HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0766.026 2004-2006
October 30, 2006 i ~L-`4. ` v
2008 OCT 31 AM 9 06
RE: Bill 251 - Stanford Carr Project - Kona Cof taii~4-+,WAP
Enclosed please find folders for Chairman Hip, Councilman Pilago and
Councilwoman Isbell.
Fleaoe distribute before Council meeting on Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Thank you,
Adele Pecuyper
Michael Flaherty
Comm. No. TW(P• Z(a
Ref. To: eressaf~
Ref. Dote OCT 3 1 2006
REFERENCE: Bill 251
PETITION TO RELOCATE
MALULANI GARDENS "MID-LEVEL" ROAD
Table of Contents
1.) Letter to Council Chair Higa
2.) Letter from SCD Kona 108 LLC to Mr. Scott Bell
3.) Petitions from homeowners abutting the proposed roadway
4.) Photos of homes that are below road grade on the north side of the access stub-out.
5.) Photos of the homes on the south side with an explanation of a setback violation,
Lot map
6) Rock retaining wall photos.
7.) Arial photos of MG and Brian Cook's lots mauka of development.
•padolanap oq JOAO lou plnom , ppi lsow pue
`salis leunq uunsmuH WOMB lugogitBis ,Cuuw SulAtq se llam se ease pool; a 8waq se aru
of paquosap sum glnos agl o1,Clzadoid logy •lltnq Jana sum 1! 33 glnos ag1 o1 luawdolanap
e of loauuoo Sluo of legl ,(umpuoJ Alunoo/,illo a aq of sera peoJ pasodoid atg imp
awrl ag11u DW ut panel oqm JolleaJ 8uillos mp Aq plot sum I asnoq agl pasegamd I uogm
(8-L ~10gd •puot posodotd agl3o apis aqj uo Imglas 3o lunoute
alunbopeut Silugumgns a si aJag1 opis g1Jou aqj uo pue wi wiogd ox) apes glnos ag1 uo
sasnog agl Jo3 opu.B anoqu st g3jgm H puoJ 3o soloqd awos am pasoloug •,iumpeoi ssooou
)Uepuooos aqj Jo3 an?lewalle ue Se )l003 ugug Jadolanap aqj Xq paJajjo slol agl 01 H puoJ
woJ; ,iempuoJ ssooou kmpuooas Qfl(I agl 2uiSuugo Jap!suoo of nog gstm 11eg1 uoseaJ
,CJuwud oql st suLL •luawdolanap anlua agl of anildtusip Alaujogxa aq plnom ,Cltunwwoo
paluil paueld u;o olppiw atg ut peoJ palaAR4,Clinuag u 3o uotsnloul oql `plus Sutaq 1ugl,
salotgan uorlonJlsuoo
2uinow Jo; puel nagl jo ss;)Bo Jo; A mpuoJ posodoid sigl asn of popualut oslu siodolanap
FIDN oql legl puu `,ilwnuwtoo aql Outpinip sngl luawdolanap 3g130 alppiw aql ut
polu8 aq of si suapzuo iuelnp:lnl `Jallal stgl ui 9# puu S# swab of 2utua33g .luawdolanap
Flax ag1 lnoqu D I I 801 auoN QDS Xq uauum (uotlecoossy sioumoawoH iuulnluw
atA3o luapTsaJd)113911005 of `900Z `8Z lsn8nV palep Jallal u ssoJOu auteo I •Jalluw
step gutpn2aJ gawasaJ awos pip I os `aw of 313ogs olaldwoo u su aweo sup ,Clsnotago
•Jaglo aql of DWjo aP1s auo woJ3 ssed of solotgan
uoilotulsuoa ,Cnuaq agl Jo3 ,CeenpuoJ ssaoou agl su `asnog fw slnqu 1eg11no-qms peoJ a asn
of pualui siodolanap UZ)N agl pue ut 2uto8 paoput sem luawdolanap aDN posodoJd oql
lugl aw pouuoju! sJoggStau Aui puelutew agl uo UOTlg3UA u woxl awog SwuJnlaJ JagV
suopJuo tuelnluwjo uotlgioossv
s,JaumoawoH 30 luapisaJd `11091103S 'JW 013'I 1801 euo}l (IDS woJ3 Jalla'I :9N
I SZ 'I'lig HDNH HAMd
t81H JiegD ltounoQ JeaQ
017L96 'IH MON enIMN
WI ?EmInWW Z8Z-9L
fljaqnl3loopi w :woJ3
IH `0I?H
b loulsiQ ltounOD ,C1unOD izumeH
J039Jp 2utpiSaJd puu negD ltounoo
01H •}I AMTS :01
What my research revealed:
What I did find out is that any side of a house facing a roadway is considered a "front of
the house" and requires a 15 foot set-back (SEC.25-5-7). The two abutters on the south
side of MG my lot 76 and mauka #77 both only have little more than 9 feet of set back
from the road. It appears that the developer may have failed to follow existing county and
state set-back requirements for these lots.
The road-way stub out as it exists is 60 feet wide. I believe that this right-of-way is not
wide enough to accommodate either the required 80 feet for a "Secondary Arterial" or the
60 feet required for a "Collector Road" which would still be insufficient because of the
property setback violations mentioned previous on lots #76 and #77.
Because of this, I believe that, if this road is built, it would be non-conforming and it
would be unlikely that the county or state would accept the management of the road.
I implore the county council to allow the Malulani Gardens "secondary easement" to be
repositioned to the considerably wider mauka lot offered by MG Developer Brian Cook
and, in Richard Wheelock's letter to Scott Bell(page 5), "acceptable by SCD Kona 108
LLC". This compromise will offer a wider right-of-way, enough area to install
sound deflection walls, a flat grade surface that will not be a danger to drivers or
homeowner's (see aerial photua) and area enough to expand the roadway if it is needed in
the future.
I believe that relocating the a mid-level road to the mauka lots of Brian Cook would be
more in the spirit of what the PUD envisioned when the mid-level roadway was required
in 1992 ( increase community interaction) . It road could be of great value and legacy
to the entire Kona community, but it should be planned to accommodate the increased
traffic volume that will increase over the years and take into consideration the human
aspect that it will benefit.
Sincerely;
Michael and Toni Flaherty
SCD Kona 108 LLC
700 Bishop Street, Suite 1000
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808) 599-5720
August 28, 2006
Mr. Scott Bell, President
Association of Homeowners of Malulani Gardens
c/o Clark Realty Corporation
75-5722 Kuakini Highway, #103
Kailua-Kona, 14196740
RE: The Salvation Army, suggested widening of Malulani Drive at Queen
Kaahumanu Highway intersection and suggested re-location of mid-level
road.
Dear Scott,
Stanford Carr and I really appreciate your assistance in the matter of our re-zoning request for the
nearby lands at Kona Coffee Estates. We have been and continue to work hard on trying to
accommodate the desires of the residents of Malulani Gardens. These desires appear to have changed
somewhat recently, based on the oral and written comments by some of the residents as well as the
petition signed by over 50 owners of Malulani Gardens. You were not present at tnnauy of the previous
meetings and may not know the whole history of some of the issues, so I would like to mention this
history.
The 24 acres comprising Malulani Gardens ("MG") was re-zoned Residential in 1967 by Jack Ujimori,
with the proposed access coming up the hill from Kuakini Highway. Queen Kaahumanu Highway
("QKH") cut off the lower portion of the property and access from Kuakini when it was built in the
early `80's, and the State provided access from QKH to the MG parcel. As QKH is a "Limited Access"
highway, the State Department of Transportation Highways Division ("DOTH'~ designated the
highway access from QKH into MG parcel as the access to be used not only by the MG parcel but also
by the Kanuha Ohana parcel and the parcels which comprise Lowes and the proposed KCE.
Hawaiian Development Corporation ("HDC") agreed to buy the MG parcel and the KCE parcels in
1987, and subsequently sold the MG parcel to Brian R. Cook ("BRC") in 1992. At the time of that sale,
HDC placed an easement across the MG parcel in favor of the Kanuha parcel, the Lowes parcel and the
KCE parcels, and a condition of the sale was that BRC had to dedicate that road when it was built.
BRC proceeded to plan and develop MG and HDC proceeded to plan, entitle and develop the Lowes
commercial lands plus the lands now planned for KCE. Note that HDC had planned to build additional
commercial improvements plus over 400 housing units for the local market on the 108 acres now
planned for the low density KCE.
HDC obtained "Commercial" zoning for the approximately 18 acres by Lowes in 1998, at which point
less than a dozen homes had been built and sold in MG. All existing MG owners were notified at that
time, and no objections were raised by them at the time. By the time HDC started construction of the
Lowes site in 2001, many more homes had been built in MG and some of the residents were upset that
a Lowes was going to be near their homes. In spite of the County of Hawaii's requirements that the
roadway from QKH and the planned mid-level road be connected to adjoining projects (see attached
documentation related to the MG PUD approval), and in spite of the State DOT's policy of limited
access to QKH and their plan to have all the adjoining properties use this access, and in spite of legal
obligations allowing use of this lower roadway built on a 60 foot wide County standard roadway lot to
dedicabee standards, some residents formed a committee called The Concerned Citizens of Malulani
Gardens and went to Judge Ronald Ibarra's court to attempt to stop "their" roadway from being used by
others.
The case was sent into Mediation, overseen by a judge acting as Mediator and attended by Committee
members; Lowes personnel; the insurance company which has an $11,000,000 insurance policy
assuring access on this lower section of road, now known as Malulani Drive ("MD"); Brian Cook; and
HDC. After one and a half days of productive negotiations, the mediation was terminated when the
Committee demanded $10,000,000 in damages.
The case was sent into binding arbitration, where the Committee and their attorney Michael Matsukawa
argued that the road was owned by the Homeowners Association of Malulani Gardens, or that at least
the Associations' approval of use by others of the road was required. The judge acting as arbitrator in
that case ruled against the Committee and in favor of HDC/Lowes' position, which was that the
Kanuha ohana's parcel and the Lowes and KCE parcels all had the right to use that road.
The Committee then raised new arguments, saying that use of the road should be restricted to
"residential" users only, and not be able to be used by any "commercial" users, and also that the road
can not be dedicated to the County without approval by the Association. These matters were sent to a
different binding arbitration, and heard by a different judge sitting as arbitrator. This judge also ruled
against the Committee's position, and ruled that the road can be used by all and dedicated without the
Association's approval. and that the Committee can not interfere with said dedication. The road is now
in the process of being dedicated to the County of Hawaii. The road has been completed but is not open
as a "through road" yet as the County administration will not allow the barricades to be removed until
the traffic signal at Malulani Drive and QKH is complete, a process that has been lengthened by the
State DOTH decision to add another northbound lane and widen QKH at Malulani Drive.
