Robert Aeder Patricia Aeder 73-1501 Laakea St. Kailua-Kona, HI. 96740 Rpr 30 OS 02:25p (8091 325-1120 F'-'~ . \ r RICHARD LINCOLN 73-1138 Ahikawa Street, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 c ~ _ - August 29, 1996 - Human Services & Public - Works Committee Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street _ Hilo, Hawaii 98720 RE. HOLD ~ KEOKEO STREET BARRICADE REMOVAL,; COMMUNICATION Z~t7 Dear Chairman and Committee Members, I have lived on the corner of Ahikawa and-Hole Street far 3o years. My home is located next to the traffic barricade that was installed to prevent through traffic from the Kona Coastview, Wonderviev an-? Highlands Subdivisions via Holu g Keokeo Streets to Kaiminani drive. I was relieved to see that the road had been blocked again after tnn County's fload Crew removed the traffic barricade on .1Uly 11, 1950_ While the Matsumoto Subdi~r-ision infrastructure was being built and prior to the installation of the barricade where Keokeo-and H~1~~ Streets meet, there was a red Honda Prel-ude that launched and landed in my driveway some 30 ft. away. The driver didn't realized thy:*. the' two roads didn't match- He claimed to iJe going 30 MPH. As for the Ahikawa and Hoiu Street intersection, there have bean a. number ofi accidents due to the condition of Ahikawa Street's grade being too steep. Cars hav© slid through the intersection trying to make the turn on Holu Street. This hazardous condition is grea':ly increased when the road is wet. I oppose having these streets open to the public because of :he condition as well as the following: A. Ashikawa subdivision was designed some 33-3a years <zgo Requirements and codes weren't like they are today. To redo Ahikawa and Holu Streets to meet todays standards would be ~co costly for the County. A ln.w suit due to an accident beca~~_.e o* the substandard conditions of the Holu and Ahikawa Szre-t intersection Would be costly far the County_ ~ File IKO.______... . Prtuootc~.: i ~ror___.-_..__,. tit. ilc+v: _ _~l_... _ Rpr 30 OS 02:25p (881 325-1120 c>.5 ~--r .r. B. The Holu Street side of the road is too narrow for 2 lar'gE oncoming vehicles to pass each other simultaneously- C. The Makai side ofi Holu Street has almost no shoulcar and and a dropoffi that is approximately 1S ft,. Zfi a vehicTc Naas to lose control again on these roads it could very well end uP in my neighbors homes on the Makai side of the roads- p. The intersections at Holu/AhikaWa Streets and Keckeo Street/Kaiminani Drive are very dangerous because of ?hey .,!o~ visibility due to the steep inclines That prevent sigf t--~.; ,tar~:~~ to downhill and crossing uphill traffic. E- There is also a very dangerous sections of the pri~?ate portion of Keolceo Street with vary limited sight-~is2ance ~f oncoming traffic due to its sharp sloping curves in bath directions, (North/South: South/North}. Z find it odd that the County did not check these conditions pier co removing the traffic barricade. Furthermore. when the Road Crew came to remove the barricade they also removed part of my ruck wall and used if fnr fiTT in :ne _f t steep drgpofif areas and cut my avocado tree ire Such a manner that ~t left my avocado tree Tvpsided. The tree Reeds to be prun~ac~ back. Please have someone contact me about my damages. Tt seems to me that he easiest and cheapest solution far the Coun;;~ is to replace the barricade that met County Standards_ Sincerely, n~~ Richard Lincoln Rpr 30 OS 02:25p [8081 325-1120 --E= r,~' MARY ANN KAMAKAIWI TODD-WALLER 73-4280 Keokeo Street, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740-9500 August 19, 1996 Brian Delima, Chairman and All Council Members Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 P.E: HOLU/KEOKEO STREET TRAFFIC BARRICADE; MAUKA-MAKAI CONNECTOR ROADS, NORTH KONA; COMMUNICATIONS 