My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
REP PC 054 2016/04/05 (2014-2016)
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Reports
>
2014-2016
>
Planning Committee (PC)
>
REP PC 054 2016/04/05 (2014-2016)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2021 10:40:51 AM
Creation date
4/8/2016 7:37:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Reports
Reports - Type
REP
Reports - Council Term
2014-2016
Report
054
Committee
PC
Meeting date
2016-04-05
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 04/20/2016 2014-2016
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2014-2016\Council
BIL 167 Draft 01 2014-2016
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2014-2016
COM 0753.000 2014-2016
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2014-2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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).
View images
View plain text
PC-54 Page 2 April 5, 2016 <br /> 45 feet wide. The pavement width fronting this property ranges in width from 22 feet to 24 feet <br /> and is in fairly good condition. There are three other rezonings and one special permit that has <br /> been approved previously in this area. Two of those rezonings do not have requirements for <br /> improvements unless the road is going to be dedicated; the special permit is for a private school, <br /> which did not have a requirement for county dedicable improvements. Mr. Nishimura said <br /> another factor is the way Milo Street is presently constructed; it is not directly in the center of the <br /> 45-foot right of way. The top of the road is two feet off, and the bottom of the road is 16 feet <br /> displaced from the property line. Thus, if these improvements were to be done as being <br /> instructed by the original Condition G, the shoulder width would range from 12 feet at the top to <br /> 26 feet at bottom. The shoulder width would be more than the existing pavement. <br /> Mr. Nishimura said it did not make sense to require the improvement. The building on site has <br /> been used as an anthurium packing facility for 25 years. The plan is to continue the existing use <br /> for foreseeable future; however, the owners would like additional flexibility in the event this is <br /> discontinued. The applicant anticipates that any new user of the property would not have any <br /> significant impact because anticipated use would not be of higher intensity than the 26 <br /> employees on 35 trips per day. <br /> Mr. Onishi stated this rezoning project is in the Council District that he represents, and asked for <br /> support. <br /> Ms. Wille asked for more information about the required improvements. <br /> Mr. Nishimura said the cost of repaving a shoulder, if that were the only requirement, would be <br /> fairly reasonable. However, he said the cost of putting in a drywell and relocating utility and <br /> water lines is asking a lot of a landowner when adjacent landowners are not doing the same. <br /> Ms. Wille asked about the possibility of improving some of the sidewalk areas, and if this is a <br /> place where people walk. <br /> Mr. Nishimura said that Milo Street connects with Keaau Bypass Road, a limited-access state <br /> highway, so there are virtually no pedestrians walking. The private school, Christian Liberty <br /> Academy, is adjacent on the makai side of this property but students are likely being dropped off <br /> there because of the limited access. <br /> Ms. Wille stated she would support the amendment, but she does not agree with the idea that <br /> something that has not been required before is a reason not to do it now. <br /> The amendment was approved. There was no discussion on the main motion. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.