The County Administration encouraged HDC to work with MG residents to plan the remaining 108
acres of land above Lowes, and HDC held a series of meetings with MG residents in April of 2004
(attended by 32 residents); July of 2004 (attended by 25 residents); and August 2004 (attended by 20
residents). These meetings determined that HDC was not going to get any support for additional
commercial land; affordable housing; multi-family housing; or even higher-density middle-income
housing from the MG residents attending the meetings, so HDC decided to sell the land to Stanford
Carr and myself, acting as SCD Kona 108 LLC (SCD Kona).
SCD Kona had meetings with the residents and explained that SCD Kona intended to build a low-
density, large-lot subdivision with either a Salvation Army site and a small number of multi-family
affordable units or no Salvation Army site but a larger number of multi-family units. Based on a vote
taken by MG residents, SCD Kona proceeded to design and plan the KCE project to include a 5-acre
Salvation Army site plus 16 units of affordable housing plus 57 large lots, as SCD Kona had agreed to
do with MG residents.
It appears that many MG residents have changed their position since then, based on the oral and written
testimony opposing the project, and based on the petitions asking the Council to deny the re-zoning. In
the past months we have had three meetings with you and/or other Board members plus one open
meeting with residents of Malulani Gardens, which meeting as attended by about 15 people, to try and
address the issues and concerns raised by MG residents. We have scheduled our next open meeting for
September 6' at 5:30 PM at the King Kamehameha Kona Beach Hotel's "Honu" room.
It has been made clear by the residents via petition, letters, email and testimony as well as in the
meetings that their major concerns are the Salvation Army site, the traffic on the lower portion of
Malulani Drive and concern about safety for the residents of Kona Coffee Estates as there is only one
entry planned for the project in the initial stage of development. The major concerns about the lower
portion of Malulani Drive have been 1) Possible hindrance of egress from the gated entry onto
Malulani Drive due to a backup queue in the new left-turn lane at the signalized intersection; 2) Safety
issues about Queen Kaahumanu Highway north-bound drivers taking the turn onto Malulani Drive at
high speed, imperiling Malulani residents; 3) Limited visibility of drivers exiting the gate both mauka
on the extended Malulani Drive due to a rise in the topo of the road and makai due to a thick hedge; 4)
the use of Malulani Drive by delivery trucks for Lowes; 5) any intrusion into the gated community of
Malulani Gardens by the public due to our project; 6) the use of Malulani Drive by construction
vehicles for the KCE project; and 7) just a general resistance to any increase in traffic on what many
residents continue to call "our road".
As to Number 1 above, it was suggested that we work on the possibility of widening the lower portion
of Malulani Drive by taking a portion of the park so as to provide a fifth lane for Malulani Gardens
residents to "merge" through and avoid any lengthy queue at the left-turn lane. In addition to the
Traffic hnpact Analysis Report indicating that this is not necessary, we have concerns about the
Association getting the necessary 75% vote to do such a thing, but we looked into it, meeting with our
engineers, State Department of Transportation personnel, and County of Hawaii personnel.
Our engineers looked at the addition of another lane to Malulani Drive and noted that the addition
would be limited to the area makai of the gate, due to the fact that the park property starts at the gate
and widens out as it goes makai. This means that such a lane would be pretty short, limited to the
length between the gate and the widened Queen Kaahumanu Highway (the State is adding another lane
to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, which will move the highway more mauka and shorten the distance
available for such a new lane). It is physically possible but the length of the lane is not very conducive
to merging and will likely be a safety issue. Our engineers came up with two alternative resolutions to
the concern about egress from the gate, both of which involve a revised striping plan and additional
signage, which they call Option One and Option Two. I have enclosed copies of these Options for your
review, as we tried to discuss them at the open meeting with the residents but met with little success.
The State DOTH has taken the position that they will not support such an endeavor, nor will they
oppose it. They are in the process of widening Queen Kaahumanu Highway (as noted above) and will
be adding an additional northbound lane at Malulani Drive, and any plans would have to mesh with
their plan, but they expressed willingness to work with us. They did express concern about the affect on
pedestrians and bike riders as an additional lane on Malulani Drive would widen the intersection, which
is a safety issue.
The County Department of Public Works and their Engineering and Traffic Divisions have reviewed
the suggestion, and they are ultimately responsible as this roadway lot is in the process of being
dedicated and must meet County dedicabee standards. Their preliminary assessment is that the short
length of the additional lane will present safety issues for a merging lane, and they also shared the State
DOT's concerns about the pedestrians and bikeriders. They do not appear very supportive of the plan
for such a lane.
We ran into a major roadblock to this plan when we approached HDC, which has the right to have
Malulani Drive dedicated. The dedication process has re-commenced, after having been delayed for
over three years due to the litigation and two arbitrations between Concerned Citizens of Malulani
Gardens and Hawaiian Development Corporation about the use of this road. As mentioned earlier,
HDC won several expensive arbitrations concerning this matter, and they are now extremely intent that
no new delays in dedication occur, especially given that verbal threats by some residents of Malulani
Gardens have been made that they will oppose the dedication in spite of the arbitration rulings. At this
juncture, HDC will not allow any delays to take place in the dedication process, so this added lane
possibility appears to be dead.
As to Number 2 above, there was a stated concern that drivers will take the right-hand turn northbound
onto Malulani Drive at high speed and crash into vehicles or pedestrians. I presume this risk already
exists. There is a speed limit sign posted appropriately, and the design of the roadway is to County
dedicabee standards so this risk should be minimal, but we can not control drivers from breaking the
law. We could look at additional signage on QKH to address this matter, or the County may allow
some sort of traffic calming measure to be installed on MD if this problem surfaces.
As to Number 3 above, the site distance from the gated entry looking east meets with County site
distance requirements, and there is a Stop sign at that intersection, so our engineers tell us that should
not be a problem. As to the hedge blocking views west from the gated entry, that is an issue. An
investigation has determined that the hedge is on land belonging to the MG project, so I suggest that
the Board have that hedge trimmed.
As to Number 4 above, the Plan Approval process for Lowes included an agreement by Lowes to have
their delivery drivers use the Henry Street access to address this concern, which was raised years ago.
The concerned Malulani Drive resident stated that the delivery drivers will ignore that instruction and
go up Malulani Drive, so the request was made to install a traffic measure to disallow any large truck to
go up MD and turn into the Lowes street; Hale Kapili Street. After review of this request, it has been
pointed out that this would disallow fire trucks and other emergency vehicles from having such access
and would not be safe. We will have to rely on Lowes and the drivers living up to their obligations,
410011
MONIENMW_
which can be enforced by the County or communications with the trucker's employers if necessary.
Z using `m1 - er°o accommodate' a ts'
traqubst. °
As to Number 7 above, we have reduced the projects' scope by over 75% from the original plan,
eliminating commercial usage and knocking down the number of residential units from over 400 to
under 100 in order to accommodate the MG residents. In addition, we are planning to add the mid-level
road and a portion of the Hienaloli extension as a part of the project, which will help move traffic off of
QKH and away from the MD intersection over time.
Speaking of the mid-level road, SCD Kona has presented a revised plan to the MG residents which
brings a second access to the KCE project through this road in response to the MG residents stated
concerns about a second access being necessary for both traffic and safety reasons. This second access
not only addresses the safety issues of KCE, but also of MG as currently the MG subdivision has only
one single access, and the mid-level road plan as proposed will provide a second access to MG as well
as to KCE. It also takes a little pressure off of the existing Malulani Drive according to our updated
TIAR (copy enclosed), although not very much.
When we presented this revised plan (copy enclosed) to the MG residents, their response was
somewhat undetwhelming. It appeared they were not pleased with this particular plan in spite of the
safety benefits, as it would require the installation of the two new gates. Some MG residents requested
would place Elie mid- eve road just above the homes at the top of MG, and I assume would leave the
existing mid-level road through MG as a vacant land parcel.
~Pl~
r so we talked with the County DPW Traffic and Engineering ionsabou
y t their posi ton on {
such a matter. They pointed out that the existing mid-level road has been planned for that location from
the inception of the MG project, and that the completion of that roadway will be both for traffic
connectivity purposes and for safety purposes, as that will allow the 121 homes in MG to have a second
ingress/egress from their cul-de-sac project. They also pointed out that the existing mid-level road was
planned where it is as the extension of that road intersects Palam Road at a location acceptable for
roadway planning purposes, whereas an intersection further mauka is not desirable.
' s 6099A ut it would be
in addition to the existing mid level road, which they want connected in accordance with the stated
conditions of approval for Malulani Gardens PUD. The residents of Malulam Gardens can approach the
County Council to request an amendment of the conditions of approval for Malulani Gardens, but the
County DPW will oppose this request based on or conversations with them.
As to the Salvation Army, TSA has taken a nuetral position on the proposed 5-acre site within the KCE
project. Their Honolulu division may or may not decide that they want a site here, so we are assuming
at this time that there will not be a Salvation Army site in this project, but this could change. Assuming
that TSA decides they do not want to be there, or the County Council instructs us not to inlcude TSA in
the project, then we intend to increase the multi-family and affordable housing component of the KCE
project to use the 5-acre site. It has been correctly pointed out that the additonal housing will produce
less traffic than the TSA project as designed.
If TSA does decide they want the site, they would be required to obtain a Use Permit for their project,
which process includes public hearings and input. The MG residents will have ample opportunity to
express their support or lack thereof for the TSA at that time.
Again, we greatly appreciate your efforts to work with us on this matter, and ask you to circulate this
letter and attachments to those involved and review the Options for the gated entryway for
consideration.
We would like you and other interested residents to attend another meeting in Kailua-Kona on August
6, 2006 at 5:30PM at the King Kamehameha Kona Beach Hotel to disucss our findings and options.
