Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-03 Windward Exh B John Wagner & Charlene Iboshi (REZ 21-000245) WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 3, 2021 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of JOHN WAGNER AND CHARLENE IBOSHI (REZ 21-000245) was called to order at 9:51 a.m. via live-stream online meeting, with Chairman John Replogle presiding. COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Au, Gilbert Aguinaldo, Joseph Clarkson, Michelle Galimba, Dennis Lin, and John Replogle. ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Thomas Raffipiy. ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Malia Hall, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Zendo Kern, (Planning Director), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Director), Tracie Lee Camero (Planner), Maija Jackson (Temporary Assignment Program Manager), and Melissa Dacayanan- Salvador (Windward Planning Commission Secretary). APPLICANT: JOHN WAGNER & CHARLENE IBOSHI (REZ 21-000245) Application for a Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet(RS-10) to a General Commercial-7,500 square feet(CG-7.5) zoning district for 19,295 square feet of land. The subject property is located at 1290 Kino`ole Street, at the Southwest(Puna-Mauka) corner of the Kino`ole and Lono Street intersection in Waiakea Houselots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 2-2-024:022. Secretary's Note: "—" indicates that there were technical and/or internet difficulties, which made the conversation inaudible. REPLOGLE: We will now move on to Item Number two (2) which is applicant John Wagner and Charlene Iboshi, Change of Zone (REZ)twenty-one dash zero zero zero two four five (21- 000245). Application for a Change of Zone from excuse me from Single-Family Residential ten thousand (10,000) square feet(RS-10) to a General Commercial seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square foot(CG-7.5) zoning district for nineteen thousand two hundred and ninety-five (19,295) square feet of land. The subject property is located at twelve ninety (1290) Kino`ole Street, at the southwest(Puna-Mauka) corner of Kino`ole and Lono Street intersection in Waiakea Houselots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, Tax Map Key (TMK) three two dash two dash zero two four zero zero excuse me zero two two (3) 2-2-024:022. And staff Tracie Lee Camero is the Planner for this presentation. Take it away Tracie. CAMERO: Thank you Chair. Let me get my screen and share it with you. Can you all see my screen? You can just do a thumbs or nod yes,perfect. Okay. Good morning Chair and members of the Windward Planning Commission. As the Chair mentioned this is an application for a Change of Zone number 21-224 for applicants John A. Wagner and Charlene Iboshi. The subject property is located in the South Hilo District of Hawaii Island more specifically in the 1 EXHIBIT B Waiakea Houselots area. The top of your screen is heading in the Hamakua direction, and the bottom is in the Ka`u direction. You have this district area before you(clearing of throat, excuse me) that applies to an area that has various commercial uses as well as residential uses that span around the subject property and that we will be discussing today. The applicant is requesting a change of zone to reclassify the subject property from a Single- Family Residential-10,000 square feet also known as RS-10 to a General Commercial-7,500 square feet. The applicants stated reasons for the request is to formalize the existing commercial use of the property as general office space for the landowner's lessee, the State of Hawaii and to allow for additional future land uses that are permitted within the CG district. The existing dwelling that is located on the subject property is currently being leased to the State of Hawaii Judiciary Branch for general office use for the Children's Advocacy Program and its related activities. I just want to take the time to provide the Commission with the background on the subject property. As mentioned in the slide before, the current lessee is the State of Hawaii and in May of nineteen ninety (1990)the Planning Department issued a determination in response to a zoning inquiry for the operation of the Children's Advocacy Center to be located on the subject property. The Planning Department stated that in its reasonings for the approval was that the use was qualified under a public service use and the Director at the time had issued conditions for the subject property which included that the Children's Advocacy Center was to be the sole occupant of the structure. The use was not to be transferrable to anyone else and lastly the applicant was to acquire final Plan Approval from the Planning Department prior to use of the structure. Any provisions from the May 1990 request would also require a re-evaluation. So, on June thirteenth (13''), 1990 the Planning Department issued plan approval to the landowners and shortly after the plan approval was given the landowners came in and got the appropriate building permits to convert the existing dwelling to the office space that it's currently being used as. This is a County zoning map