Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-17 thaks PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT April 17, 2003 A regularly advertised public hearing on the application of HAKS, Inc. (REZ 03-004) was called to order at 9:53 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom-Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai`i, with Chairperson Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Earl Fujikawa ABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Fred Galdones BillGraham Florence Kubota Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Bill Thibadeau Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Alice Kawaha, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 4 people from the public in attendance. HAKS, INC. (REZ 03-004) Î Application for a Change of Zone by APPLICANT: changing the district classification from Single Family Residential (RS-10) to Industrial- Commercial Mixed Use (MCX-20) for approximately 45,000 square feet of land. The property is located in Waikea House Lots, on the northwest corner of Kwili Street- Laukapu Street intersection and across of Maka`ala Street, Waikea, South Hilo, Hawai`i, TMK: 2-2-50:37 and 38. GALDONES:Commissioners, we are on New Business Agenda Item No. 3. for a Change of The Applicant is HAKS, Inc. (REZ 03-004). This is an application Zone by changing the district classification from Single Family Residential (RS-10) to Industrial-Commercial Mixed Use (MCX-20) for approximately 45,000 square feet of land. Alice? KAWAHA:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, if I can direct the Commissioners' attention to the location map. Again, this is Kwili Street running east and west, well, to the top and bottom of the map. The subject property is here dotted in blue. It involves Parcel 37, which is the corner lot of East Kwili and Laukapu Street, 1 EXHIBIT B and Parcel 38, which has frontage on Laukapu Street. Again, it abuts the previous application, which is I. Kitagawa property here dotted in red. And as I mentioned, again, there were some other MCX zones that were approved in the area, as well as are still pending with the County Council, which is the SAF and the Brilhante. In looking at the site plan, to my right here along the right side of the map is the East Kwili Street. To the top of the map is Laukapu Street. The subject two properties are outlined in blue. The proposal is to have two buildings, one on by a firewall. The parking will be surrounding the two buildings. And, again, with the previous application on Kitagawa, the access that's proposed by the Director is to have a common access, and it would be along the west boundary area. And that would be a right turn-in only. The full ingress-egress would be coming off of Laukapu Street. I also want to point out that our condition prohibits access from Parcel 37 due to the fact that the distance from the intersection to the farthest portion of the property is in close proximity and also on a slight grade. If you can, I passed out the photos, and it will show you that there is about a 8- to 10-foot grade difference between these two properties, the corner lot being the higher, and the Parcel 38 being a lower elevation. Again, the Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation to the County Council being that the area is designated Industrial by the LUPAG map, it's consistent with the General Plan goals and policies of the Land Use Industrial and Commercial goals and policies, and also it's in the transition between the Residential and the Industrial area. GALDONES:Commissioners, any questions of Alice? KAWAHA:Mr. Chairman? GALDONES:Alice. KAWAHA:I do have some amendments to the condition, and one is similar to the previous one, which is Condition C, the second sentence, and that would be similar language. Prior to the start of construction, final plan approval for the proposed development shall be secured from the Planning Director in accordance with the Zoning Code. Also on Condition E, the second sentence, where it reads, "A 10-foot wide (no planting easement)," we should insert the words, it should read, "A 10-foot wide (no vehicular access) planting screen along said Parcel 37, Laukapu Street frontage, shall be delineated on the plans submitted for plan approval review." GALDONES:Okay. Any other changes, Alice? KAWAHA:That's it. 2 GALDONES:Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Alice? Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:On Condition C, Alice, the landscape, the Haradas' concerns, there was a reference to Mr. and Mrs. Harada regarding landscaping and buffers. Would you point out on that map where that property is. KAWAHA:I'm sorry, I may have to defer to the Applicant. I'm not too sure if Harada owns the property along the northern boundary of Parcel 37 or on the west side of this project site. KUBOTA:Thank you. KAWAHA:I'm sorry, Parcel 38. KUBOTA:Okay. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota, are there further questions that you had? KUBOTA:Not at this point, thank you, Mr. Chair. GALDONES:Okay. Hearing no further questions, will the Applicant please come forward. Mr. Fuke, you have already been sworn in. Have you received the Background Report and the Recommendations, and you have heard the changes as recommended by Alice? FUKE:Yes, we have. And Mr. Segawa, who's, Herbert Segawa, who's in the audience, has had a chance to review the Staff's Background Report and the Recommendation. He had the same kind of concerns as was raised earlier. We note that the die is cast because you guys have made a decision on the other one. But there is one other item that, you know, is peculiar only to this property that he, again, would want to request consideration on. As the Staff had indicated and probably you've seen the photos, there is a substantial grade difference between the two properties. And, again, if I can just direct your attention to the map, the zoning map again, it's in Exhibit A. The Staff's proposed condition would allow only for a right turn in on Kwili Street but no exit on Laukapu Street for that first parcel. So the only way that any activity or development on the, or use on that property can get out from the property would have to be on the other parcel, which is like about 8 feet lower than the corner property. And it's conceivable that you could make a driveway that would make it possible, you know, to connect the two, but it may come at some considerable expense. That, combined with the fact that, you know, these are two individual parcels and what Mr. Segawa has in mind was to have separate interests operate the different components of the project. And so to mandate a connection and to prohibit at the same 3 time any exit out onto Laukapu Street for the first parcel, you know, would, I guess, from the Applicant's standpoint, not be realistic. So we would respectfully request at least for the Department and the Commission to consider, if you can find that prudent, to delete Condition E in its entirety, and on Condition I, to delete the reference to Parcel No. 38. GALDONES:Mr. Yuen, was that considered in drafting up the recommendations? FUKE:Basically, what -. I'm sorry. Yeah. Basically, what the Applicant is therefore asking is that to have that first parcel be treated in the same way as how the recommended conditions for the Kitagawa property. GALDONES:Mr. Fuke, your Applicant, the Applicant is proposing to treat both parcels separately so he can -. FUKE:Correct. GALDONES:Conduct separate -? FUKE:Correct. GALDONES:Activities? FUKE:It's that factor, combined with the fact that there is a significant grade separation between the two parcels. GALDONES:Mr. Yuen, well, maybe it's Public Works who came up with that recommendation. Would you have any knowledge how that was treated by the Public Works, or was this directed by the, your Department? KAWAHA:No, this was the Department's recommendation that there be a, because to prohibit that access and, to have that internal circulation among those two developments. So I didn't have any discussion as far as not prohibiting the access from that corner lot. YUEN:Well, we do want to try to have this internal circulation and limit the number of access points to the side streets. Let me just clarify what you are asking here. On Parcel -. FUKE:Thirty-seven is the corner lot, yeah. 4 YUEN:Thirty-seven, the corner lot, which is the higher lot, you want to come out, you want each, 37 and 38 both to have separate driveway entrances to Laukapu Street and you could go left or right from either driveway? FUKE:That's correct. That's correct. YUEN:Didn't Public Works have a comment about the closeness of a driveway on 37 to the intersection and the distance that we would want from the intersection there? FUKE:Exhibit D of your Background Report, Mr. Director, is the Public Works' comment. And on Item No. 4, they just note that Kwili Street is a secondary arterial with an existing right-of-way of 80 feet. Because Kwili Street is an ` arterial and the development's proximity to Makaala Street, access should be limited to Laukapu Street. The plan that was presented to the, you know, in conjunction with the application, reflected full movement access on Kwili Street for the corner parcel, as well as full movement access for the two separate parcels on Laukapu Street. And I believe this is what Department of Public Works was referring to. YUEN:Does someone have the photographs? I'd like to look at those again. GALDONES:Mr. Fuke, looking at the plan, the site plan drawing, if you would propose full access for both properties, what does that do to the property? FUKE:First of all, I think if the condition, you know, like in terms of limiting access on Kwili Street is accepted, then there may have to be some rearrangement to the building, you know. Because this is, this layout was predicated upon a full turn in movement on Kwili Street, as well as full turn in movement on Laukapu Street. So if you're going to have only like limited only to a right turn in movement, then, you know, obviously you have some, you know, he may want to angle the parking or something like that, you know. And the building may put his loading zone over here rather than the loading zone over here, you know, that kind of stuff so -. But, at any rate, as originally proposed, we want to have a full movement over here, full movement over here, and full movement on the farthest end of the other property. What the Applicant is requesting is not to necessarily mandate that there be a connection because of that grade difference, coupled with the fact that, you know, they want to develop it as two separate entities. Now if in the end it turns out that they want to spend that, you know, inordinate amount of money to make that kind of connection and have only one consolidated access, they want that to be an option, but not be a mandate. 