As always, your comments and those of your neighbors are welcome.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Wheelock
RAW: raw
Enclosures
CC: Stanford Carr w/Enclosures
Marisa Furfaro w/Enclosures
Linda Moribito, Manager w/Enclosures
Council Chair Stacy Higa w/Enclosures
Brian R. Cook w/Enclosures
Joseph H. Whitney, HDC w/Enclosures
Caroline Smith w/Enclosures
Steve Arnett, Kanuha Ohana w/Enclosures
Chris Yuen w/Enclosures
Norman Hayashi w/Enclosures
Bruce McClure
Ki Emler, DPW Engineering w/Enclosures
Ron Thiel, DPW Traffic Safety w/Enclosures
Robert Taira, State DOTH Hilo Division Chief w/Enclosures
Petition to the Chair and Members of the County
Council for relocation of the Malulani Gardens
Access Road
Aloha
We, the homeowner's of Malulani Gardens, who are adjacent to the proposed mid-level roadway,
((mown as road H between Phases 2 and 3), respectfully wish to express our concerns regarding
the development of this proposed roadway. We request that you do not allow a road to open as it
will decrease our personal safety and devalue our homes. We ask that the County Council
consider relocating the Malulani Gardens access to a more suitable area mauka of and adjacent to
the community.
We feel that the rough roadway, as it now exists, would create an extreme safety hazard because
of its above grade elevation in relation to the homes on the North side of the proposed roadway
(scot photos t.t). On the mauka side of that area is a 3040' rock retaining wall. This wall is already
showing signs of water escaping in between rocks during heavy rains as well as in the drainage
pipes (photos 5-6). We believe that excessive vibration could result in the failure of this retaining
wall, and lead to loss of the homes along the top.
The south side of the proposed roadway would be in violation of (HCC sec.25-5-7 )which refers
to a minimum setback from a house of 15 feet for any side of the house that faces a street.
Presently, there is only 9 feet of setback on lots 76 and lot 77. (see Photos 7-8 & layout) (HCC
section 23-41) requires a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet for the smallest road. Road H, the
roadway lot, is only 50 feet wide if you add the inclusion of the required setbacks (Photos 7-8)
Malulani Gardens is designated as gated communities with private roads that do not meet county
standards, the inclusion of TWO gates, would divide Phase 2 from Phase 3 and destroy the
community cohesiveness that now exist.
The increased noise and air pollution from new traffic that would be accessing KCE we feel could
be significant health hazard. Also, the new roadway would offer increased opportunity for
trespassers to gain access to homes in the development.
We also object to this area being used as an access road because of the possible property
deprecation of the home values and the existing site lacks of opportunity to mitigate the above
described problem safety and noise.
There is a superior, painless alternative, by relocating the roadway just mauka of MG where
there is there is a larger right of way, that can accommodate any future increase in the roadway
size as we a adding a sound barrier to protect the existing community this request would be a
win-win -ion for all p ' s concerned. ( a] photos)
Date / ~ a 9 - ~ 6
Nam
Address 7s ,?O M O L4 L-A m
Petition to the Chair and Members of the County
Council for relocation of the Malulani Gardens
Access Road
Aloha
We, the homeowner's of Malulani Gardens, who are adjacent to the proposed mid-level roadway,
(known as road H between Phases 2 and 3), respectfully wish to express our concerns regarding
the development of this proposed roadway. We request that you do not allow a road to open as it
will decrease our personal safety and devalue our homes. We ask that the County Council
consider relocating the Malulani Gardens access to a more suitable area mauka of and adjacent to
the community.
We feel that the rough roadway, as it now exists, would create an extreme safety hazard because
of its above grade elevation in relation to the homes on the North side of the proposed roadway
(see Photos 14). On the mauka side of that area is a 30-40' rock retaining wall. This wall is already
showing signs of water escaping in between rocks during heavy rains as well as in the drainage
pipes (phoros 5-6). We believe that excessive vibration could result in the failure of this retaining
wall, and lead to loss of the homes along the top.
The south side of the proposed roadway would be in violation of (HCC sec.25-5-7 )which refers
to a minimum setback from a house of 15 feet for any side of the house that faces a street.
Presently, there is only 9 feet of setback on lots 76 and lot 77. (see Photos 7-8 & layout) (HCC
section 23-41) requires a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet for the smallest road. Road H the
roadway lot, is only 50 feet wide if you add the inclusion of the required setbacks (Photos 7-8)
Malulani Gardens is designated as gated communities with private roads that do not meet county
standards, the inclusion of TWO gates, would divide Phase 2 from Phase 3 and destroy the
community cohesiveness that now exist.
The increased noise and air pollution from new traffic that would be accessing KCE we feel could
be significant health hazard Also, the new roadway would offer increased opportunity for
trespassers to gain access to homes in the development.
We also object to this area being used as an access road because of the possible property
deprecation of the home values and the existing site lacks of opportunity to mitigate the above
described problem safety and noise.
There is a superior, painless alternative, by relocating the roadway just mauka of MG where
there is there is a larger right of way, that can accommodate any future increase in the roadway
size as well as a adding a sound barrier to protect the existing community this request would be a
win-win situation for all parttiiees'conce need. (sw wrw prows)
Name~MQ / ` l1~~~~ Date
Addres~J M4.e L.C.r-1 C,-W
Petition to the Chair and Members of the County
Council for relocation of the Malulani Gardens
Access Road
Aloha
We, the homeowner's of Malulani Gardens, who are adjacent to the proposed mid-level roadway,
(known as road H between Phases 2 and 3), respectfully wish to express our concerns regarding
the development of this proposed roadway. We request that you do not allow a road to open as it
will decrease our personal safety and devalue our homes. We ask that the County Council
consider relocating the Malulani Gardens access to a more suitable area mauka of and adjacent to
the community.
We feel that the rough roadway, as it now exists, would create an extreme safety hazard because
of its above grade elevation in relation to the homes on the North side of the proposed roadway
(see photos 1-0). On the mauka side of that area is a 30-40' rock retaining wall. This wall is already
showing signs of water escaping in between rocks during heavy rains as well as in the drainage
pipes (photos 5-6). We believe that excessive vibration could result in the failure of this retaining
wall, and lead to loss of the homes along the top.
The south side of the proposed roadway would be in violation of (HCC sec.25-5-7 )which refers
to a minimum setback from a house of 15 feet for any side of the house that faces a street.
Presently, there is only 9 feet of setback on lots 76 and lot 77. (see Photos 7-8 & layout) (HCC
section 23-41) requires a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet for the smallest road. Road H, the
roadway lot, is only 50 feet wide if you add the inclusion of the required setbacks (Photos 7-8)
Malulani Gardens is designated as gated communities with private roads that do not meet county
standards, the inclusion of TWO gates, would divide Phase 2 from Phase 3 and destroy the
community cohesiveness that now exist.
The increased noise and air pollution from new traffic that would be accessing KCE we feel could
be significant health hazard. Also, the new roadway would offer increased opportunity for
trespassers to gain access to homes in the development.
We also object to this area being used as an access road because of the possible property
deprecation of the home values and the existing site lacks of opportunity to mitigate the above
described problem safety and noise.
There is a superior, painless alternative, by relocating the roadway just mauka of MG where
there is there is a larger right of way, that can accommodate any future increase in the roadway
size as well as a adding a sound barrier to protect the existing community this request would be a
win-w' atio4fol ;pc;,,:.,,Isee ~al potos)
Name Date !D -;Ze 64
rnet~
Address __Z 5 `
/-I4 c ",9 - /gin/ /J 75"6
l'Zol- Sf' )
Petition to the Chair and Members of the County
Council for relocation of the Malulani Gardens
Access Road
Aloha
We, the homeowner's of Malulani Gardens, who are adjacent to the proposed mid-level roadway,
(known as road H between Phases 2 and 3), respectfully wish to express our concerns regarding
the development of this proposed roadway. We request that you do not allow a road to open as it
will decrease our personal safety and devalue our homes. We ask that the County Council
consider relocating the Malulani Gardens access to a more suitable area mauka of and adjacent to
the community.
We feel that the rough roadway, as it now exists, would create an extreme safety hazard because
of its above grade elevation in relation to the homes on the North side of the proposed roadway
(see photos t-4). On the mauka side of that area is a 30-40' ruck retaining wall. This wall is already
showing signs of water escaping in between rocks during heavy rains as well as in the drainage
pipes (phaas 56). We believe that excessive vibration could result in the failure of this retaining
wall, and lead to loss of the homes along the top.
The south side of the proposed roadway would be in violation of (HCC sec.25-5-7 )which refers
to a minimum setback from a house of 15 feet for any side of the house that faces a street.
Presently, there is only 9 feet of setback on lots 76 and lot 77. (see Photos 7-8 & layout) (HCC
section 23-41) requires a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet for the smallest road. Road H, the
roadway lot, is only 50 feet wide if you add the inclusion of the required setbacks (Photos 7-8)
Malulani Gardens is designated as gated communities with private roads that do not meet county
standards, the inclusion of TWO gates, would divide Phase 2 from Phase 3 and destroy the
community cohesiveness that now exist.
The increased noise and air pollution from new traffic that would be accessing KCE we feel could
be significant health hazard. Also, the new roadway would offer increased opportunity for
trespassers to gain access to homes in the development.
We also object to this area being used as an access road because of the possible property
deprecation of the home values and the existing site lacks of opportunity to mitigate the above
described problem safety and noise.
There is a superior, painless alterative, by relocating the roadway just mauka of MG where
there is there is a larger right of way, that can accommodate any future increase in the roadway
size as well as a adding a sound barrier to protect the existing community this request would be a
win-win situation for all parties concerned. (sa a ni photos)
Name Date
Address
Petition to the Chair and Members of the County
Council for relocation of the Malulani Gardens
Access Road
Aloha
We, the homeowner's of Malulani Gardens, who are adjacent to the proposed mid-level roadway,
(known as road H between Phases 2 and 3), respectfully wish to express our concerns regarding
the development of this proposed roadway. We request that you do not allow a road to open as it
will decrease our personal safety and devalue our homes. We ask that the County Council
consider relocating the Malulani Gardens access to a more suitable area mauka of and adjacent to
the community.
We feel that the rough roadway, as it now exists, would create an extreme safety hazard because
of its above grade elevation in relation to the homes on the North side of the proposed roadway
(see photos 1-0). On the mauka side of that area is a 30-40' rock retaining wall. This wall is already
showing signs of water escaping in between rocks during heavy rains as well as in the drainage
pipes (photws 5-6). We believe that excessive vibration could result in the failure of this retaining
wall, and lead to loss of the homes along the top.
The south side of the proposed roadway would be in violation of (HCC sec.25-5-7 )which refers
to a minimum setback from a house of 15 feet for any side of the house that faces a street.
