Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0619.008 1998-2000 To: Members of the Hawaii County Council Planning Committee From: Diane Gentry Date: 28 January 2000 Subject: Change of Zone Application (REZ 99-025) _ _ 1 _ 5 Applicant: W.H. Shipman, Ltd. Request: A-20a to MCX-20 ~ TMK: 1.6.003: Portion of 007 Re: Traffic Safety on the Volcano Hwy./Keaau-Pahoa Bypass Intersection 1~~ Thank you for the opportunity to present observations before the Planning Committee. After attending several informational sessions in Keaau, reviewing the record on file with the Planning Dept., presenting testimony hefore the Planning Commission on Dec. 17`", and reviewing the file on record in the County Council office, I'd like to offer information for this body to consider with regard to the Change of Zone Application proposed by Shipman Ltd.: • Safety is important! "With the completion of the Bypass Road, the Level-of-Service at the intersection of Mamalahoa at Bypass Road will be 'D' and 'C' during the morning and afternoon peak periods, respectively, for 2013 conditions. This assumes that no additional improvements at this intersection is implemented." See Exhibit A, item 5. According to testimony given at the Planning Commission, these levels will soon be exceeded with approx. fl9,000 vehicles passing through the area daily. • ~ The T-intersection that allows this change of zone application access Onto the Volcano highway is situated on a designated high-speed, blind, curving, downward slope past the current entrance to the Shipman Industrial Park. It is a historical agricultural point of access which once enabled sugar cane trucks to get to the mill. While permitting for highway access is a responsibility of the State Dept. of Transportation, zoning for the parcel determines the use of the access. Unfortunately, this T-intersection is located on a blind curve subject to flooding. This presents a danger to oncoming traffic travelling into Puna from Hilo. • This proposed 4-way intersection, if approved by the Dept. of Transportation, will be the largest intersection on the island. By my estimation, a pedestrian crossing the intersection will walk (at 2 ft. per second) 175' across the Volcano Highway & 225' across the bypass. When multiplied, this equates to 39,.375 sq. ft. or almost one acre to get from point A to point B. The length of time pedestrians of all ages would be required to wait in the intersection for the light to change & allow them to cross is way too long, especially for seniors and youngsters. This entire area should remain pedestrian-free! ~~.i~ , Comm. No. ' File No. Itet', I'o: tt:, i, Unta_.__ FEB 0 4 1081 • • 18 November 1993 Petition filed with the Land Use Commission (LUC) Docket No. BR93-699 to amend the Agricultural Land Use District Boundary into the Urban Land Use District Exhibit A December 1993 Keaau -Pahoa Road Traffic Impact Assessment Report is released Exhibit B 1995 Notice of Determination Negative Declaration for the Proposed Keaau - Pahoa Road, Keaau Town Section (Project No. 130B- 01.92) Exhibit C (14 December 1999) Map (electrical plans) provided by DOT Exhibit D (14 December 1999) Map (access permitted plan) provided by DOT Exhibit E 17 December 1999 Planning Commission Meeting (testimony) 7 January 2000 Planning Commission Decision is forwarded to the Council for consideration Keaau has five distinct areas: 1. The old core of town = the village 100+ years old 2. The regional plan = conceptual plan initiated 7 years ago with the "Gateway" concept borne in the beginning of '99 3. The school area = initiated around '93, now built & operating 4. The historical plantation area = pre -WWII, now with mixed uses (residential, school, offices, proposed future church use, agriculture & wholesale /retail) 5. The