for the subject property. The subject property is outlined in red and the County zoning for the subject parcel is Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet as indicated in the yellow color. Also, shown as RS-10. The surrounding properties include a property located to the west that is zoned Neighborhood Commercial-10,000 square feet also shown on your screen as CN-10 and is indicated by the salmon color. To the north and across the Lono Street and Kino`ole Street intersection is the Credit Union that is on a parcel that is zoned General Commercial-twenty thousand (20,000) square feet as indicated in maroon and directly east and across of the subject property on Kino`ole Street is a property zoned General Commercial as indicated in the lighter maroon color. This is the State Land Use Boundary map, the subject property is outlined in red on this map. The State Land Use designation is Urban which is shown in the pink color. As you can tell the entire property is within the State Land Use Urban district as well as all of the surrounding properties are also located within the State Land Use Urban district. This is the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map. The subject property is outlined in white and is located within the red area that represents the High Density Urban. This LUPAG area spans much of the subject as well as the surrounding area. This is where the Planning Department 2 EXHIBIT B envisions the land use pattern for high density urban development which allows for General Commercial, Multiple Family Residential and related services. This is an aerial photo of the property with the subject property outlined in red. The subject property is rectangular in shape and is located at the southwest corner of the Kino`ole Street and Lono Street intersection. On your screen you have Kino`ole Street which is a County owned roadway that is maintained with about a sixty (60) foot right-of-way. Kino`ole Street is running diagonally from the top of your screen to the bottom. Lono Street is also a County owned roadway that is currently not maintained and is unimproved. The applicant's driveway is currently the only improvement that exist within the Lono Street right-of-way. Nearby properties include a medical office located to the west, a credit union located to the north and directly east is a vacant lot. There are some scattered single-family residences along Kino`ole Street and located behind the subject property you have a property that contains housing for the State of Hawaii. This is a site plan that was submitted by the applicant that shows the existing structure (clearing of throat, excuse me) as well as the surrounding area. Again, you can see the subject property at the corner of the Kino`ole Street and Lono Street intersection. Kino`ole Street is running from the bottom to the top of your screen and Lono Street is running from left to right and both are measured at 60 feet. At this time the applicant is not proposing to make changes to the existing structures located on the property. This site plan was submitted by the applicant for the purpose of their rezone application just to indicate the structures that currently exists on the property. As you can see there is a dwelling and existing garage both were constructed in nineteen twenty-five (1925). The existing sidewalk with planter is also shown on the site plan to your right which fence the property on the Kino`ole along the Kino`ole Street. This is a view of the subject property from Kino`ole Street. There is an existing dwelling located on the property. There is parking for the office use located to the left of your screen behind the landscape and that is currently being used. There is an existing rock wall that separates the property from the sidewalk that is shown on your screen at the bottom. If driving on Kino`ole Street you'll notice that the rock wall is continuous and goes along the Kino`ole Street frontage for most of the properties in the area. This is a photo looking, facing onto Lono Street from Kino`ole Street. The applicant's dwelling and carport is located to the left of your screen. You can see the pavement for Lono Street ends just right before the applicant's driveway and again the applicant's driveway is the only improvement located within the Lono Street right-of-way. Here's a view of the subject property frontage off of Kino`ole Street looking south, the subject parcel is on your right hand side of your screen. You can see the rock wall that I mentioned in the earlier slide which separates the existing sidewalk and planter on the subject property. I hope you all have received the revised recommendation and conditions of approval that were sent yesterday as well as posted to our website. In the revised recommendation the Planning Director is proposing an amendment to Condition G as staff conducted a site visit yesterday, sorry, not yesterday to verify that the existing width of the Kino`ole Street sidewalk and planter strip that fronts the property. At the site visit staff measured from the base of the existing wall to the edge of the sidewalk with the planter strip to be just under ten (10) feet and measuring in at approximately