My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009-08-28 TKONACOUNTRYCLUB
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2009
>
2009-08-28 TKONACOUNTRYCLUB
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 9:38:17 AM
Creation date
6/14/2011 9:38:16 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
higher density. Part of the reason why we are limiting the density over here is precisely because <br />of that issue. We did have a traffic study done and the traffic study essentially pointed out that in <br />terms of the volume of traffic they anticipate no more than 20, you know, exit and entry type of <br />movements during the AM and PM peaks. So definitely it doesnÓt need to, the project <br />requirements did not necessarily need to comply with the concurr <br />nevertheless, the study was done. So the short answer to your question is that, you know, given <br />the property over here it is very difficult to achieve what the Police Department is saying. <br /> <br />BOWMAN: Thank you. <br /> <br />HOUSEL: I have one more question. The land immediately mauka, excuse me, <br />makai of the project, who owns that land? <br /> <br />FUKE: These, actually two parcels were created. One is this -. Three parcels, that <br />was a three-lot subdivision Î this parcel, this parcel and the balance of this area. This large <br />parcel plus this area are owned by Kamehameha Investment Corporation. <br /> <br />HOUSEL: Okay. If they do develop in the future, is there any likelihood of <br />connecting to your project? <br /> <br />FUKE: It would be very unlikely. And I think that if you were to travel there like <br />after this meeting, if you were at any point in time, if you were to see, this area becomes a very <br />tough site to actually develop. <br /> <br />WATANABE: To expand on that I believe that the topography practically prohibits that; <br />the slope is pretty steep. And so if you really wanted a road and then you wanted eight-percent <br />grade, it would be all paved and going sideways. <br /> <br />HOUSEL: Okay. Thank you very much. <br /> <br />FUKE: Thank you. <br /> <br />WATANABE: Okay. Any further questions? None? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fuke. Mr. <br />Emler, would you care to add? Please come up. And you donÓt need to identify yourself since <br />you are with the County. <br /> <br />EMLER: I didnÓt want to get away from this discussion and without, well, the gate <br />discussion interested me because in this application I didnÓt put in a comment to space the gate <br />away from a County dedicable road, which can be a problem for -. <br /> <br />WATANABE: YouÓre referring to the typical 60 feet setback? <br /> <br />EMLER: Yeah, that type of thing to allow for any kind of storage or stocking <br />without affecting the efficiency of a County dedicated road. We didnÓt do that because we <br />thought the gate was being located at the turnaround there inside. But since Mr. Fuke pointed <br />out that it could be closer to the 60-foot collector road, perhaps itÓs something we should put in. <br /> <br />EXHIBIT A <br />10 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.