5 GALDONES:In terms of cost, did you folks ever, did the Applicant ever explore or got a quote on what the cost would be if you would have to make the driveway go through? FUKE:I don't think they've taken it to that level yet. But, again, you know, it's not only the issue of the grade difference but in terms of how the owner wanted to have the properties, you know, be developed, you know, perhaps by separate entities. They may be, you know, just to underwrite some of the cost of the improvements, for example, they may be in a, they may have to be in a position to sell one of the lots. While you are kind of pondering that issue, the answer to your question, Mrs. Kubota, about like the Haradas' property, the Haradas' property is to the north. So this is the continuous landscape buffer, yeah. KUBOTA:While you're up -. Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:While you're up there, by your amendment, your, all you're asking is that one more access be permitted for the first lot? FUKE:For Lau, along Laukapu Street, yeah. KUBOTA:On Laukapu? FUKE:Yeah. Inasmuch as, you know, this would be limited only to -. KUBOTA:Yeah, the ingress. FUKE:Correct. KUBOTA:Right. FUKE:So what the original proposal, you know, as was discussed in the other application was -. KUBOTA:Yes. FUKE:If they were going to have like full movement over here? KUBOTA:Right, yeah. Okay. FUKE:Then this be limited only to out movement only. 6 KUBOTA:Since the original was not -. FUKE:Since -. KUBOTA:You're not -. FUKE:We cannot come out over here. KUBOTA:Yeah. FUKE:Then there's got to be some way you can, got to get out. KUBOTA:And right now, as it stands, you are allowed to come out through one -. FUKE:Only over here. KUBOTA:Exit. FUKE:Correct. KUBOTA:Right. FUKE:You have to cross this other property. KUBOTA:Okay. FUKE:And, you know, make the -. KUBOTA:And I understand the developer is, the owner is trying to develop the two lots separately, well, maybe together but may want to treat them separately. So, therefore, you are saying it's only logical that each lot should have its own egress? FUKE:Essentially correct, yeah. I can understand the issue of wanting to have a consolidated, you know, access at this point over here, you know, because Kwili Street is a major arterial. But relative to one of these, you know, these secondary arterials, combined with the fact that you have a grade separation, that's the reason why we were asking for some relief on that. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota, any further questions? KUBOTA:Yeah, I wanted to ask Mr. Yuen, Chris, you know, why is it that we are allowing, you know, in just, in the previous application, they seem to be in line 7 with one another, the first lot, you know, the lot that we just considered, which has an access -. YUEN:Yes. KUBOTA:To, what was it? FUKE:Hnano. YUEN:Hnano Street, yes. KUBOTA:Hnano Street. We allowed that, but we're not allowing it on this one, which seems to be in line. YUEN:Well, we are allowing one. KUBOTA:Yeah, you're allowing one, but there are two separate lots. So if the Applicant wants two access points, would that be very unreasonable to allow it, since we are mandating that there be only entry from the Kwili Street side? YUEN:Well, it is better to have fewer access points on the streets, and then you have fewer points where people are turning. It is, it would also be better to have the access farther away -. KUBOTA:From the intersection? YUEN:Right, from Kwili intersection. We couldn't do that with the prior property, because they only, they're only one lot deep away from Kwili Street. If they had two lots, we probably would have put a condition in that access on Hnano Street in that case have been at the lot farther away from KvhkhRsqdds-H&lrshkki+H need to ask, if you're done, can I ask Mr. Fuke a couple questions? KUBOTA:Sure. YUEN:Yeah, Mr. Fuke. I'm looking at the photos here, and it looks like the grade difference is, starts into Lot 37, the Kwili Street lot. It's not on the boundary, but there's a place where there's a steep slope up. Say you're going on Laukapu Street -. FUKE:Okay. YUEN:Toward Kwili Street. FUKE:Okay. 8 YUEN:There's a point at which there's a steep slope up to Kwili Street, and that point doesn't start on the boundary, I mean at least as far as I can tell from the photograph here. If the photograph here has a pink stake that flags it out. Why don't you come and look at -. FUKE:Sure. YUEN:What I'm asking here. And if you could try to point out to the Commissioners the best you can if you know where the break point is on the rise. FUKE:I could ask the landowner. YUEN:Okay. The, yeah, what