nine point eight five (9.85) feet. After verifying with the Department of Public 3 EXHIBIT B Works on their intent to install a full width concrete sidewalk from the base of the existing wall to the edge of the existing sidewalk. The Planning Director felt that amending Condition G by adding the section "or as wide as the present property line and paved right-of-way will allow" was necessary for this amendment to address the concerns by the applicant that they did not want to really touch that rock wall. As well as (clearing of throat, excuse me) as well as the previous discussed proposed amendment to the sidewalk Condition G, the Planning Director also proposed an amendment to Condition B and G in regards to the change in tenancy timing trigger that was placed in the Director's original recommendation report. The Director recommends the removal of the change in tenancy timing triggers in both Conditions B and G. In Condition B, the Director is proposing to amend the condition and replace the change in tenancy with an "addition to an existing structure or development"thus making the timing triggers for both Condition B and G to remain either when the establishment of a new permitted land use in the CG district occurs or if any addition to an existing structure or development occurs which would be more consistent with our Chapter 25 Section twenty-five dash two dash seventy one (25-2-71) of our Zoning Code in relation to the Plan Approval. As well as the recommended changes to Conditions B and G the Director is also proposing to amend Condition O to correct the typographical error. The error incorrectly mentioned Condition K as the exception to the allowance for an initial time, extension of time for performance conditions when it should have been Condition J which relates to the applicant's sewer connectivity which we are required to follow Chapter twenty-one dash five (21-5) of the Hawaii County Code and their timing requirement for sewer connectivity. That does conclude my presentation, the Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the Change of Zone application number 21-245 along with the June second (2nd)twenty twenty-twenty one (2021) revisions to Conditions B, G and O and that concludes my presentation and I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Commissioners may have. REPLOGLE: Thank you Tracie. Are there any questions from my fellow Commissioners? Yes, Mr. Clarkson? CLARKSON: Yes, I have a question, has there's construction within that County right-of-way on Lono Street the driveway,parking, there's even a shed encroaching it looks like onto the right-of-way. Condition H requires that construction within the County right-of-way shall comply with Hawaii County Code, Chapter twenty-two (22), County Streets. Has it been determined that all of these improvements are already in compliance with that chapter of the code? CAMERO: So, the department had checked with the Department of Public Works (DPW) in regards to Lono Street and originally, we thought that possibly they would have a comment or possibly imply conditions for Lono Street improvements. However, at this time the Department of Public Works didn't have any comments to require the applicant to do improvements on Lono Street. The only conditions that they were, the only types of comments they had was for them to improve the Kino`ole Street frontage at this time. 4 EXHIBIT B CLARKSON: Okay and there's since they didn't comment obviously there is no intention to do a Lono Street extension. I'm just concerned a little bit that all of the access, the current access to the property and parking is all predicated on the County never doing anything with Lono Street and it doesn't look like there's been any provision for any other access to the property for some time in the future should the County decide to improve Lono Street. JACKSON: I can try to answer that question Chair, Commissioner Clarkson. So, the Department of Public Works does not allow any encroachments within their right-of-way. So, if there is any concrete structures they would have to, the applicant would need to remove that if it's within the County's right-of-way and so that is covered under the County Streets Code is my understanding or they would have to get some kind of encroachment agreement from the Department of Public Works to keep any encroaching structures within the right-of-way. The Department of Public Works did not have any requirements for this rezone for having the applicant improve Lono Street. But, should some land use, commercial land use be established in the future that would require another access then either the Department of Public Works would then have to come in and pave Lono Street and then the applicant would need to connect to Lono Street as required by Chapter 22 the County Streets Code. Does that answer your question? CLARKSON: Yes, it does in general although I'm a little bit concerned that the proposed map of the proposed use after rezone still shows all the unauthorized improvements on Lono Street. It doesn't show them being removed. I mean, in a way it's fine with me as long as Public Works doesn't have any problem with it but, it is kind of