Presently, there is only 9 feet of setback on lots 76 and lot 77. (see Photos 7-8 & layout) (HCC
section 2341) requires a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet for the smallest road. Road H, the
roadway lot, is only 50 feet wide if you add the inclusion of the required setbacks (Photos 7-8)
Malulani Gardens is designated as gated communities with private roads that do not meet county
standards, the inclusion of TWO gates, would divide Phase 2 from Phase 3 and destroy the
community cohesiveness that now exist.
The increased noise and air pollution from new traffic that would be accessing KCE we feel could
be significant health hazard. Also, the new roadway would offer increased opportunity for
trespassers to gain access to homes in the development.
We also object to this area being used as an access road because of the possible property
deprecation of the home values and the existing site lacks of opportunity to mitigate the above
described problem safety and noise.
There is a superior, painless alternative, by relocating the roadway just mauka of MG where
there is there is a larger right of way, that can accommodate any future increase in the roadway
size as well as a adding a sound barrier to protect the existing community this request would be a
win-win situation for all parti concerned. (sot aerial photos)
Name Date 2-
Address
Petition to the Chair and Members of the County
Council for relocation of the Malulani Gardens
Access Road
Aloha
We, the homeowner's of Malulani Gardens, who are adjacent to the proposed mid-level roadway,
(known as road H between Phases 2 and 3), respectfully wish to express our concerns regarding
the development of this proposed roadway. We request that you do not allow a road to open as it
will decrease our personal safety and devalue our homes. We ask that the County council
consider relocating the Malulani Gardens access to a more suitable area mauka of and adjacent to
the community.
We feel that the rough roadway, as it now exists, would create an extreme safety hazard because
of its above grade elevation in relation to the homes on the North side of the proposed roadway
(see photos t-t)_ On the mauka side of that area is a 30-40' rock retaining wall. This wall is already
showing signs of water escaping in between rocks during heavy rains as well as in the drainage
pipes (phom 5.6). We believe that excessive vibration could result in the failure of this retaining
wall, and lead to loss of the homes along the top.
The south side of the proposed roadway would be in violation of (HCC sec.25-5-7 )which refers
to a minimum setback from a house of 15 feet for any side of the house that faces a street.
Presently, there is only 9 feet of setback on lots 76 and lot 77. (see Photos 7-8 & layout) (HCC
section 2341) requires a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet for the smallest mad. Road H, the
roadway lot, is only 50 feet wide if you add the inclusion of the required setbacks (Photos 7-8)
Malulam Gardens is designated as gated communities with private roads that do not meet county
standards, the inclusion of TWO gales, would divide Phase 2 from Phase 3 and destroy the
community cohesiveness that now exist
The increased noise and air pollution from new traffic that would be accessing KCE we feel could
be significant health hazard Also, the new roadway would offer increased opportunity for
trespassers to gain access to homes in the development.
We also object to this area being used as an access road because of the possible property
deprecation of the home values and the existing site lacks of opportunity to mitigate the above
described problem safety and noise.
There is a superior, painless alternative, by relocating the roadway just mauka of MG where
there is there is a larger right of way, that can accommodate any future increase in the roadway
size as well as a adding a sound barrier to protect the existing community this request would be a
win-win situation for all parties concerned. (rm mnai photm)
Name Date /0
Address 7 77 L~~u~
Petition to the Chair and Members of the County
Council for relocation of the Malulani Gardens
Access Road
Aloha
We, the homeowner's of Malulani Gardens, who are adjacent to the proposed mid-level roadway,
(known as road H between Phases 2 and 3), respectfully wish to express our concerns regarding
the development of this proposed roadway. We request that you do not allow a road to open as it
will decrease our personal safety and devalue our homes. We ask that the County Council
consider relocating the Malulani Gardens access to a more suitable area mauka of and adjacent to
the community.
We feel that the rough roadway, as it now exists, would create an extreme safety hazard because
of its above grade elevation in relation to the homes on the North side of the proposed roadway
(see photos 1.4). On the mauka side of that area is a 30110' rock retaining wall. This wall is already
showing signs of water escaping in between rocks during heavy rains as well as in the drainage
pipes (photos 5-6). We believe that excessive vibration could result in the failure of this retaining
wall, and lead to loss of the homes along the top.
The south side of the proposed roadway would be in violation of (HCC sec.25-5-7 )which refers
to a minimum setback from a house of 15 feet for any side of the house that faces a street.
Presently, there is only 9 feet of setback on lots 76 and lot 77. (see Photos 7-8 & layout) (HCC
section 23-41) requires a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet for the smallest road. Road H, the
roadway lot, is only 50 feet wide if you add the inclusion of the required setbacks (Photos 7-8)
Malulani Gardens is designated as gated communities with private roads that do not meet county
standards, the inclusion of TWO gates, would divide Phase 2 from Phase 3 and destroy the
community cohesiveness that now exist.
The increased noise and air pollution from new traffic that would be accessing KCE we feel could
be significant health hazard. Also, the new roadway would offer increased opportunity for
trespassers to gain access to homes in the development.
We also object to this area being used as an access road b~cause of the possible property
deprecation of the home values and the existing site lacks of opportunity to mitigate the above
described problem safety and noise.
There is a superior, painless alternative, by relocating th roadway just mauka of MG where
there is there is a larger right of way, that can accommodate any future increase in the roadway
size as well as a adding a sound harrier to protect the ext g community this request would be a
win-win situation for all parties concerned. (sot aerial photos
Name Date / O Z &O 6
CJ~¢
T.
Address ~ 7 S - ZtS JyJ jg
r
p t F Y
N
I~ m
~~Vy1
I W
ti
g3
o ~
a oG
J
a
0
q
S
x
oa
ax o
i
Y r': q
i
d
' sr .'Jt~s.t
q
rte.
;`§T v s
a ~ f ~ t i
i i
1 ~ M N
is g t §
I
t ; .ft
t
I
;ate ;
+ ; sas = T~e 1
T i
' i P - A s R
i
Jun.
(D Ol
_a
i N
5 s
i C T
LJO 9 - - - N -•Nmvuaio~.mc,°~~
s- S
I ti
.e
3 ~
3 .S
3
a
a
a a
w a~ 3
r t £xY r~..
Wi
R~ 5 I~
r rr+
y! 4 t `
{1 S
x
f."
Clett
~ 5:
Yahoo! Maps - Printable Version Page 1 of 1
YAHOOLOCAL
Maps
Yahoo! Maps, Driving Directions, and Traffic Page 1 of 1
YAHOO, LOCAL
Maps
http://maps.yahoo.conVmain.php? 10/19/2006
`LiTOy-+C- PLOT 2E N~ xexev \ 1
PLAT 04 'r
0 J)
~ y o x 4 ~G3~ oN
~ ~ ~ . I ' Yt l0 1if ~ 4
n
Y ,JAI Vii
0
m ~ ~ 696 ~ \
J
J _ J a
m y~
C W ` ~
ym~ l9
p a 'In
GO
° 3 1 nma
a y o,
O~J yt A
Cp P
y d
C
m
D a a O x r
GS y ~ a c °i ~ C
D ~ o' r r{ _ +f< u M
1 $ ~ N m e o
~ ti a O a A c
~N a D
x n c S Z
X U CO)
"m m G
cn c € - s
1 ~
r
I ~ C ~ ~ ~ O y o
\ CZ, G \ Rik
I 1
h c 4
1 N',
O v D
-lX
I \ ~1 I ti=ia>~~g VV _O \ G \ O
a 2
I, 1 ~ ~;la yy ~ ~7
1 m ~ c
I r~ \ 1 v 1
o OM
® x ' '
C \ \
z =r
M W y I i N 2 r \ \ ~II \
10
m O~y
O I{I j
1 _J
0 Oz -4 OZ
CAI
0
00
u tIJJ
M 9 p
M~ O n a 0 ' I I 1 No/N VNl
l-, O z I y VP
CIO) 6' 7b/
Comm. No. WO. 7.7
Ref. To: Craw
Ref. Date OCT 3 1 2006
~[V a N
Harry Kim Christopher J. Yuen
Mayor - Director
1 a•oi:~'~. Brad Kurokawa, ASLA
20106 ,fnt~ LEED®AP
NOU 1 Am
lLTYlty of PaiXIMTt Deputy Director
COt ` PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,C11,-i t 10i Pauatt\ilStreet, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043
(808) 961-8288 • FAX (808) 961-8742
October 31, 2006
Honorable Stacy Higa, Chairman
And Members of the County Council
County of Hawaii
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Chairman Higa and Members:
Proposed Resolution for Approval of In Lieu Fair Share Contribution
Condition N of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 02 95 (REZ 989)
Developer: Bart T. Cahoon Trust
Tax Man Key' (3) 7-3-5.97 Kalaoa North Kona
In accordance with Section 2-162.1, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition) as
amended, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action is a
proposed resolution relating to the in lieu fair share contribution in an amount of
$26,500.00 for the support of road and traffic improvements, as required by Condition L
of the above-referenced Ordinance No. 02 95. For your information, we have enclosed a
copy of Ordinance No. 02 95 and the applicant's documentation for the fair market value
appraisal of the land..
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or staff Alice Kawaha of
this department at 961-8288.
