|
FUKE:Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could kind of like shed some light.
<br />unfortunately, I just have only one copy of this map which IÓll share with the
<br />Commission beginning from the right to the left, but -.
<br />Just to give you some general background, when the former owners
<br />C. Brewer, created this parcel, it was done in conjunction with a whole number of other
<br />lots in this area; and I think that as you look at the tax map, youÓll see -. And what
<br />happened was that, in conjunction with that consolidation and resubdivision action, they
<br />created like a separate road lot, which is now called Kulana Kea Drive; and thatÓs kind of
<br />identified in yellow. The subject parcel that you see on the map would be identified,
<br />colored in pink. So they created that, they created that road. As part of the approval
<br />process, however, they were required to have construction plans prepared and approved
<br />by the Department of Public Works. And, so, what you have right now is a roadway that
<br />was not there prior to all of these; you know, there was like a former road, you know.
<br />But it was improved, you know, by the former owners of that prop
<br />on the map. So what happened is that now you have a situation w
<br />pointed out, may not necessarily be the ideal of the ideal situation; but this roadway is not
<br />an easement. ItÓs a separate road lot, itÓs a separate road lot. And the condition of the
<br />road, as the staff had pointed out and Public Works, also, you k
<br />a 20-foot wide pavement with a, you know, 2- to 4-foot wide shoulders. There may be,
<br />probably under idealized circumstance, maybe some need to make some adjustments, you
<br />know, to the two points that Mr. Cardoza pointed out: One, is that, you know, where this
<br />roadway touches down to the main highway, to Wainaku Street, and also like that curve,
<br />probably like about 200 feet makai of the subject property.
<br />GALDONES:Is there future plans to address those two points?
<br />FUKE:I would believe like, you know, like inasmuch as the Plant-
<br />as well as Mr. Cardoza and all of the others, they have the common interest in that road,
<br />it would behoove all of the property owners to get together and make the appropriate
<br />adjustments. ThatÓs my suggestion Òcause this is not really like a, this is not a County
<br />road. So notwithstanding the current application, you know, before you, which was
<br />calling for a reduction from 25-30 lots down to 6, as I mentioned very early, if it comes to
<br />pass that all of these things are not applicable and to be able to comply with all the
<br />existing terms of the conditions of the existing ordinance, the only way you, to make
<br />Ðends meetÑ is that they would have to do a 25- or 30-lot subdivision without having to
<br />do any offsite improvements, aside from just the water.
<br />And relative to the water, if you notice like on Condition 2, well, condition, the new
<br />proposed Condition C, this is like a direct take from the existing ordinance that you have
<br />right now, which shows that the landowner must provide that onsite and offsite water
<br />system, you know, for its proposed subdivision. Now, itÓs only for his proposed
<br />subdivision. On the other hand, you know, if, you know, so the sizing requirement may
<br />be different from what may be suitable for, what Mr. Cardoza in the future has in mind
<br />for his property. So then, again, it would behoove like all affected property owners who
<br />10
<br />
<br />
|