outlying areas Where will the new core of Keaau be? Where will community gather? What other services will want to be located in Keaau? When & who decided that Keaau would serve as the regional center for Puna? Will the D.O.T. make a presentation to this committee as to their planning decisions impacting County responsibilities? The Puna area would definitely benefit by more development to deliver goods & services. The Planning Committee can take action by: 1. Making a site inspection during peak morning & afternoon hours to observe the safety factors 2. Defer decision- making until the D.O.T. provides an Environmental Assessment or EIS on a redesigned 4 -way intersection to address everyone's safety 3. Condition zoning to include a right -in only at the current point of access with the Volcano highway. Let's remember: Safety First! TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT FOR I~~AAU-PAHOA BOAC KEAAU TOWN SECTION KEAAU, HAWAII ~ L, J ~ `I ~ PROJECT NO. 130&01-92 Prepared For GK & ASSOCIATES, INC. KAILUA, HAWAII Prepared By BARYON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. HONOLULU, HAWAII ®ECEMBER 1993 , ¢,,S,ONCLIISIONS AND ^ECOMMENDATIONS 1 The conclusions and recommendations of the traffic study are as follows; 1. The objectives of the traffic study were to determine the required lane configurations to accommodate 2013 traffic projections at level•of•service 'C' or better and to determine the traffic related Impacts of the proposed Bypass Road. 2. A level•of•service analysis of a two-lane versus atour-lane roadway was conducted and it was determined that the Bypass Road should be a four-lane divided highway. I ne alternative was selected for analysis for this study, the proAeot 3. Since on y o analyzed the impacts of a no•build scenario in which all traffic would utilize the 6nter9sctlon of Mamalahoa Highway at Keaau•Pahoa Road. The analysis i determined that If the Bypass was not built the Intersection would have to be determined that if the Bypass was not built the intersection would have to be modified to accommodate 2013 traffic projections at level•of•service 'C.' The Improvements consist of the following: (1) an additional southbound left•turn lane, (2) an additional northbound through lane, and (3) an additional lane on the westbound to northbound right•turn ramp. q, The lane configurations for the intersections of Mamalahoa Highway at Bypass Road and Bypass Road at Keaau•Pahoa Road were determined. Schematics of the proposed lane configurations and the recommended traffic signal timings are presented in the previous chapter. 6, With completion of the Bypass Road, the Level•of•Service at the intersection of Mamalahoa Highway at Bypass Road will be 'D' and 'C' during the morning and afternoon peak periods, respectively, for 2013 conditions, This assumes that no additional improvements at this intersection is implemented, 4t Pape 28 ganr~n•.gschman ASSOCIafBS ~ T_.._. _ _ ..u_._.._ _ _ U'1' ` ,h~i 1 ,iii II' ~ i ~f. ' ~rll~pl~l' ~ ~ O a , Z ~~cbali' . a a i oc ~ o ~ rn/v!! ssVd~e '''dill II! ii Z I~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ , , j I ~ ~ I I I I I I ji i,u I i ~ , I ji ,~Iji , _ ,~I~~ ~ Liu!:. i ~ ~ I I I Il~r I o i ~ ~ I. _ it I I ;I'i t ~ III , II I O ~ I' ~I~ _ I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I ~ I E.: I i~ I I I ~ g ' I II 1 I I s; s5s ' II I R I I I I ,,.:x NNWAtl T iE LI RAgY $YSiFM NOTICE OF DETERMINATION I!!