Sincerely,
CHRISTOPHER J. EN
Planning Director
AK:cd
pAwpwin60\a1iccwin\LStacyHiga FSReso-CahoonREZ989 1 (-Iq
Comm. No.-~
Enclosures Ref. To: LG
xc: Mr. Sidney M. Fuke Ref. Date ,vcjy 0 1 7afi6
Ms. Alice Kawaha, Long Range Planning Division
4!bA-a `7 Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity provider and Employer.
r
COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII
222 SEP `i PM 2 33 BILL NO. 230
PLF~NMIhJG D~rl'FTPA JT (Draft 4)
coUPJ I,( OF ^^-,l
i~ ORDINANCE NO. Qz 95
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA DISTRICT ZONE MAP),
ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY
CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL (A-5a) TO
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-15) AT KALAOA 4T", NORTH KONA, HAWAII,
COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 7-3-5:97.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Section 25-8-3, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County
Code, is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as
follows:
The district classification of the following area situated at Kalaoa 4th, North Kona,
Hawaii, shall be Single Family Residential (RS-15):
Beginning at the Southwest comer of this parcel of land, being also the Northwest
comer of Lot 1, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey
Triangulation Station "MOANUTAHEA", being 7,067.06 feet South and 9,555.55 feet
West, thence running by azimuths measured clockwise from true South:
1. 186° 50' 289.16 feet along the remainder of Grant 1607 to
Nawahie (Lot A, 50-ft. road);
2. 267° 56' 30" 25.15 feet along Grant 1608 to Kekeleaukai;
3. 266° 53' 30" 711.70 feet along same;
4. 268° 09' 225.99 feet along same;
5. 267° 13' 30" 264.17 feet along same;
6. Thence along Hawaii Belt Road, F.A.P. F-10(5) on a curve to the right with a
radius of 1,392.40 feet, the chord azimuth
and distance being: 0° 27' 42" 63.42 feet;
-1-
-z-
posodoid atp ,Cq polt,aio sput,uzap oo1 los ol1gnd io3 paou ogl3o luauillgln3 (g)
.io `asn pmodoid
3g1 3o slog;3a snouaialop X11Lguolod acp woi3 oilgnd oql;o uolloaIOld (y)
01 loods,9i glim posodoid
asn put,l aql uioid Sutlt,ut,uza Xlloa.zip spaau iIUIn3 of panioouoo,CIquuossag (Z)
io `ais31am put, Xl,93t,s
`glleoq ollgnd a p 01 asianps 9q /It,ux golgm soommunono IuaA,9Sd of XjussoooN (I)
-alt, suoi1lpuoo SuimollQ3 agI spun 1lounoD
ilunoD a p `3poo 4unoD Ilt,msH `tt-Z-SZ uolloaS gltm 9out,Piooot, uI 'Z NOI.LDHS
'3ooioq and t, 9puw
9ouanjai Xq pus „y„ ltglgxg pajmui `olaiaq pagoslls dsui oLp uo umogs su IId
•saiot, 106'930 sa.m us Sulucsluoo Pus
SuiuulSa43o Iulod aq1 of (I Ioj) atgemsM
01 L09I lug-TO JO iapulsuiai ag1 Suols 1,903 Z£'Ztt .9t .8£ 096 'tI
`.auzssSuolslaa3 89'6SI .9t .8£ 09 "£I
`oams Suols laa3 6£'Stt .00 .98 ZI
`•(d Iaoit,d) atgsmtm
01 L091 lusx0 30 lzPulsuiai oql Suole laa3 tt'9££ .LS o96 'IT
`(9)01-,4
'&YA `PEO'd 1199 I,IsmsH Suols I993 17Z'8 9t o9 '0I
4a03 £0'Sti ..99 I£ of :Sucagaouulslp pus
glnunzs piogo aql `1aa3 96'698`130 snlpt,z
s gllm IgSlz aqI of anzno t, uo (9)OI-d 'd'd'd `puoN IIa91,It,mt,H Suols aouagZ -6
'd'VI `PRO2411a9 T,csmt,H Suols 1aa3 00'01 ..ZS Ll oZ6 '8
`•I003 ££'L4 .99 IO oZ :2uioq oouulslp pus
glnuxizu Piogo aql `1033 96'698` 130 snlpsi
s gllm 1g21j oql 01 anino t, uo (S)OI-3'd'V'3 `PBO2l Ila9 t,!smt,H Suolt,,9ouOU •L
use.
A. The applicant, successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all of
the stated conditions of approval.
B. The required water commitment payment shall be submitted to the Department of
Water Supply in accordance with its "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy"
within ninety (90) days from the effective date of this ordinance.
C. Lots within the proposed subdivision shall not exceed the number of units of
water which are available and have been committed to the subject property by the
Department of Water Supply. Any further development shall occur only when
sufficient County water becomes available by construction of on- and off-site
water system improvements. All water system improvements shall meet with the
requirements of the Department of Water Supply prior to the issuance of Final
Subdivision Approval.
D. No variance shall be sought or granted to allow the subdivision of lots not served
by a county-approved water system.
E. Final Subdivision Approval of the proposed subdivision shall be secured from the
Planning Director within five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance.
F. Roadway and access to all lots within the proposed subdivision shall meet with
the approval of the Department of Public Works. The improvements within the
proposed subdivision shall include underground utilities.
G. If required to be dedicated, all subdivision roads shall be constructed to County
dedicable standards and dedicated to the County of Hawaii. The applicant shall
-b-
•soouu,CanuoD 3o nuaing
oql utoi3 idtoooi sit uodn luoutuudaQ 2uujuuld oqi g11m pal3 oq Ilugs iuaumoop
pop.tooat aqi;o,Cdoo y -lunozddy uotstntpgnS leui33o aouunsst aqI of zoud
Innoidde pue Matnai Io3 zoloaztQ 2uiuuuld aqi of polltutgns oq Ilegs saoue,(anuoD
3o nuaing agi gltnn popioooi aq 01 (s)lueuanoo posodoid ag13o Moo V -Altadoid
ioafgns ag1,Io suoiitod Ilu io3 saoueXanuo33o nuamg aql glim papaooo.t pue
flunoD aq1 pue Iunotlddu aql Xq poinooxa luoutnilsut uu ui paltoai oq Mulls IiaA1
uoule}I agl3o laa3 000` 1 utgltnn slot Ilu io3 luouiannbai ialumolsem Ieuoiltppe
;o uotluogtlou a se Ilan se uotlotusai stgl 2utiuls iueuanoo y -slot agl;o ,tun uo
polonusuoo aq ,iuut sauit2az ,fliadoid utntututopuoo ou puu 2uillaMp puooas ON Y
•Iuno.tddy uotstntpgnS Iuu133o aouensst aqi
g11m uotiounfuoo ui s)lioM oilgnd3o luautwdoa oql;o Ienoidde oql gitm 2utlaaut
paiontisuoo ag hugs `pannbojp `sluauIano.tdutt 02eutetQ -Matnai uotstntpgns
io3 unld jo Iuiltuigns aq1 oi.ioiid `sNjom oilgnd3o luautuedaQ oqi ,fq panoiddu
puu lueoilddu agl Xq palonpuoo og hugs airs loafoid aqi zo3 Xpms a2uuiuIp d .I
IunoiddV uotstntpgnS luuc33o aouunsst
aqI 01 zoud put; sluaUIanoiduti laaus pazinboi aql;o uotioldutoo uodn t,tuMuH3o
Ciunoo oql of 1aauS i1I, iII, ui isataiut sli aluoipap hugs lumildde ails •s2up1zuut
pue `sig2tl 10a.tls `II0nA6ip e `s,teliano luautaned apnlout fuui sluaatanozdutt
asagZ •Innoiddy uotstntpgnS luui,33o oouunsst a p of loud pololdutoo
aq Ilugs `gjom otlgnd;o luautltedaQ oqi 6q pautuualop se `Xilodoid loafgns
aql JO fltutotn aieipatuuti aql ut 103tlS iII, i1I, 3o uotuod Iugl of sluautanoidutI -H
•Matnat uoisinipgns 703 suuld jo julptugns
aqI 01 ioud `slaoznd 2utuiofpe 01 suoiloauuoo ,Cempnoz leuotitppe 2utpre2ai
s)laom oggnd 3o luautltedaQ oqI pue luatul.tedaQ 2uiuunld oql qltm llnsuoo
K. All construction activity involving the use of heavy equipment or machinery
relating to the development of the subdivision and any structures thereon shall be
prohibited on Sundays, provided further that no construction activity shall occur
on any day before 7:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m.
L. Should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platforms,
marine shell concentrations or human burials be encountered, work in the
immediate area shall cease and the Department of Land and Natural Resources -
State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) shall be immediately
notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from
the DLNR-SHPD when it finds that sufficient mitigative measures have been
taken.
M. To ensure that the Goals and Policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan
are implemented, the applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 11,
Article 1, Hawaii County Code relating to Affordable Housing Policy. This
requirement shall be approved by the County Housing Agency prior to final
subdivision approval of each increment.
N. The applicant shall make its fair share contribution to mitigate potential regional
impacts of the subject project with respect to roads, parks and recreation, fire,
police and solid waste disposal facilities. The amount of the fair share
contribution shall be the sum which is the product of multiplying the number of
residential lots proposed to be subdivided by the amounts allocated hereinbelow
for each such lot, and shall become due and payable prior to final subdivision
approval for any portion of the subject property or its increments. If the subject
property is subdivided in two or more increments, the amount of the fair share
contribution due and payable prior to final subdivision approval of each
increment shall be a sum calculated in the same manner according to the number
-5-
-9-
alsum pjlos `aotlod `a.n; `uotluaiow put s)Iiud of paluloi sat1R?3u;/SluauTano.Tdun
alnquluoo put lonzlsuoo i uT lutoilddr aqi `uopngpiuoo anus iit; aql 2iul iud
;o nail ul '(IdDH) xapul aolid zauinsuoD nlnlouoH agl IN aSuugo afrluaond
oql uo posuq `auoZ;o aSuuga all 3o alrp anll3a33a aq1 Ia>3r siroX aaTgl SutuutSaq
~Ijmuux palsn fpt oq lltgs anogr poquosap suoiingTZluoo aitgs .nt3 aqZ
• sluauIano.TduIT
ot33u4 put pros ijoddns of flunoo 10 altlS ag1 01 Sb'6l9`05$
;o julol palroipuT uu io; l?un jtpuoptsai fpwt;-abuts lad £9'bL£`£$ .9
put !satujiou; alsum ptlos uoddns of lmnoD oq1 of S17'9L£`Z$
;o jrlol paltojput ur io; ljun jupuapisai iguju;-aISuis lad £17'8Sj$ b
'sopipor; wg uoddns of ClunoD oql of OZ'SZ17`S$
;o Idol palroiput ut zo3 ltun j-epWpjsai puiu;-oj2uts lad 88.19£$ £
`.sailglor; aoilod uoddns of ,ClunoD aql 010£'817L`Z$
;o Itlo1 palrojpui ut io3 stun Itcluoptsoi ijjmrj-ajfuis lad ZZ-£8I$ Z
`satl?jiot; put
SluanIanoSduii lumptlanai put aliud uoddns of f4unOD aql of 09'OL6`9S$
;o poi paltolpui ur io; 1Tun jttluaptsai ApTuu;-oj8uis lad b0-86L`£$ I
:smollo; st paluz)ojjE aq llugs
uoilnquluoo ;)jugs .nt; agZ -N uotllpuoD sigl u? gl.TO; las suoIsinoid luoluxud
put uotlulnoluo aql of $uipiooor sl?un;o iaqumu junlot all gum uotliodoid
ut poonpoi io pasuaiout oq Ilugs lunowr julol ag1 `ianamoH •sl[un ItiluapTSai
,ipwrj-aj8ms io3 00'£171`811$ si uoilnquluoo aitgs in; ;o julol palto?pui agl
`sl?un jupuapTsoi (9T) uaagj; of do dolanap of luolut;o uoiltluosa.Tda.T s,luuouddr
oql uodn pastg -l?un jtjluaptsai Xjiuiu;-aj5uts iad OZ'9L8`L$ 3o onjtn
poutquioo tunwi uT u ante Bugs uotlnquluoa areas .nu; aqZ -pounoD fjunoD
all fq pauiumlop oq llugs `soiouoSu poloo 3u ag1 gljm uotlullnsuoo ut ioloomp
oql of olquldooor `;oazaul uoiltuigwoo ,Cut io sapijpr; `purl `gsto 3o uuo3 t ut
`uoTlnquluoo ongs iTu3 aqZ -luowT jour Bons gouo ui slol Ir?luopisoi posodoid;o
disposal facilities, and roads within the region impacted by the proposed
development, subject to the approval of the director. The cost of providing and
constructing the improvements required in Condition H shall be credited against
the sum specified in Condition N (5) for road and traffic improvements. For
purposes of administering Condition N, the fair market value of land
contributed or the cost of any improvements required or made in lieu of the fair
share contribution shall be subject to review and approval of the director, upon
consultation with the appropriate agencies.
