2012-02-16 Leeward Exh A - Towata Grand

Home

widen this entire, you know, it’s a very short stretch, so I just thought there might be a different way to handle this. Thank you. GIFFIN: Ki? EMLER: If I may, I just would like, Madam Director, to respond. As far as Public Works asking for a full dedicable road section, you realize we haven’t done that. We are, we did discuss this early on with the Planning Department as far as what we would need for minimal improvements on it. And so we agreed that, and because of the expected traffic volume and the existing traffic volume there, it probably doesn’t warrant that type of improvement. And we are also concerned about speeding. It’s a problem we have to deal with; we have to come up with ways of traffic calming and so forth. So the additional pavement width of eight feet to the existing eight feet is 16 feet, just enough to get two cars through. And right now, it is a two-way street, so we have to look at it the way it is now. And as far as the applicant’s concern about the magnitude of the improvements, I think it’s quite an overestimate. And the issue of relocating the utility pole is not on the table; it’s not something we are asking for. We realize the excessive cost of doing that. But we are talking about the utility pole I believe along, next to the northerly property corner, that large one there; we are not asking for that to be removed. So the pavement transition would occur within the frontage of this property, so there would be some, it would be enough to where someone can pull into that, the additional pavement width and then it would transition back to the one-lane within this property frontage. That’s what we had in mind, then with minimal shoulder improvements in addition to that of four and half feet. BEAUDET: I have a comment, Madam Chair. GIFFIN: Commissioner Beaudet. BEAUDET: It’s clear that consideration that’s been given by Public Works, and it’s really appreciated. But, you know, by moving in this direction to follow that recommendation, you know, we talk about setting precedent of our future, but on the other side of the same coin, we would be setting precedent for the continued widening of the road, should other requests for rezoning be approved in the future. And by doing that, in itself, we are already setting the stage to eliminate part of our history. I agree with the Director on the historical value of those stonewalls, and I just, it saddens me to think that we are setting precedent for additional removal. You know, growing up on this side of the mountain, it’s -. The architecture of the old stonewalls that we have here in Kona is unique to this island. I’m not a mason, I don’t know why, but, you know, it’s visually apparent. And I just have to really, it’s hard to set that precedent, because I think it would be a requirement for other landowners north of the property to increase it to the same extent and, you know, both sides of the roadway is lined with those old stonewalls. GIFFIN: Madam Director. Unless Ki, did you want to respond to -? EMLER: We understand that concern. The most of the rock walls would probably be dry-stack walls; they can’t be relocated and rebuilt to reasonably same type of wall. We’ve seen it done before. But I understand the historic nature of the walls and I appreciate your concern about that. It’s just that we look at the reality of what is coming, and that is expanded use of the road and the conflicts that causes, so -. 14 EXHIBIT A