2006-02-24 TRoyal_ALII_SMA05007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GIMPEL:Thank you and good afternoon Mr. Chairman. The Kona Traffic Safety Committees comments to Mr. Yuen regarding this application I believe are part of your record so Ill summarize them here without taking too much of your time. And although we understand that, the Planning Department doesnt consider traffic-related concerns in conjunction with SMA applications unless shoreline access is affected, which doesnt seem to be the case here, we believe that the Hawaii Revised Statutes warrant somewhat broader interpretation. Those statute dictate that the development be consistent not only with the County General Plan and zoning but that the, and our General Plan is quite specific about providing safe and efficient transportation and I believe Mr. Wards letter to you outlines some concerns that are more specific. In any event because of that weve looked closely at this proposed development. First, the applicants site plan shows only one access point which is a gated entry on Alii Drive, which could pose a danger to residents if its blocked and must provide adequate space for vehicles waiting for the gate to open in order to avoid blocking Alii Drive. We urge, therefore, that occupancy be conditioned on County approval of the design and position of the access point and gated entry to assure that adequate sight lines exist and that there is waiting space in order to make entrance to the subdivision. Now although the size of this development doesnt warrant a second access to Alii Drive, we believe that the need for potential connectivity dictates that changes in the proposed site plan should be required. The internal road appears to extend to the south boundary, which would provide pedestrian access to the Judd Trail. The internal road, however, stops short of the north boundary, which is adjacent to raw land that is destined for urban expansion. Accordingly, we recommend that the internal road be extended to the north subdivision boundary as well to allow for a future second access route. Second, we note that although the application states that a TIAR was prepared, it wasnt included in the materials furnished us for review. We assume, however, that 19 residences will generate between 150 and 160 trips per day, which will add significantly to the traffic on Alii Drive. Now although we dont support the expansion of Alii Drive with additional vehicle lanes, we recommend that it be improved adjacent to the development and beyond using some of the fair share contributions, and even further if the developer would be willing to enhance the safety of the committee, community excuse me, by providing at least 5-foot bike lanes and a 5-foot pedestrian ways on both sides of Alii Drive and no parking within the road right-of-way. I note that the that one of the developers has indicated hes already been in a couple of bike/car accidents on Alii Drive. We dont want him to be in a third. Finally, we not that the historic Judd Trail, which has a long history of abuse and neglect, lies between this property and property owned by Mr. Smith, one of two members of the applicant. This trail must be preserved and restored to promote pedestrian access to the shoreline which indeed is within your purview to look at in an SMA application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and Ill be happy to answer any questions. GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Gimpel. Do we have some questions from the Commissioners? I guess not, thank you again. GIMPEL:Thankyou. GRAHAM:Wouldtheapplicantanditsrepresentativeliketocomeforthagainjustin case theres any follow up from having received our public testimony? Id also like to just let the publichereknowthatwhenwerefinishedwiththisitemwewillbebreakingforlunch.And since its like 12:30 now were going to be taking an hour for lunch so itll be probably be EXHIBIT 13