2023-01-19 Leeward Exh C (Item 3 Stevenson & Fumo PL-REZ-2022-000035)

Home

DARROW: The applicant had submitted a letter with that proposed language for Condition D (3). DEFRANCO: So, in making the motion, then we would include these 2? DARROW: Those are, that's the big question. DEFRANCO: Well, if we can make a motion and include whatever or not then we at least can discuss it amongst ourselves what we think about this. Right, so it's important to get a motion made. So, the motion might sound like,what do you think Mike? PIPAN: Again, it's a recommendation that you are forwarding to the County Council will ultimately— KNOWLES: I'm sorry, can you speak up when you speak into the microphone. DEFRANCO: I'm sorry there's no public testimony that I know of. Is there any on Zoom? HATA: No, no Zoom testifiers. DEFRANCO: Yes, for the record there's no public testimony. The person that was going to testify is not. Is there anybody on Zoom that is waiting to testify? HATA: No, there are no Zoom testifiers. DEFRANCO: So, there's no public testimony. So, now we're looking for a motion. VITOUSEK: If I might,just ask a quick question before the motion of the Planning Department. Are you in favor of the recommended change under Condition D (3)? DARROW: Yes. VITOUSEK: Okay. What about the recommended change to Condition K? DARROW: I did speak with the applicant's representative about that, and I understand his position. In the past we've had similar requests before the Planning Commission and the Council. Where dwellings were built. These were normally CPR'd type situations. Where the property was CPR'd, and they were trying to be able to create fee ownership and they would come in for a Change of Zone. So, similar argument that there was really no new dwellings, or new impacts but again it was a matter of additional density, higher density was created, additional lots were created. So, in all fairness we'd like to keep the condition in but again that is our recommendation. 11 EXHIBIT C