Upon approval of the fair share contributions or in lieu contributions by the
director, the director shall submit a final report to the Council for its information
that identifies the specific approved fair share and/or in lieu contributions, as
allocated, and further implementation requirements.
0. The applicant shall comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and
requirements of affected agencies for approval of the proposed subdivision within
the subject property.
P. Should the Hawaii County Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance
setting forth criteria for imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees,
conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the
Unified Impact Fees Ordinance.
Q. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the
ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following
circumstances:
I. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been
foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors or assigns,
-7-
?
-a-
ZOOZ '8z 4sn6nv :aleQ @A11= 09
ZOOZ ' bT }snbnv :durPuad PuZ3o aina
ZOOZ 'I£ ATnr :BmPeadis 13oalEQ
ZOOZ 'T£ ATnr :uoilanpoiml;oalua
',IuMuH ` OTTH
I,IVAWH JO T J MnOD `U9gW9W 'IIO O
na NI
'Ienozdde sll uodn loopa axel lluls oouuutpio slgZ 'b NOIIDE[S
•aouuuipio sigl;o sluud loglo aq1 Ioopu lou Ilegs lrllpllenm
Bons `pijenui pamloop si oouuulpio stgl;o uopiod ~ uu lugl Juana aql uI •c NOILO3S
uolluu2~sap ajmjdoadde atom
io lum2uo sIt of uaiu loa[gns aql jo Outuozai aluil?ut ,fem loloom(I aqJ `uonjse3
Xlamtl a ul ql!m palldmoo ,ijlulluelsgns io lam oq Iou suolllpuoo ag13o Niue plnogS _d
•uollou aluudozdde io3 Ilouno0
f,luno0 agl of Isanbol s,lueollddu agl llmgns llugs ioloanQ 3uluuuld
oql `anvil jo uolsualxa luuotllppu uu ailnbai plnogs Iuuoilddu agJ3I S
-(iuaA luuotlippu auo of do io3 popualxo oq f ui ]ea,i auo uiLljpA
pouuopi d aq of uoil!puoo u ` a 3ouuuuo3iad io3 poluuB.fljuuTSpo
pouad aql paaoxa of Iou pouad u io3 oq llugs poluujO uolsualxa anvil aqZ v
•auoz3o oBuugo agl3o OutluuiO agl zo3 suosuai
ImSilo all of,Cxeiluoo oq lou pjnom uolsualxa Qwil aql jo 2mlue19 c
-apoD Ouluoz io
ueld junuog agl of X.iuiluoo oq Iou plnom uolsualxa owil oil13o OuiluulD Z
-aoua2ljOou zo llnu3 hall jo ljnsai oql Iou a.iu Iegl pue
N
a5a ~ X5a I ~A-Sa W E
9f A-20a A3a V
SO
A-5a A59 A-5a 5 A-la
CSC A-20a
1
A-53
RS10
A-5a cmio
A-53 ,453 I CAP10
R1115 7,067.06S A-ZCH
955555W
r~
RSt _ ASa
RS10
RS-20 AGRICULTURAL (A-5a) TO
A-5a SINGLE FAMLY RESIDENTIAL (RS-15)
AREA = 6.904Av I~
A-53 A-20a L
Q
A.5a }
3 LZE
KgIMIN A-la A-la
ANI DRIVE _
0
ASa =
Ada A-20a
A-la A53
Ada Ala
0 500 1000 1500 2000 Feet
AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE
AMENDING SECTION 25-8-3 (NORTH KONA ZONE MAP) ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25
(ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL (A-5a) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-15)
AT KALAOA 4TH, NORTH KONA, HAWAII
PREPARED BY. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF HAWAI I
TMK :7-3-005:097 MARCH 13, 2002
EXHIBIT "A" (CAHOON:1058)
i
/11 20 ~I r vi
r
:,ON PIO G ~Z ~fr0 v o
S6 zQ aoualaJab dvP PylpanoaddvsK7tanojddy
06-Od/£'£L9-3
(6 g3PZ0) 0£Z °N Ma
X?I nOD
IIVMVH 30 A1Nf100
j 13SNfl00 NOIIVUOd2100.kind3O
7, 77 VA.
nJdwaJV J I nrna I R
:AllIV931 (INV iNHOd
Ol SV a3AONdd`d
L r •anogn pamolpui
sv pagsllgnd jpunoD djunoD aqJ dq paidopv svm 7719 8u:o~a.'of agl JvgJ A.IIL?I30 d g3XJH 0(11
0 T T L
X SUOSRA
X jap(l
x l!JRJRS
X o!goo!s!d
x ppol-pEawa'T SX?/Yw3?!
X uosgoovf
x JJOUOLM[g :pags!Ignd
x 8ung0 ZOOZ ' 8Z 4sn6nV :annaa,L{g
X PlMivV ZOOZ '8Z qsnbnV P awnlab
X3 SEIV S90N S3AV ZOOZ '£Z 4smnV-- :aoXeWoL
310A'IIV0TIOW ZOOZ '6T 4sttbnv :2ulpeallpuooaS
0 0 T 8
X SnOSEA
X ialCl
x I!Ie1ES -
X o!gools!d
x PPO L-PEagl!a'I EXYvpv3N
X uosgooer
x {{ouo1Jsl3 ZOOZ 'TT isnbnV :pags!Ignd
x ~ungo ZOOZ 'T£ ATnP :Su!pe07H isn3
X ±-:::::7 ZOOZ 'T£ ATnP :poonpoilulaled
X3 SOV S30N S3AV ppoy-p2ay;TaZ ueat Aggog :R8 paonpouul
210A TIV0.7 10'd
(6 Z3VdCl)
TIEMEH ` OTT H
ITEMEH JO XlunoD
?RI3'I0A1NnOD 3H130 30II30
-
4,r
SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 2008 APR ?A RM f ? 42
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • Planning -Variance • Zoning
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 :yt{, i, a!i_~~~onmenta R ports Permits
E-mail: sidtuke@verizon.net cour I1 11 '~Y I v',,VAr
April 28, 2006
Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAI'I
101 Pauahi Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Mr. Yuen:
Subject: Impact Fee - Ordinance No. 02-95 (Bart Cahoon)
TMK: 7-3-05: 97 (SUB 2003-0144)
This is to follow up on your letter of March 28, 2006 and my subsequent
discussion with Ms. Alice Kawaha of your staff regarding the subject matter.
As explained to Ms. Kawaha, the applicant (Bart Cahoon) is recuperating from a
major medical operation and accordingly wishes to have this issue resolved at the earliest
practical opportunity. He has thus informed me that, although a current appraisal may
yield a higher value today, the 2004 valuation ($26,500) used for Mr. Rinkenbach's 50%
portion of the roadway (Parcel 102) is acceptable to him.
Per Condition N(5) of Ordinance No. 02 95, Mr. Cahoon's required fair share
contribution for roads and traffic improvements is $50,619.45 for his total projected 15-
lot subdivision. However, at this time, he is proceeding to develop the property in two
phases due to water limitation. The current phase consists of 7 lots. Based on that, the
current assessment is $23,622.41, with the balance due upon consummation of the second
phase of his subdivision.
Thus, if his request were acceptable, there would be a balance of $2,877.59,
which he requests be applied to his second phase. We also do understand that beginning
May 1, 2006, there will be an adjustment to the rate to correspond to the prevailing
Honolulu Consumer Price Index (HCPI). Accordingly, inasmuch as this request is being
made before May 1, we respectfully request your use of the current HCPI.
We look forward to your favorable action of his request. Thank you very much.
rSincerely,
SIDNEY M. FUKE
Plarming Consultant
Copy - Mr. Bart Cahoon
4003
t~
SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant
100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 • Planning . Variance • Zoning
Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 • Subdivision • Land Use Permits
E-mail: sidfuke@verizon.net • Environmental Reports
January 4, 2006
Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director
Planning Department
COUNTY OF HAWAII
101 Pauahi Street
Hilo, HI 96720
Dear Mr. Yuen:
Subject: Impact Fee - Ordinance No. 02-95 (Bart Cahoon)
TMK: 7-3-05: 97 (SUB 2003-0144)
As you may be aware, the County Council recently passed Resolution No. 179-05
authorizing the acquisition, through its power of eminent domain, of a strip of land,
identified by TMK: 7-3-005: 102. This strip is desired to provide a connection between
'lli'ili Street and Kiekie Street. It is jointly owned by MACA, Inc. (Mr. Bart Cahoon)
and Morris Ignatius Scanlan, Trustee.
Condition H of the subject rezoning ordinance required the applicant to make
improvements to this road lot and subsequently convey its interest in the land and
improvements thereon to the County prior to receipt of final subdivision approval.
Condition N also provides for the applicant to receive road and traffic improvement
impact fee credit for this effort.
Mr. Cahoon's 7-lot subdivision, as identified above, is nearing receipt of final
approval. Because of water limitation, the remaining 8 lots (total of 15 lots) would be
subdivided later. The construction plans have been approved, and Mr. Cahoon intends to
construct rather than bond the required improvements. It is anticipated that construction
would be completed in about 6-8 months.
