|
based on these comments from DOT back in 2017, the Applicant asked us to kind of put the
<br />application on hold so that they could conduct another TIAR or amend the TIAR to address
<br />DOT's issues. Back in 2018, they submitted to us an updated TIAR which actually at that point
<br />we're going to request full -turn access off of Puainako Street. So, on Page 7 of your Background
<br />Report, we reference that. So, the TIAR came in along with a letter of approval from DOT, and
<br />this is the second document we handed out today, and essentially what this is saying is that they
<br />approve of the mitigation as recommended by the Applicant in their 2018 TIAR for full -
<br />movement access, and that they would, you know, work with them to implement those
<br />mitigation requirements. Subsequent to that, the Applicant came back and asked to remove that
<br />amendment request to allow for full -turn access. Based on conversations with KTA across the
<br />street, KTA was concerned that a full -turn access off of Puainako would create traffic issues and
<br />problems with their customers trying to make a left-hand turn out of their parking lot. So based
<br />on those comments, and in consideration of those, the Applicant deleted that request.
<br />So, they subsequently submitted another site plan that showed adjusted requirements, and we
<br />asked them hey, you know, because you're now deleting this request, the last TIAR we have is
<br />about full -turn access movements, can you update your TIAR to address what your current
<br />proposal is, and at that point, we would then have to distribute that to DOT and DPW for their
<br />comments. So, they updated that and a couple weeks ago, we got a third TIAR which addressed
<br />those issues. At this point, DOT and DPW have not had an opportunity to review that TIAR,
<br />have not had an opportunity to comment on that TIAR, so that's the second reason that the
<br />Director is not in support of deleting this condition. We at the Planning Department rely on
<br />agency review to inform appropriate conditions for roadway improvements to mitigate traffic
<br />impacts. We've talked about the Applicant recently provided an updated TIAR, and neither
<br />agency has had a chance to review or comment on the analysis or the appropriateness of
<br />proposed mitigation measures.
<br />Finally, as we talked about before, amendments to this Change of Zone do not require the
<br />Applicant to develop their project as currently proposed. Should AutoZone choose to expand the
<br />size of their store now or in the future, or should any successor Applicant wish to develop a
<br />different or larger project, retaining this condition will ensure that any increased traffic impacts
<br />would be studied, and proposed mitigation for those impacts would be reviewed and approved by
<br />appropriate agencies.
<br />So, the Director, again, is not supportive of deleting this requirement for those reasons. And, the
<br />other thing that we just added to the condition, and I'll go back topardon me, the language—is
<br />the Director is recommending adding that a TIAR will be, shall be submitted to the Department
<br />of Transportation, Highways Division through the Hawaii District Office and to the Department
<br />of Public Works, Traffic Division, for review and shall be approved prior to issuance of Final
<br />Plan Approval, a copy of the TIAR shall be submitted to the Planning Director, and then finally,
<br />the last sentence that the Director is proposing to add is the Applicant shall construct any
<br />improvements required by the State Department of Transportation and County Department of
<br />Public Works, Traffic Division, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. So, what this does
<br />is just captures to make sure that appropriate review and adoption of a TIAR is done and that
<br />prior to occupancy, all of the required improvements are made to that area, those intersections.
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />6
<br />
|