~II~IIII~II~~IgNl~l~llll~iil NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED qN II KEAAU•PAHOA ROAD, KEAAU TOWN SECTION 1055812836 ® (Protect No. 130B-01.92) itt A. Pro osin¢ ~nT Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii B. ccepting Authoriri Not applicable to a negative declaration. C. Description of the Proposed Action The Department of Transportation (DOT), State of Hawaii, proposes to design and construct afour-lane bypass road routing Keaau-Pahoa Road (State Highway 130) around the town of Keaau on the island of Hawaii, Puna's population has grown rapidly since 1970 with many of its workers commuting to Hilo. Traffic has grown concomitantly, with passage through Keaau now a significant bottleneck, The proposed bypass, in conjunction with other recent and planned improvements, is intended to alleviate this situation. Keaau-Pahoa Road is a two-lane roadway providing access to lower Puna. At its northerly end, Keaau•Pahoa Road passes through Keaau to its juncture with the Hawaii Belt Road (Mamalahoa Highway/Volcano Road, State Highway 11). DOT examined six (6) alternatives for this project, including the selected alignment, Alternative 1 (refer to Exhibit 1). Alternatives 2 and 3, alternate makai routes, had serious social and environmental impacts and may be opposed by various community groups. Alternative 4, the mauka alternative, would significantly reduce traffic congestion in the center of Keaau and would conflict with current plans for a new elementary school. Alternative 5, a proposal to widen the existing Keaau-Pahoa Road, is constrained by development adjacent to the highway. Alternative 6, the no•action alternative, failed to satisfactorily address major project objections including the reduction/elimination of traffic congestion in Keaau. Hence, Alternative 1 will begin on Keaau-Pahoa Road, in the vicinity of the former plantation manager's house (Banyan Inn), proceed between 8.1/2 Mile Camp and the Milo Sweet neighborhood, and return to Mamalahoa Highway at Keaau Road (refer to EzWbit 1). The proposed 2.2 mile highway was selected for this project based on its a+ao PuBUC uea; x 625.7 G 30pWIJM1UENUE I L 1 I CK 6 Asaoctate11111A,H1 p6720 Pinel environmental eaeeeamen~ ~1~~ ~~V~'1. Keaau-Pohoa road, Keaau.to~ 1995 pr ~-1 i?q • Keaau•Pahoa Road Resurfacing and Improvements, Keaau toward Pahoa, Federal Aid Project No. STP•0130(25) -Improvements to two sections of Keaau•Pahoa itoad (mileposts 0.20 to 4.69 and mileposts 9.19 to 9.79), including leveling and resurfacing existing pavement, excavating and backfilling, installing guardrails and curbs, widening pavement and roadways for Shower/Pohaku Drive and Kaloli Drive channelized intersections, widening shoulders, reconstructing weakened pavement areas, adjusting reference survey monuments, valve boxes and manholes, relocating water meter boxes a^.:: ~e^.~.ce ta~era!s •ernovi^c, irsta!ling and replacing si¢tts and reflector markers, and tnstaiitng pavement markings. q 1.Z PROJECT CONCEPT Anew four-lane ro;ulway is proposed ;ui alternate route to bypass Keaau town to alleviate traffic congestion through the town. I'he bypass road will primarily serve through traffic between Puna and Hilu. Restricted access and fewer intersections will provide better traffic flow with greater roadway capacities. Widening the existing roadway through the town is constrained by existing development adjacent to the roadway. A mauka route would skirt the northerly boundurics of the Keaau Agricultural Lots and meet Volcano Road at an existing connection with Uld Volcano Road. A makai route would better accommodate the major direction of traffic flow and is proposed to meet Mamalahoa Highway at either Keaau Road or Shipman Industrial Park. t.3 PROJECT COST AND SCHEDULE Until the final alignment is selected and design work is complete, cost estimates remain imprecise. information provided by DOT indicates that project planning and design will cost approximately $1.6 million. Personal communications with Hugh Ono, Hawaii District Highways Engineer, indicate that construction costs average about $3 to $ 3.5 million per mile (see Appendix B). More specific information regarding the preferred alternative may he found in Section 2.3, The anticipated project schedule is as follows; • Planning -March 1993 to September 1995 • Design -November 1995 to October 1996 • Construction -January 1997 to December 1997 J zu.