247 - 247.84 t Dear Chairman and Council Members, I first wrote to the Committee on Human Services and Public Wor4:s rut August 15, 1995, and received a response dated August 21, 1995, stating the issue had first been addressed on February 25, 199E ar,cl that the Committee had specifically asked the Public Works Dep<-utment and Planning Department to hold a meeting in Kona with the resi:fants ofi the area to hopefully bring about an acceptable solution to ,.ne problem. The meeting never took place. From September 1995 tc !day 1996, I periodically called Alapaki Nahale'a, Legislative Assistant Auditor, to follow up on the status ofi this issue. On January ~~-i, 1996, Mr. Nahale'a advised me that issue had been put on the back-burner and was no longer a priority. F am writing again on behalf of the majority of the Matsumoto Subdivsion Owners because to the best of my knowledge my request in my letter of August 15, 1995, to amend Hawaii County Ordinance E9-3G, Condition D, has not been addressed to date. I therefore, request that this letter be assigned its own correspondence number rather than be added to Communication 247 so that it may be specificali„ addressed. Page 1 Of 4 Hpr 30 OS 02:26p (8081 325-1120 p.'7 August 19, 1996 Page 2 cf a Hawaii County Council On July 11, 1995, the Department of Public Works entered into a Construction Right of Entry Agreement with Ulrich H. Rachner whcr~ they thought owned the private Matsumoto Road, AKA Road A, TMK 7-3-5-11t, which was in effect for six (6) months. Ulrich H_ R::chrrer owned TMK 7-3-030-012, a result ofi foreclosure which Michael S. 'o's was appointed commissioner. Michael S. Zola was also the commissioner appointed fior the foreclosure of TMK 7-3-005-110 t!~at had an easement in the roadway TMK 7-3-5-111. It appears that rather than do a title search, Public Works contacted Michael S. Zola and were misinformed by him as to the ownership of the roadway. The roadway is-owned by Harue Matsumoto and the owners of the Matsuroto Subdivision have a Road Maintenance Agreement with Harue Matuumoto known as Document Number 92-117576, recorded with the State of Hawaii, Bureau of Conveyances on July 22, 1992, which prohibits Harue Matsumoto from dedicating the roadway to the County without tFe majority of the parties to the Agreement approving the dedicatic:n. On July 17, 1995 a memorandum from Galen Kuba, Acting Chief Engineer thru Jiro Sumada. Deputy Chief Engineer to Stanley Nakasone. Superintendent of the Highways Division was issued to schedule the removal of the traffic barricade. On July 3,1996, another memorandurt; was sent to the Highways Division regarding the status of the barricade removal, because it had not been done. On July 11, 1996, exactly one (1) year after the erroneous Construction Right of Entry Agreement was entered into, the tra.`*ic. barricade was removed by the Kona Highway Division. The County al:c failed to get a Construction Right of Entry Agreement from The Harr~r R. Foster Irrevocable Trust to use that private roadway known as Lot B, TMK 7-3-05-101, which is located between the Matsumoto Road anc' the County portion of Keokeo Street. When the Matsumoto Subdivision came up for rezoning consideration, the Kona Palisades Estate Association of Owners expressed the concerns about the condition under which the traffic barricade ++ould be removed. The Association was always under the impression the Mauka/Makai connector road between Mamalahoa Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway was to be constructed North of Kaiminani Drive rear Keahole Airport due to the community meetings that were held witri t~,e County prior to the rezoning, not the Hinalani Street Mauka/Maka connector road South of Kaiminani Drive, approximately two (2) r^-les~ away on the Mauka side and approximately three {3) miles away or. ttc Makai side of Kaiminani Drive. Rpr 30 OS 02:26p [8081 325-1120 p.H v` August 19, 1996 Page 3 of 4 Hawaii County Council The opening ofi the Hinalani Street connector road has reduced the number of large commercial trucks using Kaiminani Drive, however •.t has not substantially reduced number of private vehicles using Kaiminani Drive. F'a ge two (2) of Virginia Goldstein's memorandum of May 8, 1995 to the Department of Public Works states, "The temporary barricade on Nol, Street was required due to concerns expressed by the Council regarding traffic generated from the proposed development and its effect an Kaiminani Drive in Kona Palisades Subdivision." Many mire subdivisions have been approved North of Kaiminani Drive since February 23, 1989. T pray that Council is still concerned about the effects on Kaiminani Drive since the Hinalani Street connector road has not substantially reduced the traffic on Kaiminani Drive. In consideration of the great injustice that has occurred, I implore the Council to order the reinstallation or replacement of the tratfi; barricade that was removed without the proper authority and most importantly to introduce a resolution to amend Hawaii County Ordinance 89-30, Condition D to reflect the intent of the condition, as it was understood by the concerned residents of the area- For your convenience, I have enclosed the fallowing documents: 1. My letter and its enclosures to Mr. Delima of August 15, 1995 along with his response of August 21, 1995 Z. Public Works memorandums of July 17, 7995 and July 3,1996 3. Construction Right of Entry Agreement ofi July 11, 1995 d. Information obtained from the Real Property Tax Office on TMK'S 3-7-3-005-110, 111 and 3-7-3-030-012 5. Preliminary petition that was to be presented at the meeting in Kona with the residents of the area that never materialized 6. Letter of July 12. 1996 from E. F. Gianotti to the uepartment of Public Works. 7. Letter of July 15, 19~° from Mark Van Pernis to the Department of Public works 8. Kona Palisades Community Association Board of Directors Meeting of May 4, 1988 9. Memorandum of May 8, 1995 from Virginia Goldstein to GalE=n Kuba Rpr 30 OS 02:27p [8081 325-1120 p.9 August 19. 1996 Page 4 of a Hawaii County Council Please advise me of the Council's position and all meetings that viill address this communication as we71 as Communication 247. The concerned area residents would appreciate it if the meeting/s wou'u be held in Kona. Sincerely, ~z~~~~~ ~~~w~:~ Mary Ann K. Todd-Waller Apr 30 OS 02: 32p 18081 25-t 120 n.' -„.,ems ~Y~: s~tnrv 1 oe tSMn ~ Phone- iSU8~1 96t-826' v"'{'~"""'" Faz: ~AOR)969-32y1 Lounly o~tlawau Hna~aii Cnunf4 Building /t4p1,/II SI~('fl August 21, 1995 Hd~>, Hawan 967:0 Mrs Mary Ann KTodd-Waller 73-4280 Keokeo St. Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740-9500 Dear Mrs. Todd-Waller Thank you for your letter dated August I5, 1995 concerning the Holu-Keokeo street traf3ic barricade. I understand your concerns in this matter and I appreciate you bringing them to my attention. For your information, this issue was first addressed by the Committee on Human Services and Public Works at its February 27, 1995 meeting. At that meeting, the Committee voted to refer the matter to administration for more information. When no response was received, the Committee agzin addressed the matter at its July 5, 1995 meetir:g. A2 tha: time, the Cor.