According to Mr. Cahoon, improvements to the connector road have already been
completed. Recognizing the immediate need for this connector road and rather than
going through the costly and extensive condemnation process, he is prepared to
immediately convey his interest (50%) in this 14,267 square foot parcel to the County in
fulfillment of its road and traffic improvement impact fee requirement.
The road and traffic improvement impact fee is $4,280 per proposed lot. Based
on the projected 15 lots, the fee would be a total of $64,200. The estimated value of his
50% interest in the land (7,134 square feet), based on a conservative value of $15/square
foot, would be over $107,000. The cost of the roadway and drywell improvements was
about $80,000, of which $40,000 was attributable to Mr. Cahoon. As such, Mr. Cahoon's
share would be about $147,000, and that would far exceed the $64,200 of road and traffic
improvement impact fee requirement.
a
~+ty y
Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director
January 4, 2006
Page 2
Accordingly, we respectfully request your acceptance of Mr. Cahoon's
conveyance of his interest in parcel 102 as fulfilling the road and traffic improvement
portion of impact fee for his proposed 15-lot subdivision. To the extent possible,
however, he would also appreciatc having the balance applied to other portions of the
impact fee requirement. Should this proposal be acceptable, we trust that the County will
prepare the appropriate documents for this conveyance. Mr. Cahoon looks forward to
helping the County expedite this conveyance. Thank you very much.
mGerely,
SIDNEY AFUKE
Planning Consultant
Copy - Honorable Stacy Higa, Chair, County Council
Mr. Lincoln Ashida, Esq. Corporation Counsel
Mr. Bart Cahoon
FROM : LAWRENCE APPRAISAL GRC FAX NO. : 8083293555 Sep. 28 2004 08:05AM P2
1
f'
308 Kamchamcha Ave., NH 3
11 Hilo, H( 90720
Tel. (808) 329.3900
t Pa (808) 329-3555
La~vvret~ce Appraisal Group Hawaii, Inc.
September 23, 2004
(EVEN RINIENBACH
72-3982 Mamalaboa Hwy.
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
RE: APPRAISAL OF R.O.W. FOR ROAD DEDICATION, PRTN GRT 1607, KALAOA, KONA, HAWAII
Dear Mr. Rinkenbach:
Attached is our summary analysis of the as current value for the property located on TMK 3/73-05-
102 located on the makai side of Ili Ili Street, in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. The value estimate is provided
"as is" as a roadway dedication. To follow are the analysis and a summary of data.
The property is an improved 50' wide road with no issues of significance impacting the value. This is
an underlying land value analysis. There are no buildings involved. The land area is appraised
assuming its highest and best use which is as a ROADWAY used for access to the new subdivision.
You have a 50% interest in the total parcel.
The site (50 x 281- ft). is cut from an existing larger plot of land that has been subdivided and the
roadway has already been improved. The site is adjacent to an existing development known as Kona
Palisades and new tracts to the North and West with Kona Coasiview further to the north.
In accordance with your request, we have made a Summary Appraisal of the property referenced
above. As such the report will d'mouss and analyze the various factors and comparables that impact
the value of the subject The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the fee simple market value of
the subject property. Market value is deflned as the most probable price estimated in terms of
money which a property will bring if exposed for sale in the open market, allowing a reasonable time
to find a purchaser who buys with knowledge of all the uses to which it is adapted and for which it is
capable of being used.
At this time we have prepared an estimate of the underlying 500/b interest in the land value of the
subject road. This value estimate for roadway use is based on Ag. Zoned land comparison as
requested by the county which is a restricted use. The value of the dedication is estimated at
$3.75/sf or $53,000 (rd.) x .50 for the Rinkenbach portion = $26,500. We have attached the
supporting data. We include the final appraisal herewith.
Should there be any other questions, please advise.
'i
i, Robert Lawrence, CGA, SRA, SRPA
Commercial & Residential Real Property Consultants
ServingA11 Hawaiian Lslands Since 1990
FROM : LAWRENCE APPRAIS 2CUP FAX NO. : 8083293555 20 2004 08:06AM P3
COMPLETE SUMMARY APPRAISAL REPORT
RINKENBACH LAND APPRAISAL REPORT He Na. KF901AO02A4
Ropmymil t 7-3-005'102 Cemasbad 0217.00LENDER DISCREMONMY ME
KAILUAKONA Ca HAWAII $ale HI lock 96740 Sal6Prim 1-
WO PRTN GRT 1807, KALAO N. KONA HAWAII Dale
O.a Ooa RINKENBACWADAMS NON-OCC Rdemme 73005102 MorlgsgeAmaunl E _
sale Prce3 NA Daled6ale NA Properly Righte Appraiaal NaloagoTyp6
Fm Silryle UixounlP aad0lhartabeafiwe
RE T. E 2446.75 AS WAS T. Year 110AE94e NONE Q Lmddd Paid by Seller $
LmdeKkM RINKENBACWADAMS _ Cmdortelium(HIRWA)
723IAAMALAHOA HWY KAILUA.KONA HI 96740 PUD Sane
LOCATION Illban X Sllwrban FW MFOGH6ORhlDOO ANALYSIS u M w
a4LTUP ?U9r75% ? 254W U,tta 9 E.OWriwlt SlapAy yFox ?
OROWfNRATE ?Im ?SL.W ?Row' ~bs6eppag x
AdDPf32TIrVA . VALUE x? Inn. easing r?r,, SbLt ~ DHS'oB CawmWreb
OFAIANINSUPRY Shelfag6 [x] in Bdalaa OWsup* CaxNdNlubSdctls X
MARKETNGTME Ucler3Mm. X 38 Ms. f-l 0.6 Ms. AdmuagdPubliclfpoddion X
PI 5PWLANDWF% LAND USE CHANGE PREDOMINANT SNi.EFAMLVH0.NRa ReaefbnF itis 18 ?
Snglo Fancy 7498 Nd LASIy }F-~{ OCCUPANGV PRICE AGE Adepaty dFadikc X
3J Fsdy IJ Omer Q !1000) (l+s) Ptwedy Ow"IA8iy X
MIMFmiy In pIOGE O Taad ? 3701wf NEW Pmkdim San Dddrmdd CUA X
Cammexii Ta RESIDENTIAL Valli (65%) X BOO Hgh 35. PoireaFS Pdeegnn X
IIAd W FROM VACANT Yamnt(Baw5%) Plwbrnhad Osroral Appna-mm ditoW s x X
Vami 25% 440- 15 teMNM X X
Hope Race ardle racial cmpesaan d UM mighbprMOd are nd wridarad rd'RMB appmisd fadax COMMEIM VACANT NORTH KONA LAND
ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING INFILUNG SUBDIVISION MAKAI SIDE OF MAMALAHOA HWY. 3 MI NORTH OF KAILUA KONA
CENTER AREA USED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES OF CUSTOM CONSTRUCTION AND APPEAL, AS WELL AS A FEW AG
FARMS ALL SUPPORT FACILITIES AND AMENITIES ARE EASILY ACCESSIBLE PREMIUM ON VIEW AND PRIVATE PARCELS
OFF OF THE MAIN FEEDER ROADS. PRIME POPULAR RESIDENTIAL LOCATION. EXPOSURE TIME EST. AT 120 DAYS
Disntiax SEE ATTACHED PLAT MAP Topography GENTLY ROLLING
SMAm 14,2678F C. W PORTION S® TYPICAL FOR SUBD.
7u:gC6a7uEm AS4 AGRI 5 AC_ MIN. PER CO. 7nmgeonO. SEE COUNTY Shape IRREGULAR
RGIEU& BESTME Fmsedtbe R.O W. OMSus WA LYZhegw APPEARS ADEOUA7E
i uni-mm Public OOror 81TEVAPROV9ABRSTIPe P.M. Prirwk vi. GOOD OCWMNTN
Ded'dy Q UNDERGROUND SSed ASPHALT ?X ? lalgsrapip WA
Gas NONE OxhAidtu NONE D"weway N/A
WAK X COUNTY SxWmlk NONE AmaraM FSOnonh RDWAY-APPR. PURPOSE
SrlayS SEPTIC/CESS Shed U9Ms NONE X FEIN Tbod Haaid Yrr_ *WA
$l,,ffa a WA Akv NONE 'IM' KfapZxiit X-SEESERVICE
fpawnelds (Appaoenl aatermma:rmda 1;9awoednmia, operial asmsNSMA ddw alwa; dpk LAND IS ASSUMED SIMILAR IN SIZE AND SHAPE
TO OTHERS IN THE AREA WITH NO INADEQUACIES NOTED THAT WOULD HINDER MARKETABILITY. THE SUBJECT LOT IS
ADJUSTED WITHIN THE GRID USING SIMILAR ZONED LAND. THIS REPORT IS FOR ROAD DEDICATION VALUE PURPOSES
TM sberal9wf bf reNlen tMnv rHAnl saMf N ryn9Nllb wb1 >ITIIIH uR pnOw\w ,e aneleH aM Mf ¢wrsiinN Il,ew in Ib s>IYN aMl'AM. lM bvM9lbf IKIUIN t eHIN
~1 9NUYwve1, wnw11n9 yr W r.aHiw le [nn\e llew> e1 s19Nn4nI wrlNlon Mleftn lM f>tlerl rN wayntl¢ paplief. Ir a tlrYnesl iYw b lM pAWinN aMnr if fU9TIM
t0. N rltif fiwrenb IMn, Ine afIw191opH1). > MnW I'1 felU>IefM If Y\RV, lnna rbueln9 Um ,nviwaN calve el ostler!: 11 a aMtinwN {IM b IM NHOYfM If IIIiHIM If.
M xb IfWIMIf tnaR, iM auaNer paper!!. a elw (e) atlNlwnfl I> 0f1f, IMM Intlbtb9 aM bHtHN Alw N qe waj¢I.
