My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005-04-22 TUmphrey REZ 03-032
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2005
>
2005-04-22 TUmphrey REZ 03-032
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 2:08:18 PM
Creation date
6/13/2011 2:08:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Road then thats sort of where its going to be. So is it possible to have adequate sight distance <br />with that being the entrance is what it seems like is what Ms. Springer is asking. <br />EMLER:We did take a look at the site. The question is whether or not- Im sorry, <br />let me see if I can rephrase. If I understand your question, you want to know if adequate sight <br />distance can be provided at the site at the location across from Saint Pauls Road. Is that the <br />question? <br />GRAHAM:Yes, well sort of. Distance is distance, if the locations there, the distance <br />is fixed theres no way you can mess around with that but maybe you can mess around with what <br />would impede sight and so my question just was is there a way that the sighting can be <br />acceptable if that is the location that were putting here. <br />EMLER:Without actually doing a detailed survey, sight distance study on the site <br />whichwouldincludesomesurveyingwork,Iwouldnotbeabletoelaborateonallofthe <br />remedial requirements for meeting that. <br />GRAHAM:I dont need that. I just want- I mean there are remedial possibilities so <br />that it could work at that location is all Im asking. <br />EMLER:Yeah, if the question is, is there adequate sight distance there now, I would <br />say no. There will be remedial work needed and it could include having to obtain a sight <br />distance easement from the adjoining property to obtain that. <br />GRAHAM:Okay thank you. <br />GALDONES:Commissioners any further questions? Commissioner Iwashita? <br />IWASHITA:Thank you. I have a request for clarification. This road or highway <br />improvement condition, it seems to me that, thats going to be something years and years down <br />the road to be met and I just wanted some kind of indication if theres an estimate as to how <br />long, the earliest of either of these improvements could possibly take place? <br />DARROW:Thank you Commissioner Iwashita, if I could ask the Planning Director if <br />he could address his question? Thank you. <br />YUEN:The Mamalahoa bypass was approximately 3/5ths complete when <br />construction was stopped by the Courts injunction in September, 2003. There are 3 issues with <br />the completion of the Mamalahoa bypass. Number 1 the Court in the Hokulia case enjoined <br />further construction within the boundaries of the Hokulia project. Thats where they were <br />working on it at the time, so that put it to a stop. Second problem is that at the, near the Halekii <br />Intersection theres a burial site. And the DLNR has not made a determination of what, how that <br />is to be handled. Its a inadvertent burial and so the decision is with the DLNR. If it cant be <br />relocated or built over then the road needs to be realigned. Third issue is that the County still has <br />to condemn 1 parcel in the right-of-way, thats the Coupe property. If the Court injunction were <br />say dissolved by the Supreme Court and all issues related to litigation went away tomorrow, the <br />5 <br />EXHIBIT A <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.