~,::r:;e.: voted to refer the matter to the Pubhc Works department and the Planning Deparanent znd speciScally asked them to hold a meeting in Kona with the residents of your area. It was. r F:e Committee's hope that a meeting of this sort could bring about an acceptable solution to Cvs problem. I have attached copies of the relevant communications for your review. I will follow up «ith Planning and Public Works to etuure that they are taking the steps requested, and I will rc ntiau:> to look into this situation in more depth I hope this information is helpful and I will keep you informed of our efforts. Should you na. e any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact my office az 961-8261. J ely an e Lima, Chairman Coaunittee on Human Services and Public Works Attachment Apr 30 OS 02: 32p 18081 325-1120 0.? s I~,~ nn...v K. KiY~~y, , Sccph<n K. Ymxue6, r9 "°"~E""""' r-, Mew. - - - 'hc :_.Sam~d.. .r~~, G.a.~ 'J,.,; F,i;,,... ' 95 Jlil 6 fill 8 02 (2luurct~ of ~rxf~~ri~- -r UEPAATMENT OF PUBLIC ~d~17~:'s 35 Aypurv Svni, Room 202 Hib. F~u~u 96920-r+.^ !8981961-0121 - Fa: (B0H)9fi9-i 116 PosNt• Fax Note 7671 °e~a f t ~ ca< ? Gr To ~ From July 5, 1995 L~s~.J ~ :~Ot.e--..~!. MEMORAND(~M FHH ~7 ~ / Y rnz a T0: BRIAN J. DELIMA, }[UMAN SERVICES D PUBLIC WORXS CFIAIR A Fa'+!r DONNA AIYOSAXI, CHIEF ENGTNEFNR~ 1//I. SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORRS AGENDA - COtR4UNZCA`TrI ON 24=T- 7~~ MAURA-MARAZ CONNECTOR ROADS, NORTH RONA Attached are previous correspondence regarding the subject agenda item. we recommend that a meeting with the community association be coordinated by the Planning Department. Public works Will attend to provide technical information. Please pass this information out to the members of your committee prior [o the meeting. Attachments cc: Planning Department Corporation Counse] DSP (w/attachments) Rpr 30 OS 02:32p 18081 325-1120 p.;f w+w= yu/~.~ g~2~77 MARY ANN K. TODD-WALLER 73-4280 KEOKEO STREET, KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII 96740--9500 August 15, 1995 Brian J. DeLima, Chairman Committee on Human Services & Public Works County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street , Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RE: HOLU/KEOKEO STREET TRAFFIC BARRICADE Dear Chairman Brian DeLima, I am a resident of the Matsumoto Subdivision in Kalaoa, North Kona and live on one of the two private portions of Keokeo Street. I aa~ strongly opposed to the removal of the Holu/Keokeo Street barrica~e• for the following reasons: 1. When the Matsumoto Subdivision came up for rezoning consideration, the Kona Palisades Estates Association of Owners expressed their concerns about the condition under which the temporary traffic barricade would be removed, resulting ira Condition D of the Hawaii County Ordinance 89-30, effective February 23, 1989. At the time the ordinance was entered ~nt~, the traffic barricade was not to be removed until a Mamalahoa/Queen Kaahumanu Highway (Mauka/Makai) connectCr roast was constructed North of Kaiminani Drive near Keahole Airport to reduce the amount of traffic on Kaiminani Drive. Therefore, the Hinalani Street connector road between Mamalahoa and queen Kaahumanu Highway does not meet the condition of the inte'at of the ordinance. 2. The intersections at Holu/Ahikawa Streets and Keokeo Street/Kaiminani Drive are very dangerous because of the poor visibility due to the steep inclines that prevent sight-distance to downhill and crossing uphill traffic. 3. There is also a very dangerous section of the private portion of Keokeo Street with very limited sight-distance of oncoming traffic due to its sharp sloping curves in Doth directions, (North/South; South/North). Page 1 of 3 RPr 30 OS 02:32p [8081 325-1120 ~:.a 4. Since this would be the only North/South connector road between Kona Coastview, Kona Wonderview and Kona Highlands Subdivisions, rather than a part of an interconnecting network of cross streets, an enormous amount of motorists that Live in the area will choose to go South along Holu/Keokeo Street and onto Queen Kaahumanu or Mamalahoa Highway. This tremendous increase in traffic at these already dangerous intersections and roadway will make them extremely dangerous and potenti.all~ deadly. 