unusual that all of this activity is taking place in a public right-of-way, and it is continuing to be proposed to take place. That's not a question that's just a comment. JACKSON: Yeah, maybe we can ask the applicant's what their plans are for the encroachments and what their intent on keeping the encroachments or removing them is. RAZNOV: Yes, may I speak to that please? Yes, hi. REPLOGLE: I'm sorry who are you? RAZNOV: Hi, good morning yes, let me introduce myself. Thank you. My name is Jill Raznov, I'm the representative and attorney for applicant's John and, John Wagner and Charlene Iboshi who are here with me today on the screen. And I thank you for this opportunity Chair Replogle and the entire — REPLOGLE: Excuse me. AGUINALDO: She wasn't sworn in. REPLOGLE: We're still, we're still answering questions. RAZNOV: Yes, I understand. Thank you so much. 5 EXHIBIT B REPLOGLE: Okay. So, your opportunity will be becoming up here in a minute. RAZNOV: Yes, I totally understand, I just wanted to ask— REPLOGLE: Okay, thank you. RAZNOV: — answer that question from Commissioner Clarkson. REPLOGLE: You may address that when it's your turn. RAZNOV: Oh, I thought you wanted to hear from me. I'm sorry. REPLOGLE: I did, but then I thought about it. You are connected to the Iboshi and the building and you are next. RAZNOV: Yes, sir. REPLOGLE: And they have questions, and you may address those then. RAZNOV: Thanks. REPLOGLE: It is my understanding of how it works. So, again are there anymore questions from my fellow Commissioners? AGUINALDO: Commissioner Replogle, I do have. REPLOGLE: Yes, Mr. Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: So, Tracie can you bring up that, I think there was a photo of the structure and Lono Street. It was like a site drawing if she can bring that up again. CAMERO: Yes, let me get that up for you. AGUINALDO: Yeah. I think the concern that one of my fellow Commissioner Mr. Clarkson indicated, it also you know, I have a concern on that as well. (Applicant's site plan up on screen) Can you blow it up a little bit? CAMERO: Um'. AGUINALDO: No can? CAMERO: I'm not too sure if I can, sorry. AGUINALDO: Okay, that's okay. So, as far as a concern that Mr. Clarkson has, and I do have. Now you see the sixty (60) foot right-of-way right on, let's think about it later kind of County deal where we not going to do the improvement but now, if you look at that right-of-way now 6 EXHIBIT B has that been grandfathered in or it's going on the County's property for Mr. Wagner and Miss Iboshi. Now the concern I have is that it should be addressed by the County and Public Works even Planning is what if they do the road improvement later on and they an operation a business going on how can they enter into their property and the encroachment. It's yes if we can approve this. Have they further investigate if we're converting into commercial if the building or structure is within the setback it's kind of like I'm chiming in with Mr. Clarkson. It's on a County public right-of-way, they have their driveway to get in and out of their property with that is it considered as temporary right now or should that fall into County's hands as if it goes commercial that the County got to do at least the improvement up to that property. It's kind of like my question and I hope I kind of understood Mr. Clarkson because there's that enclosed carport and if I look at it correctly is it like a five (5) feet easement, not easement but setback there or I could be looking at it wrong. If it converts to commercial has Public Works further investigate that meets the threshold of them relocating their building or has this been addressed in a condition to let the applicant know. JACKSON: Commissioner Aguinaldo I'll try to answer that for you. AGUINALDO: Okay. JACKSON: So, the Department of Public Works was sent this application for comment and review and so they were able to see this site plan and they did not make any comments related to encroachments or improvements in their right-of-way. Other than to say that any future access driveway onto a public street which is Kino`ole or Lono Street would be required to comply with the County's Street Code. So, the applicant would need to come in and get a permit from Public Works in order to establish a driveway on either of those roadways. Which means that if the existing driveway is not built to County standards that the applicant needs to go in and built it to County standards. AGUINALDO: But Maija shouldn't that be part of Public Works kule.ana on that because that's the County right-of-way, that's County road. You know Public Works got to really look at that because you're telling the applicant to now you have to comply but that's County road. That's my thing right there it's a great thing what the applicant is doing is going — HALL: Hey sorry Commissioner Aguinaldo, sorry to interrupt this is Malia Hall. I think we are getting a little bit into discussion here and I'd like to move forward and let the applicant have their turn so, if there's no more questions, we can let the applicant address that on what the situation is if they have— AGUINALDO: Okay. HALL: — have an easement or that. Yeah. AGUINALDO: Okay, thank you. REPLOGLE: Thank you Mr. Aguinaldo. Yes, Mr. Clarkson? 