2011-06-02 WINDWARD TRANSCRIPT 1ST CHURCH

Home

think the difficulty is there so much as the side that is to, as we look at it, to our left of the existing building, to the left of the existing building where the preschool used to be and where they have the educational facility. Right, Jeff? The educational facility is the one that’s crosshatched? DARROW: Yes. LEITHEAD TODD: The existing building -. DARROW: Correct, and this is the proposed building. LEITHEAD TODD: I don't know that you have enough space between the existing building and the boundary to put both parking and a driving area. So you would probably lose, you'd have to change the configuration of the parking stalls; and you would lose a number of parking stalls because you would have to realign them. So you'd have to provide parking on other parts of the project, perhaps down by where the trees are in order to accommodate it. So it is a question for the Commission. If you want to have the in and out off of 31st and eliminate the excess off of Paradise that is fully within your authority, I think, to do so. But it does mean that for the applicant they are going to have to reconfigure their site plan, possibly move the building. And because of the loss of parking stalls I would anticipate close to the educational facility they would probably have to create parking in another area of the property that currently would be in grass. That's what would be, I think, the practical result. TAGGART: Mr. Chair, can I just-? KERN: Not right now. We’re trying to do our work. TAGGART: Well, if it’s a design issue then -. PUBLIC: Then I’m going to start talking. TAGGART: No, but we can’t -. KERN: Hey, mellow out. None of this. We don’t do that. We don’t play that game here. Sorry. So, yeah, it does change the design. Commissioner Domingo, do you have something to add? DOMINGO: Yeah you know, as I listen, we’re looking at two factors. You know, one is expressed by Commissioner Au with regards to the safety issue and the other as we have just discussed is the matter of having to redesign the project if we were to go for the amendment. I think uppermost in my mind and in our minds should be whether or not it is safe or not for those who egress or ingress into the property. You know, it is not a matter of designing that is more important. Of course, going for this amendment will cause it to be looked at and certainly redesigned. But I think as we do that we’re addressing a very important factor, and that is safety. KERN: I agree. ONO: Then should this amendment pass, Mr. Chair -. 17 EXHIBIT B