2012-02-16 Leeward Exh A - Towata Grand

Home

that. But that’s really only an additional house. What kind of traffic impact, increase are we talking about? The other thing is that we understand that they gave deference to Public Works, and we really appreciate that because they understand, I mean, look. But in reality, again, this is a planning decision, and to just say, “Okay, well, we’ll leave it up to Public Works,” we’ll have no resolution at this point as to what the cost would be, you know, we still have to go to the Council. This is not a wealthy trust. There is, I mean, I, maybe, shouldn’t speak for my client, but this is not, there is not a lot of money; it’s just preserving the property. You know, and to be honest, if there really is a concern about growth, which I think is doubtful, No. 1 – these other properties are not in the Urban area, right, they are Ag, most of them, so it’s unlikely that they’ll, you know, change – but why not maybe do a one-way road here? To me, that makes a lot of more sense. You come in right here, and it’s just a short little loop. So I think there are other options that Public Works could consider that probably would be a better solution than $120,000 minimum, not including removal of the walls and stuff. And I hate, I mean I don’t want to speak for Public Works, but they’ve made their position, I think if the condition is there, it’s going to be hard for them to say, “Well, we recommended it, but now we are going to say you don’t have to do it.” I really, we must, you know, we really ask that you take out the requirement for improvements. GIFFIN: Mrs. Grand, did you want to add premise? TOWATA GRAND: I’m going to say that this house, the old house, is in the historical corridor. And we have a lot of tourists that come up to the town and they walk up this back road, because it’s scenic. And there is a restaurant down the roadways, and they, lots of, more, I think there are more people walking up the road than there are cars. And I also wanted to say that I’m afraid if we don’t settle, the trust, there’s such a dispute in my family, that we might be forced to sell our property and I don’t think any of my relatives would approve of that. GIFFIN: Daryn, I have a question, and I don’t know if I should wait for Ki, but there has been reference by the applicant’s representative about minimal traffic, and then we had some implications that there could be increased traffic with this change. How many cars are we talking about? I mean, like, so I can have a frame of reference. ARAI: I don’t have a specific number of cars, I mean, knowing that one additional home would be built, I’m sure the overall traffic level would be minimal, I mean if you just view at this property. But we do look at it from a cumulative standpoint, meaning if other rezonings occur, you know, there will be additional homes built in the area. That could have a cumulative impact to traffic along this road. Now, granted you are not going to see a large significant volume of traffic but, and I’m not a traffic expert so I can’t confirm that, but at the same time, it’s also a standard of any typical residential rezoning. You know, you may have seen over the years where it’s few and far between where you see a residential rezoning go without any roadway improvements, if the roadway is severely substandard. And one would argue this is severely substandard. HICKCOX: Madam Chair? GIFFIN: Yes, Commissioner. HICKCOX: Question in reference to the existing right-of-way. It, according to the documents, it measures or allots for 25 feet already. Okay, now, with, and understanding that to be consistent with past practice, but you are asking for, or what should be a 50-foot right-of-way or easement. The question I have is that with the existing 25 feet, would then it not be possible for the addition of 10 EXHIBIT A