-.,~' I n L ~~~~a I~ ~ a g 4 t I II I ~ h ~ ~Q j ' - I~ W ~7 ~ 'I'I I I I s a ~ a~ I~ ~I I ~ a ~ ~I a 1 ~ ~ ~ I ~ ' ~ I~ I I i ~ ~ I I~ _ owe pq ~~~~a l~ ~ i ~ 5 ~ i~ I~ / lii; ~ I i ~ ~ I~ - - - - ~ - i I~ ~ I~ J ~ t .r I%~~; I ~ yw I z J.. ~i~_ ~ ~ M ~ V ~ ~ d ~ a =r~ ; ~.I I;~ i _ ~ I I I A ~ OLL O ~ a ~ ~_.a c 1 I j i MM V Q O ~~~III ~ 7 Z - N V_ ` O i ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ . I ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ICI 4-1 Iyytn.+~ ~ z... ~ O U O I~ ~ ~ I o it i , o ~x i i r I I ~ _ ~ ~ MN w1.. a~* V V ® ~I - - - -I 1v i ~ / ~ F I I ~ v I' ` ~ I w ~ ~ ~I ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ O V ~ ~ i - I ~ ~ d' , ~ I 1~ I I~ I ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~I i~,~ ~ I Z ~ ~ \ ~ i ~ I ~ 11~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i F-- ~ V i 1 I ~ I ~ I ~I 1 w u ~ ~ ~ ~ I °/z , 3r ~5 I9.5° a . 200.00 ~ ~ ~ / T . !26.22 ~1 y / / 0 . 2/3.48 ti ~ ~~2., / ~ ~ " O a~' f i 9 L~ 225J9 p'S~ ~8 . ~S'oc ,~6 i ; ~a a O rtt i ~.s' sY~ ,A, aAA//'~ v~ is u~s ~?Gb~? y / / H n° $ i 5, . 1 1348 , ~ / _ _ _ _ l24 ~ ~""r_'T ~ Z 3A~~ LTR HSf^ l6~ 03' S7' _ i,>». ~Zy 2. ^ ,s , / ^ass Disk) -60.69 J57`~' 37-~ ~ / 77.00 ' pd / O 9 ~ <sd ! ` ~ r ~ ~ , ~s se \ ~ i~ ~ 5 ~B'30 ~ ` ! ~'-37%28„ - _ _ ~ 35494E ~ ~ ~ \ - - _ ,q.. S ! Buill F ~ ~ ` ; 703f~ a~,~ ~9u 0~ ti ?/.004 G !g ~ ~ F,4.a `~h -,r6"n !3.£04 a '°-011.2117 ~ 'y~ ~ ~ 1 164 07'~ 1 „ ~ J ~ ' w %6T y ~ l34?6 ~ ~ 348,4 ~ / r 18 ~ ? ?6'. ~ h y~ i r ~ B/, Bap„ /rye ,-o ass 44,/ ,,8 ~ ?se~ s iai ~ , 9 oQSS4 Fl, tiN~~ X03" , Oo e~ 1' ~ ~r '4C, 79 ~~~'yii Q~ r~ 4 ~ ~ l6g~y6. 9l r J~ .ter ~ PAD ~ ~ti~ yr »y:. ll i ti~0 bin PQrb r ?O 8y /I 'I ~ ~ iii ~ ~ ~yi~`^f i o~06`r9.Fl ~I ~ r~~i r~~ N ~Qrl y 0?7 qo A ~ u r r I ~ h Q i i l h'~ y~~' ''~s rKr i/ h~ ~ P ii P'6o ~7 r i ! ~ v~ ~ it P ~ a1 ~n H ~r k rh R rr / ~~'e ~~~a~ SOOpF ~ , tiu..- ~ I I 'l'o: Members of the Planning Commission From: Diane Gentry Uate: 16 December 1999 Subject: Change of Zone Application - A-20a to MCX-?0 W.H. Shipman, Limited TMK: (3) I-6-003: Portion of 7 he: 'Traffic Safety on the Volcano IIwyJKeaau By-pass Intersection Thank you for the opportunity to present my obscrvatiuus bcfurc Htc Commission. a:~tar attending several informational sessions in heaau and rcviewhtg the Iile uu ruarci with the Flanning Dcpt., I find three points for the Ccnnnission to consider with er~;ard to tkc above mentioned applirrHon: • The T-intersection that allows this change of zone application access onto the Volcano Hwy. is situated on a curving, downward slope past the current entrance to the Shipman Industrial Park-'l'he access is approximately two lanes wide & intended tar agricu aural use. Permitting for a wider access for commercial/industrial mixed use rests with the Mate Uept. of 'transportation Highways Division. 'the area is subject to Hooding durinx times of heavy rainfall. Ultimately, this'l'-intersection is located in a dangerous piace. • Current drsawings for the kcaau By-pass intersection call for a Hircc-way intersection with no pedestrian crossings ar bike lanes. The design indicates lppro~- 1 hQ' width or seven lanes of traffic, similar to the Wailaa P.ridge intersection. The Prpt. of Transportation, at the Puna Traffic Safch~~ nuctin; on Nov. 2`), is now 'r:clapin, drasvins to accommodate pedestrian traffic- Plans were incomplete as of Tuesday, Pee 14th. My concern is the long length of time pedestrians of al] ages would Lie required to wait in the intersection