5. Road A of the Matsumoto Subdivision (the Northernmost part of Keokeo Street) is a private road subject to a recorded 3oad Maintenance Agreement which prohibits the voluntary dedication of the roadway unless all parties agree. The majority of t;e owners do not want the traffic barricade removed. _ 6. Lot B, the connector road between the County's part of Keokeo Street and Road A is also a private road with no ri~l.~t of public access. 7. After consulting with attorneys Robert S. Kim and Mark Tan Pernis regarding this matter, they have both advised us that ehe Hawaii County Ordinance 89-30, Condition D, does not sped ^r "public access' to the development nor does it specify the :oad will be dedicated to the County. The ordinance specifies :ha? the road will be built to County dedicable standards. In e4,~ of this, some of the Matusmoto homeowners are considering replacing the barricade if it is removed by the County prior io condemnation with a gate or other form Of obstruction to throug~, traffic. S was very disappointed after learning from the County Clerks o4`ice that Jim Rath initiated the request to remove the traffic barricade However, after reviewing the two enclosed maps, I discovered hour close Jim Rath lives to the barricade. He along with the other residents of Kona Coastview, Kona Wonderview and Kona Highlands presently have to drive Mauka up to and then South on Mamalahoa Highway to get to Kaiminani Drive and then drive Makai on Kaimine-~n Drive to get to queen Kaahumanu Highway to get to Keahole Airport, Kohala Coast Resorts, Kaloko Industrial Park, etc, etc_. When the most of the residents of Kona Coastview, Kona Wonderview and Kona Highlands Subdivisions purchased their homes they had no knowlecge of the ordinance and the traffic barricade removal condition. Therefore, they understood that they would have to drive Mauka !o Mamalahoa Highway to get to Kaiminani Drive and then Makai to get tc Cueen Kaahumanu Highway. Page 2 of 3 qpr 30 OS 02:32p 18081 325-1120 n.5 ~ Removal of the barricade would be a terrible injustice to those of i.,,, that live on Keokeo Street and the Kona Palisades Estates resi~znts I am also concerned that if the barricade is removed, the envisioned Mauka/Makai connector road near Keahole Airport will be put off indefinitely. I implore you Y.o introduce a bill to amend Hawaii County Ordi~an~,z 89-30 to reflect its original intention. I have enclosed copies ofi the following documents far your convenience: 1. January 13, 1995 letter to Carl Matsusmoto from Attorney E.F: Gianotti 2, February 7, 1995 letter to Brian McCourt from Attorney E.F. Gianotti 3. Recorded Matsumoto Road Maintenance Agreement 4. Two maps of the area this letter refers to Please notify me of the Councils position. Sincerely, Mary Ann K. Todd-Waller Enclosures as indicated Page 3 of 3 Rpr 30 OS 02: 32p (8081 325-1]20 ~-F. Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Coasriiew-Palisades connector hits snag By BOBBY COMMAND! West Hawaii Today *Lower sveets to open first, council promises; cowrty may condemn Matsumoto's road' A renewed effort to link Kona Palisades with Kona Coastview and other subdivisions to the north has run into a snag. Bruce McClure, wunty Public Works director, said there aze legal ramifications that may hinder or even prevent removal of a barrier on private property between I}olu Sveet in Coastview and Keokeo Sveet in Palisades. ""Ihe (Hawaii County Council) made promises that the lower svicets would be opened first," McClure said "We need to look at those things before we can take down any barriers on private property." During a recent meeting in Kona, McClure said the county would be looking into condemning the private road owned by [he Matsumoto family and removing