My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009-06-30 TPALAMANUI
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2009
>
2009-06-30 TPALAMANUI
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 7:56:07 AM
Creation date
6/14/2011 7:56:01 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
to Road 4. Road 4 is off this property; itÓs on State land and on land that is now owned by the <br />Gramercy Corporation. That will proceed mauka until it connects to Mmalahoa Highway. <br />Road 5 is a short connector that extends from Road 1C over until <br />parcel of vacant land there that is actually up above the Univer <br />As I understand it, there are no current plans to develop that State land up there, but there is a <br />requirement for that connector road to be in place so that it can connect up to Road 1C in the <br />future. So if we look at what weÓve got there, whatÓs happening now is, what we would like to <br />do is construct Road 1A and Road 2, a two-lane road going out. <br />involves the intersection of 1A with Queen KaÒahumanu Highway and also an intersection, of <br />course, with Road 2 with Kaiminani Drive. Those connections wilve access to the project <br />and to the university without forcing traffic through the airport intersection. And as you know, <br />thatÓs become kind of a critical intersection in Kona right now. The Kaiminani connection will <br />also allow local traffic to come from mauka down into the University and back without having to <br />get on Queen KaÒahumanu. <br /> <br />Under the changes weÓre requesting Road 1B would be constructed once Palamanui starts with <br />residential construction in that area or when anything above it is developed; in other words weÓll <br />have connectivity right down to Queen KaÒahumanu and Kaiminani. <br />1B that is 1C, 3A, 3B, 4, the critical conditions, what we look at is what happens with Road 4. <br />For Lot 1C, thereÓre rally two things going on: That road has to be built when Road 4 must be <br />th <br />built to maintain the connectivity, and it has to be built before the 250 residential building <br />permit. That change reflects our reality; we need to have some cash flow in order to make all of <br />these improvements. <br />As Mr. Darrow noted, we are not asking for the deletion of the condition that says that Makalei <br />Drive connection is not to be open until Road 4 is open. That condition I think is now X12, and <br />that should remain in the ordinance. So for Road 4 Palamanui wi <br />and work with the County on the acquisition of rights-of-way for Road 4. As we said, the mauka <br />segment of that is privately owned. It was owned by Lynch Investments and that was foreclosed, <br />and so the current owner is Gramercy. And there have been discussions with Gramercy about <br />the acquisitions of rights-of-way and what they intend to do with the property. Our request for <br />the new deadline for the completion of Road 4 is after the County has the right-of-way and by <br />th <br />the time Palamanui has its 600 building permit. This project allows just over 1,100 units, so <br />thatÓs a little bit passed the half way point as far as this project is concerned. Alternatively, if <br />there is funding, letÓs say the Gramercy people come forward with at least 50 percent of the <br />construction cost for the road within the Gramercy property, then Palamanui is going to have to <br />th <br />make its share by the 400 building permit because weÓll have less cost weÓll have to absorb for <br />that road. <br />Okay, now, we had also requested a little more certainty in the bonding and surety requirement; <br />we had asked that we just set the amount at $10,000,000. As Mr. Darrow has indicated, the <br />Department has concerns about that, and we can understand the concerns. What is critical to us <br />is that we would be able to work on providing some reasonable way to give the security, and we <br />are prepared to work with the Planning Department on that. <br /> <br />EXHIBIT B <br />6 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.