The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0110.001 2002-2004 oNiv.or Mob c°•'' ~yl,i,~; Harry Kim Cluistopher J. Yuen Mayor Director 'rE a_.=_a'.'s r. Roj1 R. tI'a~temo[o Depurybiiector ~nixttf~r n~ ~ttfuttii - PLANNING DEPARTMENT 25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8792 January 22, 2003 Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Chair Committee on Planning 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 9670 Dear Chair Leithead-Todd: SUBJECT: BILL 17 - TMK: 2-2-40:14 and 69 APPLICANT: MATSUNO ENTERPRISES, LTD. At the last Council meeting on this application some members asked for further analysis of this project. It has also been significantly changed since it went through the Planning Commission in the previous administration. At that time, the Department of Transportation refused to allow direct access from Kanoelehua, so primary access was to be from Puainako. Now, DOT has agreed to access from Kanoelehua, subject to certain conditions and improvements, and Puainako is proposed as a right-in access only. Under the current proposal, which limits construction of the buildings to the area outside the flood zone, the project would consist of approximately 18,000 square feet of commercial buildings (because it is limited to uses requiring not more than 60 parking stalls, and the Zoning Code requires one stall for 300 square feet of commercial use.) The project would thus be an isolated commercial area on Kanoelehua about 700' Puna of the Puainako intersection. This property has two major constraints that make it very difficult to develop as a commercial site. First, the only area not in the flood zone is the high spot at the southwest corner along Kanoelehua; flood waters pond in the deep hole occupying most of the rest of the property. Second, the Puainako St. access is very difficult because of the short distance to the Pilipaa St. intersection. Comm. No, ~0. FSIe lief. oE' Itef. nat;~ JAN 2 Z003 Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Chair Page 2 January 22, 2003 The previous concept-access from Puainako using aright-in, right-out turn--was completely unworkable. It would have made it even more difficult to turn left out of Pilipaa St. In addition, most customers would eventually want to get back to Kanoelehua, by going west on Puainako, and the most convenient and shortest route to do that would be to turn right on Pilipaa St., then tum around on someone's private driveway, or turn left into Prince Kuhio Plaza, then turn around in the parking lot. Although the proposed Kanoelehua St. access is more workable than Puainako, the Council needs to consider whether it is wise, in the long run, to rezone property to commercial use along Kanoelehua that requires direct driveway access. Kanoelehua is the main artery bringing traffic in and out of Hilo from Puna. The proposed access would take a portion of the Kanoelehua right-of--way that could eventually accommodate more through lanes and permanently commit it for right-in and right-out lanes for this project. The only such driveway access presently on Kanoelehua in this general area is at the Puainako Town Center. It is my understanding that DOT agreed to this to mitigate problems that arose with traffic flow around the existing facility long after it was built. There are driveways on Kanoelehua closer to Kamehameha Ave., but this a situation that existed long before Kanoelehua reached its present volume of traffic, and these primarily serve industrial properties, which, in theory at least, should not generate as much traffic as a commercial development. In general, it is not desirable to allow direct driveway access to a major arterial like Kanoelehua. Motorists leaving this project will merge left into Kanoelehua in the same general area that drivers on Kanoelehua who want to turn into Puainako will be trying to merge into the Puainako deceleration lane. The only TIAR prepared for the project is based on the Puainako access, not the Kanoelehua access. If the Council is inclined to rezone the property to accommodate the landowner's wishes, I would suggest a number of conditions and revisions: 1. The entire property should not be rezoned to commercial. Less than half is outside the flood zone. Otherwise, in years to come, the fact of the commercial zoning will become an argument for the further development of the site. r Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Chair Page 3 January 22, 2003 2. The DOT's November 13, 2001 letter contains several explicit conditions for the Kanoelehua access. These should be made express conditions of the rezoning rather than leaving this a subject of further negotiation; there should also be a more general condition requiring improvements to the satisfaction of DOT because their letter contemplates other possible requirements. 3. In consideration of the Awapuhi St. residents, even if the applicant is able to gain access to this private street, the access should be gated and used only in emergencies. Otherwise, Awapuhi St. will be the most convenient route for customers leaving this development to get back on Kanoelehua going south, or to cross Kanoelehua, via Kahaopea St., and a significant number of motorists may thus choose to travel through this residential street. Some councilmembers had asked for further analysis of the question of General Plan LUPAG map consistency. Because this was clearly not part of the GP amendment redesignating Prince Kuhio Plaza, the question is whether the property was included in an amendment passed with the 1989 General Plan revisions. Without going through an absolutely detailed chronology, it is clear from Planning Commission transcripts that the Planning Director, in 1987, intended this property to be included in what was presented to the Council as Amendment No. 11. There is a statement to the Planning Commission on Chis, that also mentions the fact that this property is meant to be included even though the written description of Amendment No. 11 describes it as applying to "industrial" property around Prince Kuhio Plaza, and this property was Low Density. The Director wrote the landowner's representative on October 26, 1988, assuring him that if this amendment passed, the property would have the appropriate General Plan designation to pursue commercial zoning, as a matter of "interpretation" of Amendment No. 1 1. We also have a letter from Takashi Domingo; the Planning Committee chair at the time, that the Council thought the GP amendment included this property. (I have not read all of the Council minutes on this GP amendment). The Planning Director, in February 2000, wrote the landowner that the property was "High Density". Because of this history, it would be unfair forme to advocate any different position now, although I have no explanation for why the LUPAG map was not actually changed for this property in 1989, although it was changed for the "industrial" properties, or why the written description of Amendment No. 11 only mentioned the industrial properties. Had the landowner been told, in 1987-89, that something more Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Chair Page 4 January 22, 2003 specific was needed; he could have pursued that option. As a matter of procedure I think that it would have been much better to have changed the description of Amendment No. 11 and incorporated the property explicitly in the map. The General Plan designation does not, however, compel a commercial rezoning. The site-specific issues discussed above are not necessarily considered at the stage of a General Plan amendment, particularly in a comprehensive review. Sincerely,. CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN Planning Director CJY:pak Wpwin60\Chris\Matsuno rezl.doc cc: Mr. Sidney Fuke