7 EXHIBIT B CLARKSON: I have one more question on a different item for staff. I've looked several times, but I don't see perhaps maybe someone from staff can point out where the time limits are in the conditions. There's references to time limits but I don't see a condition which actually sets any time limits in the condition. Except the hundred eighty (180) days for the sewer connection so that's fine with me I don't think there should be any time limits but where are they? CAMERO: So, Commissioner Clarkson in situations like these especially along Kino`ole Street where there had been other rezones, we've set time limits as far as like the start of construction shall occur within 5 years and all of these improvements shall be made within those within the 5 years. However, in this case because there is that existing use there what we did was in Condition B we had mentioned at first that a plan approval shall be required prior to change in tenancy that was one of our timing triggers or when there is an establishment of a new land use permitted within the CG zoning district or in addition to an existing structure or development in accordance with our Chapter 25 that was in the original recommendation for Condition B. Condition G also had the prior to change in tenancy wording however, in yesterday's Director's revised recommendation and conditions of approval that were sent via email. The Director is proposing to amend those conditions in removing the change in tenancy requirement in Condition B as well as removing the change in tenancy in Condition G. CLARKSON: Okay, fair share, so Condition O is about time extensions. An initial extension of time, granting the time extension, the time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance. Where are the time conditions in these in this list of conditions which O refers to? CAMERO: So, O, yes, I understand that question now. As far as the time conditions, the time conditions that were proposing right now for the applicant's because they aren't proposing to change the use, they're not proposing to construct new structures they just want to continue to have this non-conforming use but now really coming into conformance with our Chapter Code. That's why they are really coming in for this change of zone so what we're proposing and the time conditions will really occur later on and the applicant can answer what their plans are for the future. But, right now the only timing that we have is once they decide to change their establishment of a new land use like if they wanted to come in for a drive-through or a possible medical clinic or if they wanted to just even add on to some sort of structure or move some sort of structure on the property. Then we would require them to go through and do the water calculations as well as complete the sidewalk requirements. The sewer requirement though that's something that we can't allow for a time extension that is required by Chapter 21-5 and we are proposing in our conditions that 180 days from the effective date of this ordinance they will have to connect to the sewer. CLARKSON: Okay, I understand about Condition J, but, since there aren't any time conditions like you've got to do this within 5 years don't you think that all references to time extensions and triggers for time extensions should be removed except for J? JACKSON: Commissioner Clarkson you are correct. There're no specific time conditions so you're questioning why we have the administrative time extension condition. Correct? 8 EXHIBIT B CLARKSON: Yes. JACKSON: That's a good question. I think it's because we normally have a time condition and so we normally put in the administrative time extension condition but you're right in this case we did not. So, if the Director's is amenable to that we could agree to remove Condition O. CLARKSON: Alright, I highly recommend that you do that, on these rezones my position has always been that there shouldn't be any time limits we should decide whether a rezone is acceptable or not and then if it is it should be granted in perpetuity not conditioned on some activity within a certain amount of time. That's just me. KERN: Mr. Chair? REPLOGLE: Yes. KERN: Zendo Kern, Planning Director. Yeah, if the Commission feels that we want to remove that condition I have no issues with removing that condition very much a standard condition and a housekeeping matter. So, no problem there. REPLOGLE: Mr. Au. AU: Thank you Mr. Chair, another question to staff. So, from my understanding applicant Mr. and Mrs. Iboshi they need to come in if this rezone gets forwarded to the County Council and it gets approved to the County Council then the applicant needs to come back in for a Special Use permit is that correct? Is that what I'm understanding? CAMERO: No, so, once this gets forwarded to County Council the applicant will essentially continue to use the property for the Children's Advocacy Center. In the event that the land use changes and they no longer using it for office space, or they decide to add on to the structure then will they come into our office and at that time they'll probably get a Plan Approval