I'm pointing out, can you point out where the change in grade is on Lot 37? FUKE:Just, this is only eyeballing. YUEN:Yes. FUKE:Yeah. YUEN:Well, it's only 60, the lot is only -. FUKE:Yeah. YUEN:What, a hundred feet deep? FUKE:I would say that it's approximately like around this point over here. Yeah. You know, like it's around like over here. YUEN:See, I'm wondering if you can, your idea is to develop the lots at two, well, from what you're saying, is you're trying to avoid the site work that would be involved in making a driveway connection between the two lots. FUKE:That's part of the reason. The other, and perhaps like equally, maybe more significant based on what Mr. Segawa told me, is that they want to be able to develop these two as separate entities. YUEN:Well -. FUKE:And that's what -. 9 YUEN:You could develop the lots as, apart from the site work issues, you could develop the lots as separate entities by having an easement over Lot 38 for the driveway to Lot 37. FUKE:I understand. And you know, they're willing to make that concession relative to the Kwili Street end because of, you know, the significance of Kwili Street versus, you know, these feeder streets. YUEN:Yes. FUKE:But relative to like having an easement connection mandated over here because it's a feeder street rather than a, you know, the major thoroughfare on Kwili Street, I think they would like to not be mandated to have that requirement as an easement. They know it's possible, but they don't, they do not want to have that to be mandated. YUEN:Yeah. Let me give the Commission my take on this. And tha that we would like to retain the present condition; and there's a couple of points here. One is that discussing the change in grade, if you, there is a significant change -. What he's showing is two there versus one, two is the high and one is the low. But the change in grade is not along the property line, it's some place into two. So you can't, you can't develop the site that way without a lot of site work. I mean you can't develop the site at two different grades without moving the building closer to Kwili Street, and then the whole site plan might not even work anyway. FUKE:That is correct. That's why I'm saying to begin with, they're going to have to make some revisions to the site plan. You know, notwithstanding the topographic situation that you pointed out, but also like any other conditions that may be, that ultimately come up. If they decide to respect the existing grade, which may become at this point over here, then they probably would develop at that point over here and have, yeah, like your landscape screen and not have your, a firewall constructed right at the property line. YUEN:There's, and then the driveway connection would have to be roughly as steep as the, if you stuck with the Department's recommendation, would have to be roughly as steep as the existing rise of Laukapu Street to Kwili Street. That's basically what you'd have to build there, and it doesn't, I don't know, it doesn't seem like a huge site work issue. FUKE:Well, that's why, as I mentioned, you know, it's not only the site work issue -. YUEN:Yes. 10 FUKE:But it's also related to the Applicant's desire to kind of want to have it developed separately without being encumbered by whatever constraints one or the other property may have. And that was, that's one of the reasons why in the application itself that we had noted that the Applicant, the Applicant had no intention of consolidating those two properties. YUEN:Our position would be to retain our recommendation because we are trying to have good traffic flow in the area and not a lot of driveways coming in and out. GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa. FUJIKAWA:You know, Sidney, on your Lot No. 37 where you're pointing out the entries -. FUKE:Yes, sir. FUJIKAWA:On the corner of Laukapu and Kwili Street. What happened on the corner, if you people had designed a system like a corner service station entry where you have both corners coming in and out? FUKE:Well, if you want to put up a service station on that -. FUJIKAWA:Not a service station, but that type of entry -. FUKE:I don't know what the -. FUJIKAWA:On a corner lot. FUKE:You know, how wide the access would have to be for a Commercial or like an Industrial zone. But, you know, Department of Public Works has standards and it could be as wide as what the, you know, what may be required of like of a service station. FUJIKAWA:Like a service station type of a entry, yeah, at the corner. FUKE:It could possibly be that wide, yeah. Yeah. But I'm not really sure. But the conditions that your Staff has recommended require that the driveway access meet with whatever Public Works requires in terms of their standards. So it's not that issue that we were kind of debating, but we were more debating on the ability to get in and out from Laukapu Street so -. And don't get me wrong, I, you know, I understand where the Department is coming from in wanting to, and I can agree conceptually to have like, you know, the less access points that you have on major streets, I think the better it is, you have more control. But in this situation, we believe 11 there are some extenuating circumstances; and as a result, you know, the Applicant is requesting to have two separate accesses on Laukapu Street. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Thank you. Did Department of Public Works consider the proposal to have a full flow ingress and egress from both Lots 37 and 38? FUKE:I really don't know except that they were responding, their comments would be in response to whatever site plan that we had shown. And the site plan did reflect like two separate, you know, full access movements on Laukapu Street for the two parcels, and full access improvements, movements rather on Kwili Street for one of the parcels. SPRINGER:So as represented in Exhibit D, they don't speak against that proposal. FUKE:If I understood like basically what they're saying is that they didn't want to have any access on Kwili Street, yeah. SPRINGER:Right. FUJIKAWA:Is this two different TMK numbers? FUKE:I'm sorry? FUJIKAWA:Thirty-seven and 38, two separate TMK? FUKE:Correct, they're two parcels of record, yeah. FUJIKAWA:So what happens when a person buys TMK, Lot 38, he needs to get in and out, so that got to maintain there. FUKE:Correct. Yeah. The way that the Staff's condition is worded right now, so if you sell, you know if you sell Parcel 37, for example, the only way that 37 would have, be able to come out of the property would have to negotiate something with Parcel 38. FUJIKAWA:What if they don't come to agreement? FUKE:Then you can't do anything on 37. KUBOTA:It becomes deadlocked. Mr. Chair? 12 YUEN:Well, but they are under common ownership now. And if the condition goes through as stated, then they would be able to sell it off as a separate parcel. But in knowing that they needed to develop the property, they would have to retain an easement. The owner of 37 would retain an easement over 38 for their access to Laukapu Street. And the owner of 38 would need an, would need an easement over 37 for the access to Kwili Street and also the common, and even further because there is a common circulation that people can go over to the next property. But that would be, from a legal point of view, of your being able to handle that, you would be able to do that. KUBOTA:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:Yeah, okay. The point that I was trying to get at is Mr. Planning Director, that we seem to be placing an inordinate amount of stringency on the egress and ingress on these lots. I believe in safety but, you know, when you have extenuating circumstances that prevail, I think we ought to flex a little bit. I don't, I still don't think it's unreasonable to allow access points on Laukapu Street for each of the lots that are there, 37 and 38. As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, the access points will be for egress only and not for ingress? KAWAHA:Commissioner -. KUBOTA:Is that what you're asking for? GALDONES:Mr. Fuke. FUKE:We are requesting that on Laukapu Street they be, that first parcel, Parcel 37, be afforded the same condition as what was granted to Kitagawa, which is -. KUBOTA:Which is -? FUKE:Right turn movement on Kwili Street and full access on, in this case -. KUBOTA:And what? FUKE:Right turn movement only on Kwili Street. KUBOTA:Yeah. FUKE:And full movements on Laukapu Street. 13 KUBOTA:Full movement which is left and right, they can -? FUKE:Correct. Yeah. KUBOTA:Come in and out? They are now, the Department is saying there will be full access on one of the lots, which is 38. So you're asking that another be allowed on 37? FUKE:That's correct. KUBOTA:In the event that the sale or the development is done separately? FUKE:Correct. KUBOTA:I may be way off base and I may not understand the traffic flow and the conditions that egress-ingress provides on a side street like Laukapu Street, but it seems only fair to me that each lot be given an access point. And if the, if it were that these two lots were owned by two separate people, you would be allowing that anyway, wouldn't we? It just so happens that this, these two lots, 37 and 38, belong to the same person. But had you and I owned these lots separately, I don't think we would force each, I don't think the Planning Department would force us to have common egress and ingress points. And I think that's the point I'm trying to make, where's this element of fairness if the Applicant wants it? If they don't, well, that's another story, but they're here asking for that consideration; and I think it's only fair that we do consider. GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota, is that a statement or are you asking for a response? KUBOTA:It's just a statement. GALDONES:Okay. Thank you. KUBOTA:And being that Department of Public Works doesn't specifically speak against that move, they don't refer to it as a no-no. GALDONES:I just got a question before I call upon Commissioner Springer. This is the second applicant that we are being faced with, and the Public Works statements have been questioned. Are they mandated to be here at a meeting, the Commissioners' meeting, or is it upon request that we do -? I'm not sure who to direct that question to. 14 KAWAHA:A representative from the Department of Public Works should be here, however, I think it's due to their shortage in staff. They're on call, so if we need to have them here, we can call them. GALDONES:Thanks, Alice. Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Like Commissioner Kubota, I'm inclined to be sympathetic towards to the Applicant. Because the conditions as presented by the Planning Department are not based on specific recommendations from the Department of Public Works, who in their correspondence, Exhibit D in the Background Report, do not address this issue, despite the two full movement accesses on both Lots 37 and 38 being presented to them. FUKE:That's correct. SPRINGER:If I understand the Applicant's representative correctly. So I, too, am inclined to be sympathetic to the proposal offered by Mr. Fuke. But I wonder if this would be better deferred and to have Public Works come and give us guidance. For me, the level change, as well as the two separate tax map keys are things that I'm considering. But from Public Works, I'd be looking for guidance on the level change. GALDONES:I guess it would be at the wishes of the Commissioners if there is some uncomfortable situation that you are placed in that you are, would like to have Public Works -. FUJIKAWA:Sure. GALDONES:Comments be -. YUEN:We could call over, we could call over -. I'm not sure if, let's see, it would be Kelly. KAWAHA:Kelly Gomes. YUEN:Did Kelly do the work-up on this? KAWAHA:Yes. YUEN:Why don't we try call over and maybe the Commissioners would like a bathroom break while we make the call and see. F@KCNMDR9Hllrnqqx-Hrhssgdvhrges of the Commissioners to have a representative from the Public Works be present? 15 SPRINGER:Yes. GALDONES:All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONERS:Aye. GALDONES:Opposed? Okay. If, Alice, we can get somebody from Pu Works to be here. I'm going to call for a five-minute recess. RECESSEDThe Chairman called a short recess at 10:34 a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 10:46 a.m. GALDONES:Will the Hawai`i County Planning Commission be back in FUJIKAWA:I have a question. GALDONES:Commissioner Fujikawa. FUJIKAWA:This is for Mr. Fuke. On this page, the same Figure 2, sketch of your plot plan right here, same with that -. FUKE:Yes, sir? FUJIKAWA:That's Lot 38 and 37. That was submitted by you people Applicant? FUKE:That's correct. FUJIKAWA:Okay. That was your intention, that is your intention for your entries? FUKE:That was the plan, correct. FUJIKAWA:Okay. Now, Planning Director. YUEN:Yes. FUJIKAWA:Okay, this is the Applicant's intent. YUEN:Okay. Yes. FUJIKAWA:Now did the Planning Department take it as one whole or separate TMK? 16 YUEN:We recognize that the properties could be developed as separate TMKs. But we try to make the whole area, including the Kitagawa property, work together and in coordination as much as possible. FUJIKAWA:So, in other words, we still have to consider that as two separate TMKs, not as one whole project, if according to the County they are separate TMKs. Right? YUEN:They are two separate TMKs for residential use, you can put two houses on it. But it's being applied for rezoning, both lots are coming in together for rezoning. FUJIKAWA:So this firewall is still, the property line is still considered the firewall? YUEN:If they developed back to back buildings, there would have to be a firewall. FUJIKAWA:Which is -. YUEN:Between the two. FUJIKAWA:Right. YUEN:While as long as these are separate TMKs. FUJIKAWA:Okay. So -. Okay. KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman? GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:In answer to Mr., Earl's, Fujikawa's query, the Background Report clearly states that the Applicant has no intention of consolidating the two lots. GALDONES:Thank you, Mrs. Kubota. Mr. Yuen, in light of the Appl request, taking into consideration the Department's position, is there a way you feel that the Department might be able to mitigate their concerns? YUEN:Yes. We, what we've agreed to is that there be one access Laukapu Street but it be, there be consolidated access between, that would be located at the boundary between Lots 37 and 38 so that there would be one access, but, one access point. But it, the lots could be developed separately with that access. GALDONES:Mr. Fuke, would that be acceptable to the Applicant? 17 FUKE:Yes. During the, I guess the break, I've had a chance to d with the Applicant as well as the Planning Director, and what was agreed upon by both parties is that there would be a common access that would, from Laukapu Street, that would service both parcels. So if, and it would be limited only to the right turn in movement along Kwili Street. So if this concept is accepted, then I would, the proposed language would read something along this line. "A full movement common access easement between the subject properties shall be provided along Laukapu Street, meeting the approval of the Department of Public Works." YUEN:And I would add to that, no closer to Kwili Street than the, I need to say something about, well, located as far as possible from Kwili Street on Lot 37 or on Lot 38. FUKE:Yeah, the intent is to add -. YUEN:It can, yeah. FUKE:The