|
<br />GIFFIN: I see, I see. Commissioner.
<br />
<br />HICKCOX: The condition would be “should it ever be improved?”
<br />
<br />ARAI: I’m sorry?
<br />
<br />HICKCOX: Would the language then, should that intersection ever be improved, then that would
<br />kick in? Is that what we are saying, or -?
<br />
<br />ARAI: Basically, the way I see it is if a one-way traffic flow is established -. And I honestly at this
<br />time have no idea which way it is going to go; whether it’s going to go northbound or southbound, I
<br />don’t know. But depending on the decision, I would think that Public Works will need to look at
<br />how all the pavements and turning movements are going to occur at that one intersection, and
<br />whatever they require at that time to accommodate the transition is what would be an obligation
<br />upon the applicant to provide. And that is why I haven’t made mention to exactly 12.5 feet, I
<br />haven’t made mention to pavement widening, I haven’t made mention to shoulder or drainage
<br />improvements. Because a one-way traffic flow is simply, their expectation is to leave the pavement
<br />as it is for the most part along the frontage of the property, and only when you get to the
<br />intersection, whatever is needed there to accommodate the new traffic flow is what would be the
<br />obligation upon the applicant.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: I think the applicant had a comment that he wanted to make.
<br />
<br />GOODENOW: Yeah, you know, we really appreciate all the accommodation by Public Works and
<br />Planning in trying to come up with something. But the bottom line is, in my humble opinion, I
<br />really think the burden is being placed on this property. We are giving the eight feet and the five
<br />feet. Originally this road was there, right, the house was, the property existed before the road. You
<br />know, if we say one-way, one-way would be great; Public Works or the Council can always do that.
<br />I know the neighbors have already talked about it, and when I went out, he said he was going to
<br />send, start a petition now. That’s possible. There are other possibilities. But leaving in this
<br />condition even in this convoluted form is just going to kill the project. We won’t know. We’ll have
<br />no certainty. I just really ask, given that this is one more house, it’s going to, actually, they are not
<br />going to build the house, but one more residential lot. I mean, you could have additional farm
<br />dwellings, I’m not sure, on Agricultural land anyway, correct? So really there could be no impact,
<br />if they just went ahead and did the farm dwelling. I just ask on behalf of the Towata family if you
<br />would please consider just going with the condition to take out improvements. I think they’ve given
<br />enough. Thank you.
<br />
<br />GIFFIN: You’re welcome. I think we come back to discussing the four options, which included the
<br />suggestion, the request from the applicant – I think that was No. 2 that Daryn had presented to us
<br />earlier. The first one is E, as the Director has presented to us in our information. And the second
<br />one, which you have in front of you, is what the applicant’s representative just spoke of, which
<br />includes eliminating E from what the Director has proposed. The third one is, as Daryn said, what
<br />Public Works is suggesting. And the fourth one is also including E, as the Director has proposed,
<br />which would eliminate most of it, if the proposal of one-way is incorporated. So, Commissioners, I
<br />think that this is our time, our time to discuss it, and, Mr. Torigoe, if this is proper, should we close
<br />the discussion, I mean, not the discussion amongst us but with the public?
<br />
<br />26
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
|