as long as the use is in conformance with the permitted uses within the CG districts. Yes. AU: Okay, thank you very much. REPLOGLE: Is there anything else from the Commission? If not, we should move on to the applicant's presentation and don't forget your questions okay. We have Thomas Yeh, Jill Raznov, and Charlene Iboshi and John Wagner. Would you please raise your right hands? REPLOGLE: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? RAZNOV: I do. You have to unmute yourself. REPLOGLE: Please state your name, town and where you reside. Also, did you receive the Planning Department's background and recommendation and tell us whether you agree with that 9 EXHIBIT B recommendation, and you may proceed with your presentation. Thank you. So, Mr. Wagner or whoever is going to go first. RAZNOV: Thank you Chair Replogle, this is Jill Raznov, I apologize for the earlier interruption I was a little confused about what Maija Jackson and you were suggesting so, accept my apologies thank you. Jill Raznov I'm the representative and attorney for Charlene Iboshi and John Wagner the applicants who are here today and they are in the screen below me. I just like to say thank you to the Windward Planning Commission, the Chair Replogle, Vice-Chair Aguinaldo, Deputy excuse me, Planning Director Kern, Deputy Director Darrow, and the entire Planning Department staff for all your hard work and your assistance on this project and also to Corporation Counsel Jean Campbell. Thank you so much for this opportunity. Also, here today assisting on this was my law partner Tom Yeh, I'm not sure if he's going to appear or not but he also says thank you for this opportunity. John Wagner I just wanted to mention is a former assistant Corporation Counsel for the County of Hawaii and his lovely wife Charlene was the former Prosecutor for the County as you folks recall. I will let them speak at the end, I just wanted to quickly just say a few things, I didn't want to repeat what you already heard from Tracie. Her presentation was excellent and very thorough, and I thank her for that. We are requesting, applicants are requesting this change of zone and the reason is and let me just tell the story. So, John and Charlene they are long time Hilo residents. They bought this property on Kino`ole in nineteen eighty-five (1985) so, quite a long time ago. At that time, it was their very first residence in Hilo. They were moving back to the State from the Mainland, and this is their first house they bought together. So, it has a lot of history for them. At that time, the current existing dwelling and carport were already built, already there. Also, already there was the driveway on Lono Street that Commissioner Clarkson had pointed out. So, I'm sorry another Commissioner had also spoken about so that driveway was already present and that was the only access onto the property at that time. In nineteen ninety (1990)they the applicant's decided to purchase a different home for their better to accommodate their growing family and so, they decided to lease this property out. They had an opportunity with the Judiciary, the State of Hawaii, they had a Children's Advocacy Program that assist children in need and so at that time as Tracie Camero pointed out the State went in and had a determination asked the Planning Department to make a determination. Whether or not they could utilize that space for their use which were simply offices to accommodate that program of a limited nature and the Planning Department at that time made a determination that no change of zone was going to be required and issued a change of, change of use permit on that basis. Also, at that time and I don't think this was discussed in Tracie's presentation or Maij a's answering of your questions. There was a plan approval that was required and one of the requirements under that plan approval had to do with the parking and the backing out situation on Lono. And so, the Planning Department had required the applicants to improve the parking lot on their property so that no cars would be backing out onto Lono Street. Just in case eventually there was that extension that Commissioner Clarkson was talking about and so now what currently exists if you look back at that I don't know if you have that still in front of you. 10 EXHIBIT B But the map of the property it shows there is a parking a paved parking area it's not encroaching onto the Lono Street roadway. It does have about four(4) spaces including a handicapped space pursuant to that 1990 plan approval for the Children's Advocacy Center. Also on the property is the enclosed carport not encroaching onto Lono Street either and in front of that exists some parking as well. So, none of that excuse me, none of that encroaches onto Lono Street. So, I hope that answered your question as far as that issue. I did want to also say that that parking is sufficient that applicant is requesting and so what they are requesting is simply to legalize or formalize the use that has been in existence since 1990 under the determination the informal determination by the Planning Department. The reason for that is simply because things change, times change and the lease that's