intention is to have it actually between, right at the boundary line between 37 and 38. YUEN:Well, we can say that, but then we can either, we will say either at the boundary between Lot 37 and 38 or on Lot 38. Because just, if in case that you change the site plan and if you want to be farther from Kwili Street, that's okay; but we would say that there should be a full movement access -. We delete E, replace it with a condition that there be a full movement access from Laukapu Street onto the property located at the boundary between Lot, Parcel 37 and Parcel 38, or elsewhere on Parcel 38. FUKE:Okay. YUEN:Okay. And then -. FUKE:That fulfills the intent of the discussion. YUEN:And then on I, we are no longer requiring, are we still going to require internal circulation between 37 and -? He didn't object to having the internal circulation, right? FUKE:Yeah, correct. YUEN:Between 37 and 38, so we can leave I the same. FUKE:That is correct. YUEN:Okay. 18 FUKE:So basically you would be amending, essentially deleting, substituting the new condition that you just read for Condition YUEN:E, that's right. FUKE:Yeah. GALDONES:Alice, were you able to -? KAWAHA:No. GALDONES:Get all of the discussion that was going on regarding Condition E? KAWAHA:Yeah, but I don't have the full, the wording -. GALDONES:Okay. KAWAHA:That Mr. Fuke stated. GALDONES:Mr. Fuke, will you be able to provide the wording for t FUKE:Either myself or the Planning Director would, yes. GALDONES:Okay. FUKE:But essentially it amounts to having the common access ease a full movement common access easement between the boundaries of and 38, or any portion, anywhere on Lot 38. FUJIKAWA:Question. YUEN:And we should add meeting with the approval of the Departme of Public Works. FUKE:Right. KAWAHA:Right. FUJIKAWA:So -. GALDONES:Commissioner -. FUJIKAWA:Director -. GALDONES:Fujikawa. 19 FUJIKAWA:If the Public Works requires X number of setback from t intersection, that's where it's going to be? YUEN:At a minimum, yes. I think that the location, IÓm quite sure that the boundary between the two lots is more than what Department of Public Works would require from the intersection. But that's why, but I did have to put in that last clause that they have to approve the location. GALDONES:Commissioners, any further questions? Appreciate the parties working this out. Is there anybody from the public wishing to testify on this subject matter? Seeing none, Commissioners, there is a recommendation from the Department, and it's a favorable recommendation, that it's to be forwarded to the County Council. However, along with that, in the discussion, there were some changes that were made, with changes in Conditions C and also to Conditions E. What is the pleasure of the Commissioners? KUBOTA:Mr. Chair? GALDONES:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:I'd like to move that a favorable recommendation of the c zone request from RS-10 to MCX-20 for the zoned district be forwarded to the County Council regarding REZ 03-004, along with the findings and conclusions submitted by the Planning Director, in addition to amendments to Conditions C in the second sentence as added by our Staff, and also the deletion of, oh, excuse me, the deletion of the old E, and addition of new language with the intent to substitute a full common access movement, I guess it's called movement access between Lots 37 and 38. I think that was -. FUJIKAWA:I second it. KUBOTA:Somewhere. I think that was it. FUKE:Or entirely on Lot 38. KUBOTA:Huh? FUKE:Between Lots 37 and 38 or entirely on Lot 38. KUBOTA:Or entirely on Lot 38. FUKE:Correct. KUBOTA:Yes. FUKE:Yeah. 20 KUBOTA:As added by the Director, yes. FUJIKAWA:Second it. GALDONES:It has been moved by Commissioner Kubota, seconded by Commissioner Fujikawa, that Applicant HAKS, Inc. Change of Zone Application REZ 03-004 be given a favorable recommendation of change of zone request from a Single-Family Residential (RS-10) to Industrial-Commercial Mixed Use (MCX-20) zoned district, it be forwarded to the County Council along with the findings of facts and the recommendations and the conditions of approval, with a change to Condition C as stated by Alice, and also the amendment to Condition E which provides for a full movement common access through Laukapu Street between Lots 37 an 38, which is subject to the approval by the Public Works. Are there any discussions? Hearing none, Alice? KAWAHA:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. KAWAHA:Commissioner Fujikawa? FUJIKAWA:Aye. KAWAHA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. KAWAHA:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. KAWAHA:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. KAWAHA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. KAWAHA:Commissioner Thibadeau? THIBADEAU:Aye. KAWAHA:Chair Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. 21 KAWAHA:Chair, there are eight ayes and zero noes, motion is carr GALDONES:Thank you, Alice. Mr. Fuke, you will be notified in wr today's actions. FUKE:Thank you very much. GALDONES:You're welcome. The discussion ended at 10:58 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Planning Commission 22