the batrier. "We're looking at any solution to mitigate the traffic problems in West Hawaii," he said. Connections between Palisades and Coastview have long been requested by many residents of Coastview, Wonderview, Kona Highlands and Keahole Heights. Those motorists must now drive up to Mamalahoa Highway before taming down Kaiminani Drive to reach Queen Kaahumanu }lighway. However, some Palisades residents aze cautious about a connection that could add traf}ic onto Kaiminani, especially the upper portion of the road where it is quite steep. Fpr 30 OS ?2: 33p [8081 325-1120 McClure said'fuusday that a decision will be made on the removal of the barrier in a month to six weeks. "But that decision may be that we leave the barrier," he said. "We're already looking at those places and all should eventually be opened, but the problem is they are on raw land, and an (environmental assessment) will have to he done if we're going to connect those." Those alternatives, in that order, are recommended by the Kona Palisades Estates Community Association, Richard H. Schenkel, general manager, said the opening of Keokeo - Holu first would create a dangerous situation at the comer of Keokeo and Kaiminani Drive. "Keokeo Street intersects Kaiminani Drive at a dip in the road," Sehenkel said. "(Former Councilmen Keola Childs, Wayne Easley and Curtis Tyler) concurred that the lack of visibility makes this a hazardous intersection for large vohunes of traffic." Schcnkel said Kaiminani Drive will become more congested as future developers use the road as access for their piggyback subdivisions. At least two large -scale subdivisions arc planned north and south of lower Palisades. "This traffic condition will get worse, and a major accident is waiting to happen by the several future proposed housing developments planning to use Kaiminani Drive as an access and exit road," Schenkel said. Ix;ommand@westha wail today.c om III _cf='~I r_.n M1c,~c~~l nglc... Uv. _-.li. iuni,i ~.i nfl~.~n.'~ I.~ rAw IH:,u~~~ ~J•. a:b.ir_ti i zupn.~ < i,n~pa i ~ . Rpr 30 OS 02: 33p 18081 325-L120 n P ~ fe ease ° ~ & aW ZE ~M aaS' .rH"N o'~ 5 i ow.a,,~YV.,,.x d v f o a°~PPX \ \e.-A oe5 ~ °~P \ •'^'X J11'6ulVsiplb AassMC~Z7GL i't6lW.c~~.~ vn;oN-vmlvnoi ~ 9 ~d ON ImD 17 p.wt ylG -°y~ - ~~y6 nl^%W vl0 P~ nN v°ON wmy0 - wv - - G vN v'rwFl v F n'.°r'X ~Y ~ wI IIq ew o °x N ~ ,c^~G -.J 'q .w NO q ~(C~ L) ~ ~i~lm(°u ra . ~ i ~'rl'l,b.J PIO a N~ I> ....~r i/ neVl m _ = ~ s p.9 ~ liO meN imisMl n x ooum4 ~ - AA YQ lusul 1 6 1 umIO ~H. _+~``L o y n IeF rv9M Yl0• ~ b ~ 1?M 9_ n C • jn ~ t e w ~~eiNec °"=X 0 9 v .LPy~L`vy, rm+L rr. 92~ PPP°% ~°.y1 wrwyy V ~ ~+Y+X IIIe ~FeN ~ ~1 ~ ~ yJ p. G .er ~ ~~V ~~t 3 ~ I J ti v' v yww • ~ X 1S ie vcm ~uef^4d m ~ 0}1..__._ C- ' 1Q ~ 201 - ~ Pp ~l 1I e! C°AL _ ~ . 0 or°X h ^I3 7 _ ~ \bo Id S i4 luelX ly ~P`H r `o m ~-IRY?lo¢4!^^d1 DN alonleundq tm AI ~ m ?c IS o. c ^I^nI0 ~Y~ f~ ~ ~ I~ W'I~~ a o_'Qyotl¢ nF{e J`~H v Co ~n`~ {~pro"j~?1 ~ ~ e ne a 2 ~ _ °rr vwwl m y..prv ~i= v' n m ~w ~ a off, ~ c I, x• ° ° •w w°n A ~ a^" • ~ Y a ~ ~ a rn•° oa. cr" ~ S J Y .~a`S4 '~G ~ II'kv w.rzl .a~¢ vO ~ ~ vnmv . n- X81 Qyo_ 3, m O ~ ~ Py dao~ rlc;lni~~ ~ Z ~ , a w~ rr9 °+a `c~ f_ i 4 ~ ~ r, ~ a ez~~ s vovwx v G,z:+a\d 3 U J S~atlSl9 tld VNON ~ (8081 325-i1'LO P-~~ qpr 30 OS 02: 33p r ~airr~mnrwn n~ k ice, ~ h ~f O Np Vt co~~T /OMIT ?M/ (1 uMr".,"GwI}b, ~ I!'I^~0.863 Ac. ~ . ~un~a.._ ~ ~H^e 'l 7~ 5'L CPAO.M.] D; COar~ ~t E`Y,1 p ti... rca Gq O ~qa I~DV?)1 Vb ~',A t7:9. ~ O - t F'. 107 'iw..~u. ~ N /.oo/ Ac. ~ h n f t' b •a N ~l.000Ac' `f G 9~ p~A~ ~ Ao, ~ a ,r A. ~ 107G Ac. ~7, ~ a I~ sY f0 X000 -t:.~'" ~ /I~~i7 ° Aa..a ~ 1 ~r D \t~]N~~Z_ B r ~ _ G ugie,eso! 's,a~/f ;~~6,PSE.,~ / fvwK. n.~~/ N P a« ~ lJ , U ~~Yffnnn~y„w ~ y 8 p' ~10f IY? V ~ + F,• q ~ 4 ~~ll ~l ' T P ~ ~B Kam, ~ ri~ t °R~-----~~E_____