for light to change & allow them to cross. It's way too long for senior. or youngsters. l'd like to see this area remain apedestrian-free zone. Again, this is a Uent. of 't'ransportation decision. Please consider the safety of people, especially since the County Environmental Report on file states that the U.O.'f. is working with the developer to allow driveway aeoesses within proposed lots o and C (p.Ld, Fublic fauilltics and Services, item ~5j. • I am unaware of anc discc.cssian (pablic or otherwisr) fora 4-w-ac intcrscction .ir ~hc interface of the Kcaau Ry-patis ~F the Volcano ITwv. until this application fur re-zr•r~ing. Plans indicate designs for a three-way intersection, not afour-wac intcrscctien- While a 4-way intersection would provide convenience for users of unv propcsed de•.•elonment contained within the change of zonin; area, it is still located on a hi;h-speed highway on a curve which the DepC- of Transportation recommends widenino /from 4 to F; lanesl between Keaau'I'own and Makalika St. in the tixture(p- 10, County Environmental Keport). According to the '1'IAK, Koad A will provide access for 3V+ acres to the YearLOOx. What happens next'? Whaf if more development is proposed for parcels beyond the :>v~- acres% W"here does the traffic go their? To remedy these concerns, 1151: thlt t. The Commission deter action or decision-making until the State Dept. of Transporcanon provides act Environmental As~ssmant ar EIS of a redesigned -k-way intersection, and 2. The Commission consider making a site inspa ion during peak aftornean uours sftcr thr opcnino of the iwo new lanes onto the Psraau 'Fahoa ISypuss schaiuled h~ ~+pcn an januarc Itt, "CEO. The Yuna area would benefit by mare development to deliver goods and services, but this particular intersection could be liability in the future. Safety firsti l8 November 1993 Petition filed with the Land Use Commission (LUC) Docket No. BR93.699 to amend the Agricultural Land Use District Boundary into the Urban Land Use District Exhibit A December 1993 Keaau-Pahoa Road Traffic Impact Assessment Report is released Exhibit B 1995 Notice of Determination Negative Declaration for the Proposed Keaau-Pahoa Road, Keaau Town Section (Project No. 130B-OI-92) Exhibit C (l4 December 1999) Map (electrical plans) provided by DOT Exhibit D (14 December 1999) Map (access permitted plan) provided by DOT Exhibit E 17 December 1999 Planning Commission Meeting (testimony) 7 January 2000 Planning Commission Decision is Forwarded to the Council for consideration Keaau has flue distinct areas: 1. The old core of town =the village 100+ years old 2. The regional plan =conceptual plan initiated 7 years ago with the "Gateway" concept borne in the beginning of'99 3. The school area =initiated around '93, now built & operating 4. The historical plantation area =pre-WWII, now with mixed uses (residential, school, offices, proposed future church use, agriculture & wholesale/retail) 5. The outlying areas Where will the new core of Keaau be? Where will community gather? What other services will want to be located in Keaau? When & who decided that Keaau would serve as the regional center for Puna? Will the D.O.T. make a presentation to this committee as to their planning decisions impacting County responsibilities? The Puna area would definitely benefit by more development to deliver goods & services. The Planning Committee can take action by: 1. Making a site inspection during peak morning & afternoon hours to observe the safety factors 2. Defer decision-making until the D.O.T. provides an Environmental Assessment or EIS on a redesigned 4-way intersection to address everyone's safety 3. Condition zoning to include aright-in only at the current point of access with the Volcano highway. Let's remember: Safety First!