Laserfiche WebLink
VITOUSEK:And after your testimony, you were, you had further conversation with the <br />Applicant relative to the potential to modify the site plan for the proposed project, isn't that <br />correct? <br />BLECK:That's correct. <br />VITOUSEK:Okay. May I ask that you read your written testimony, which has been <br />submitted to the Hearings Officers and to the parties, if you could please read your testimony <br />into the record. <br />BLECK:I am the architect who prepared the plans and drawings for <br />Blasman's proposed 13-unit condominium project to be located on 1.255 acres at -. <br />D.ROY:Excuse me. Will you read a little slower please and a little louder? <br />BLECK:Is this working? <br />GIFFIN:Yes, it is. <br />BLECK:Shall I begin again? <br />M.ROY:Yes, please. <br />BLECK:I am the architect who prepared the plans and drawings for <br />th <br />Blasman's proposed 13-unit condominium project to be located on 1.255 acres at Hlualoa 4, <br />North Kona, Island of Hawai`i. I have previously testified in this matter on behalf of Applicant <br />Wayne Blasman. After the public hearings in March and May, 2003, I was asked by my client, <br />Wayne Blasman, to assess whether we could move the two structures located in closest <br />proximity to the Pahika(sic) in the Keakealaniwahine Complex further from the property line <br />without posing a significant adverse impact on the proposed project. Mr. Blasman advise <br />that he was trying to increase the distance by which the proposed structures were set back from <br />the property line to create additional area along the mauka boundary of the site for <br />implementation of a landscape plan. I advised Mr. Blasman that I would revisit the proposed <br />architectural plan with those concerns in mind. <br />Based on these instructions, I redesigned the mauka portion of the proposed project to move one <br />of the proposed structures an additional 9½ feet from the mauka boundary of the site. I was able <br />to move this building an additional 9½ feet away from the property line, resulting in a building <br />setback of 38½ feet. The adjacent unit would remain at 38½ foot <br />One of my concerns in re-siting these building was that the further away from the property line <br />the buildings were moved, the closer together they became. In redesigning this portion of the <br />property, I was able to maintain the separation between the buildings while increasing the <br />distance between the structures and the property line in the area where the structures would be <br />18 <br /> <br />