2019-06-06 Hearing Transcript - Autozone Parts REZ 06-052

Home

access restriction provided the project ingress, egress on Kekela Street conformed to County standards. So, we handed out this morning a copy that just came in of a plan review comment sheet from Public Works Traffic Division. There was some comment in the first checkbox here from Signs/Markings, and says that channelization of Kekela Street to accommodate peak hour traffic, whichever is greater, would be required. So, that seems consistent with what's being proposed, and I've been accused of living in the past. I apologize. This should be dated 6/6/19, not 5/6/19 on the upper right-hand corner. So, again, yeah, the Director is supportive of this amendment provided that all of the improvements as required by DPW are made. Condition H was the parking condition. At the time of the rezone when it went up to the County Council, the County Council requested and required a pardon me, a parking requirement that was a little bit, a little bit different from what our Zoning Code requires. The Zoning Code requires a minimum of one parking space for each 300 square feet of commercial space. The County Council at the time asked for one parking space per a 160 square feet of gross floor area for commercial uses, and then based on that and what was being proposed at the time, the County Council asked that a 123 parking spaces be kind of the minimum requirement for the project. Since the Applicant is scaling this down, they're asking to keep that ratio of one parking stall to a 160 square feet, but they're just asking to apply it to the lower square footage of the proposed development. So, that's why the 57 spaces. And, then, the Director is supportive of this amendment request as they're keeping with the same ratio that the previous Council required, but they're just applying it to the smaller project. And, then, finally, we've got their request to delete Condition E, and this is a requirement that a Traffic Impact Analysis Report be submitted to the Department of Transportation, Highways Division, through the Hawaii District Office for review and shall be approved prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. A copy of the TIAR shall also be submitted to the Planning Director. So, the Applicant is asking to delete this because as part of their 2017 Change of Zone amendment application, they submitted a draft TIAR, and their stated reason is as they're not proposing any modification to the right -in, right -out access from Puainako Street and will be required to construct improvements in Puainako Street right-of-way meeting with the approval of the DOT. They're saying, therefore, according to the Applicant, deletion of this condition will not release them from complying with the DOT's construction requirements imposed under Condition G which states that access to the project site from Puainako Street shall be limited to right -in, right -out movements only and shall meet with the approval of the Department of Transportation. The Applicant shall construct any improvements on Puainako Street as required by DOT. The Director is not supportive of this condition for a number of reasons, or this proposed deletion for a number of reasons. In their response to the initial request for comments, on the 2017 TIAR, DOT Highways Division objected to the Applicant's request to delete that condition stating that they did not consider the Applicant's justification that Condition G which requires the Applicant to construct improvements on Puainako Street to be sufficient. They further cited several deficiencies in the 2017 draft TIAR submitted with the amendment application. So, EXHIBIT A 5