current now is expires in March of twenty twenty-four(2024) and also under that lease there is a provision that with a hundred twenty (120) days' notice so just you know a short notice period either tenant or landlord could terminate the lease. So, the applicants simply want the option to figure out what they are going to do to be able to continue that use if that were to happen and could happen. And also, that continuity so the stability and the continuity of knowing that they could continue to use it as it being used now with no expansion. So, same parking, same amount of people coming in and out. They also wanted the ability with the Change of Zone to CG the Commercial zoning 7.5 to provide for greater commercial options under the permitted uses under the zoning code to the surrounding community. So, those uses as you see in the amended conditions of approval. If there was an expansion or change in use those would be the things that would then trigger the water improvements as well as the final plan approval. And my understanding is if that were to occur then also the Lono Street access and whether or not it would accommodate those changes change of use or expansion of use would then be looked at. In fact, there is a requirement if there are going to be a certain amount of trips made that the applicants did a traffic study a traffic analysis at that time. So,just in closing I just want to say I'm really grateful for the Planning Department's favorable recommendations for working with the applicants to establish appropriate conditions. We find the conditions to be reasonable and acceptable to the applicants. We also appreciate the comment from the Commissioner regarding the Condition O we were also a little bit confused by that, but I just figured it was just part of what the Planning Department does so, we have no qualms about removing that condition for the timing. And applicants are able to just let you know they are able and willing to comply with and perform the conditions within that permissible timeline for the sewer connection and based on the stated triggers under B and G for the water and the sidewalk improvements. So, at this time, I'm happy to take questions and Charlene and John as well if you have specific questions for them, they are here and able and willing to answer. Thank you so much for time. REPLOGLE: Thank you very much. Fellow Commissioners do you have any questions for the applicants themselves? Yes, Mr. Clarkson? 11 EXHIBIT B CLARKSON: Yes, my question concerns the request to change to CG-7.5 rather than CG-10 or 20 are decent in the nearby area and I just wanted to clarify that I assume CG-7.5 is being requested to enable subdivision at some later date if that becomes commercially viable. RAZNOV: Yes, you're correct Commissioner Clarkson but there are no definitive plans at this time for that at all. CLARKSON: Okay. Thank you. REPLOGLE: Anything further, if not— AU: Mr. Chair? REPLOGLE: —Yes, Mr. Au? AU: I just want to apologize Mr. Wagner I referred to you as Mr. and Mrs. Iboshi, I apologize, sorry. IBOSHL That's okay. REPLOGLE: If there's nothing further, I will entertain a motion as to move forward on this application. LIN: Mr. Chair I'd like to make a favorable — REPLOGLE: Yes, Mr. Lin. LIN: —favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for a Change of Zone Docket Number REZ-21-000245 with the condition that Condition O be removed based on the Planning Director's recommendation which shall be adopted. AU: Mr. Chair I second. REPLOGLE: It's been moved, and seconded staff would you do the roll call please. CAMERO: Yes, I will, and I just want to verify that you guys are making the motion — REPLOGLE: Oh, excuse me, one second. Commissioner Clarkson has something. CLARKSON: No, I just— REPLOGLE: Are you just waving at me? CLARKSON: Are we going to have discussion on the motion prior to the vote? REPLOGLE: Oh, okay. Is there any discussion on the motion before the Commission? 12 EXHIBIT B CLARKSON: I just wanted to you know I brought up the issue of subdivision. I just wanted to make sure that we're all good with that. I am, but,unless okay, that's all. REPLOGLE: I'm sorry Tracie you may now proceed. CAMERO: I just wanted to verify and state for the record that the motion is going to be for a favorable recommendation as recommended by the Planning Director as well as his revised recommendations and conditions of approval that were sent on June 2nd and including the removal of the Condition O on the time extensions, correct? LIN: That's correct. REPLOGLE: Yes. CAMERO: Okay, perfect. Thank you so much. With that I will take a roll call Commissioner Lin? LIN: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. CAMERO: Vice Chair Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Galimba? GALIMBA: Aye, CAMERO: And Chair Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. CAMERO: With that we have the motion carry six to zero (6-0). Thank you so much. IBOSHL Thank you. WAGNER: Thank you. 13 EXHIBIT B RAZNOV: Thank you very much. REPLOGLE: Okay, thank you all. The item ended at 10:36 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador Secretary Windward Planning Commission 14 EXHIBIT B