REM SUBIECT GOMPARASLENO.I COkPARABIENO.2 MWAAABLE WA
43a05JO2 73.1705 KALOKO DR. APT 0. KALOKO DR. HAG STKALOKO
A4tras KAILUAKONA 373-25-13 373-2459-2 373-24-120
b APPROX 374 MI SO. WEST APPROX. 3/4 MI SO. WEST APPROX 34 MI SO. WEST
'Sde Rioe E NA E 379,000 E 240,000 F 250,000
Prod E 0 E 1.690 E 2.650. E 1.850
DaMSwm INSPECTION TI TM MLS 132929 TMC. MLS 130020 Thi MLS 1255240
VALUE AWMTMEWM DESCR"ON DEWMPMN DESMPTION _ DESCNIPf10N x.
salsa Fnaovg - CONV PMM -005 CONV
Cmassbne NONE NOTED PNONE NOTED NONE NOTED
Dale.1&*frme JUN2004. EST. 8/03/2004 0.05 3/05/2004 0.15 1232004 0.20
Isdkn KOM PALISADES KALOKO MAUKA _ KALOKO MAUKA KALOKO MAUKA
S&4W GOOD OCN/MN AVG OCWMNTN 0.30 AVG OCNiMNTN 0.30 UM. MOST BLKD 050
SIZE-SF 14 267 SF 5.14 AC 1.25 2.08 AC 0.75 3.11 AC 1.00
SITE U71UTY NORMAL AVG-LTTI SITE 0.30 AVG•UTIL+PAD: EQUIV WOODED 0.25
SLOPE GRADUAL MODERATE 0.20 MODERATE 0.20 MODERATE 0.20
SITE ZONING AC-&A AG{rA _ NIL AG3-A -0.25 AG3-A -0.25
p Nd X . - E 2.10 X e - '.3 1.10 1.90
kl6raha Value Greix 124.3 Gm 64.2 (vva., :129:7'
d Net' .124:3 E 379 Net 41.5. $ 375 NK d+'. .702.7E 3.7$
Clmronh dsdmCatpaeap r' ES REPRESENTS THE RANGE AND MARKET VALUES BEFORE AND AFTER ADJUSTMENTS FROM
`WHICH TO EXPECT THE VALUE ESTIMATE TO FALL WITHIN. ALL COMP SALES ARE THE REST AVAILABLE AND ARE ALL
LOCATED WITHIN THE SUBJECTS AREA / MARKET AS CONSIDERED'IJKE PROPERTIES', MID-PT. CHOSEN FOR SUB. VAL.
Camwlt and Ottawa. arAmmink SUBJECT PROPERTY APPRAISED AS A ROAD DEDICATION PARCEL FOR PURPOSES OF
P DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE LAND. SIMILAR AG ZONED PARCEL ARE USED. SUBJECT IS NOT CURRENTLY LISTED.
Foal iii THE MARKET APPROACH IS UTILIZED AS THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF BUYERS AND SELLERS AND MOST
WEIGHTED FOR LAND VALUETHE COST/ INCOME APPR.NOT USED BY THE MARKET WITH NO DATA TO RELY ON FOR
gg VP«AH T LAND. THIS IS A LIMITED SUMMARY APPRNSPL RE30RI. K44QE !S AS ABOVE. 83 >5.5F USED FOR AhLALYSLc
I(WE)E5TtlMTETLEMARWFVALUFMDM4M,OFTHES S:TPROPEFMY OF July 1. 2004 sobo5 SEE LETTER
1(rve) tatty. mat ro the Dust d mY (car) knoa9edge aM belie!, the fad: aM data used Mrdn ae frve end ctaed: Mat I (we) permaPy inspeded the wbject Pnpmy
r aM ropxletl'a%'tl~c/w~ry~aalabA sal6s shed in iLlb repst; vd That I (wa) have no undisdasededved. pesed a pvspedwethnein
ApplaoN(a)^R.. ApPr. ?Did ?0WW
ROBT_LAWREN JR_SRASRPACGA pfappkc ) klsped popely
rn>.aa grammar nwm,w9nnnlw9etzMm,n,nleeat.,.Lawrence Appraisal Group Hawaii, Inc.
FROM : LAURENCE APPRAH ROUP FAX NO. : 8083293555 28 2004 08:07AN P4
ADDENDUM
_B Orr-r. NO PARR. File No.: ITWIAJM
Properly AQMess 7-34MA02 Cabe No.: RINKENBACH
Coy KAILUMKONA S w: HI 210: 96740 _
lentler. RINKENBACHIADW.15
REPORT PURPOSE:
THE PURPOSE OF THE REPORT IS TO ESTIMATE THE FEE SIMPLE MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT LAND
PARCEL AS DEFINED HEREIN. THIS ESTIMATE IS TO BE USED SOLELY BY THE CLIENT FOR USE IN OBTAINING
COUNTY OFF SET CREDITS IN A SITE DEVELOPMENT RELATED PURPOSE.
FUNCTION OF THE APPRAISAL:
THE FUNCTION OF THE REPORT IS TO ESTIMATE THE PRESENT FEE MARKET VALUE OF THE ROAD DEDICATION
AND TO APPRISE THE READER OF THE INFLUENCES ON VALUE SUCH AS SUPPLY AND DEMAND, ETC_
SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL:
THIS IS A LIMITED APPRAISAL REPORT MADE IN SUMMARY.
THE FOLLOWING STEPS WERE MADE IN ARRIVING AT THE FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE INCLUDED IN THE APPRAISAL
REPORT:
1. A PRELIMINARY SEARCH OF ALL AVAILABLE RESOURCES WAS MADE TO DETERMINE MARKET TRENDS AND
INFLUENCES AS WELL AS OTHER SIGNIFICANT FACTORS PERTINENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE
VALUE ESTIMATE.
a 2, A PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS PERFORMED. ALTHOUGH DUE DILIGENCE WAS EXERCISED
WHILE AT THE PROPERTY, THE APPRAISER IS NOT AN EXPERT IN SUCH MATTERS AS SOILS CONDITION.
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING. HAZARDS ETC. NO WARRANTY IS IMPLIED FOR THESE ITEMS. THE CLIENT MAY
WISH TO SEEK EXPERT ADVICE IN THESE MATTERS TO ENSURE THEIR SECURITY.
3
3. RESEARCH AND COLLECTION OF DATA (COSTS, SALES, ESCROWS. LISTINGS AND OTHER DATA) AS PRESENT
IN THE SUBJECT MARKETPLACE AND SUFFICIENT IN QUANTITY TO EXPRESS AN OPINION OF VALUE AS DEFINED
'r HEREIN. PERTINENT DATA IS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT OR HELD IN FILE. NO DATA WAS KNOWINGLY
s OMITTED OR WAS UNOBTAINABLE THAT WOULD IMPACT THE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT
4. AN ANALYSIS OF THE DATA COLLECTED DURING THE GATHERING PROCESS WAS COMPLETED WHILE
p EMPLOYING THE THREE APPROACHES TO VALUE AS APPROPRIATE. EACH APPROACH IS RECONCILED AND A
FINAL RECONCILIATION 15 THEN MADE- THE REPORT IS THEN COMPLETED, SIGNED AND RENDERED TO THE
CLIENT. SINCE TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE, THE APPRAISER COMPLETES THE PROCESS IN A BUSINESSLIKE
MANNER AND FINISHES THE REPORT WHEN A REASONABLE BASIS FOR CONCLUSION IS REACHED.
THE CUENTS HAVE MAPS OF THE SUBJECTAND ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY AND AREAL
it TH
HIGHEST E SUBJECT AND BEST USE:
THE SUBJECT CANNOT BE IMPROVED WITH THE NORMAL CUSTOM OR SEEM-CUSTOM SINGLE-FAhNLY
RESIDENCE WHICH WOULD MEET THE CRITERIA FOR HIGHEST AND BEST USE IF THE LAND WERE NOT A
I DEDICATION. THE ROAD SERVES THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE SUBDIVISION LOTS AND IS
GRANTED TO THE COUNTY AS A PUBLIC ROAD. THEREFORE THE HIGHEST USE IS AS A ROADWAY AS IS.
J
ZOMNG ORDINANCE:
AG-SA ZONING IS IN PLACE ALTHOUGH THE COUNTY IS PERMITTING RESIDENTIAL LOT DEVELOPMENT OF THE
SURROUNDING LANDS.
FLOOD ZONE:
P THE SUBJECT LOTAPPEARS TO NOT BE LOCATED IN A KNOWN FLOOD ZONE SEE FLOOD MAP FOR MORE
DETAILS.
NOTE THAT THE APPRAISER IS NOTAN ENGINEER AND CANNOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF
y THE MAPS OR THE PLACE14FNT OF THE SUBJECT THEREON.
SALES COMPARISON ANALYSIS:
EACH OF THE SALES WAS ADJUSTED FOR NOTABLE DIFFERENCES TO THE SUBJECT, WHEN A COMPARABLE IS
DIFFERENT AS NOTED IN THE MARKET, AN ADJUSTMENT WILL SE MADE ON THE GRID. IF THE COMPARABLE IS
INFERIOR, THE ADJUSTMENT WILL BE POSITIVE AND IF SUPERIOR, THE ADJUSTMENT WILL BE NEGATIVE OR
DOWNWARD. IF TWO OR MORE ITEMS CANCEL EACH OTHER OUR'OFFSLr OR "NL7 WILL BE NOTED, MEANING
NO OVERALL ADJUSTMENT IS REQUIRED.
k THE SALES USED BRACKET THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AFTER ADJUSTMENT WITH THE BEST AVAILABLE DATA
_ AND PROVIDE A RELIABLE INDICATION OF THE SUBJECTS VALUE. THE APPRASER HAS ATTEMPTFD TO FIND
THE MOST CURRENT AND SIMILAR COMPARABLE& SALES USED THAT MAY 13E SOME DISTANCE AWAY ARE
q JUDGED SUITABLE AS THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSTITUTION APPLIES - EG., A TYPICAL BUYER WOULD SEEK TO
PURCHASE A PROPERTY IN EITHER OF THE SEPARATE AREAS, AS THEY HAVE SIMILAR ECONOMIC AND
PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES.
7
'•i LOCATION ADJUSTMENTS ARE CONSIDERED AND APPLIED WHEN THERE IS A NOTABLE DIFFERENCE IN THE
-4 APPEAL OF THE LOCATION FOR THE COMPS VS THE SUBJECTS. USUALLY UNDERLYING LOT PRICES WILL BE
HIGHER IN A SUPERIOR LOCATION AND THUS THE ADJUSTMENT IS REQUIRED
ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE TO SALES FOR SUPERfOQANFERIOR LOT S ZE ANMOR UTILITY (rRF_ATER L LSEABLF
AREA OR LESS/MORE SLOPE) BASED ON PAIRED SALES THAT DEMONSTRATE THAT, AS A LOT INCREASES IN
SIZE AND/OR UTILITY, ITS PRICE INCREASES OR VICE VERSA
PAOCMUm Faee 1 da