Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-02 WINDWARD TRANSCRIPT 1ST CHURCH WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 2, 2011 st 1 CHURCH OF RELIGIOUS SCIENCE A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 770) was called to order at 11:46 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Zendo Kern presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Zendo Kern, Dean Au, Takashi Domingo, Wallace Ishibashi, and Stephen Ono STAFF PRESENT: Julie Mecklenburg (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), and Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner). And six people from the public in attendance st APPLICANT: 1 CHURCH OF RELIGIOUS SCIENCE (AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 770) Amendment to Special Permit No. 770 to allow the establishment of a spiritual center and educational annex/meeting hall in addition to the existing preschool and day care center complex that was permitted on the subject property through the issuance of Special Permit No. 770. The 1.0-acre property, located within the State Land Use Agricultural District, is situated at the southeastern corner st of Paradise Drive and 31 Avenue, approximately 1,350 feet makai (northeast) of the Kea‘au-Pahoa Highway and Paradise Drive intersection, Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, Kea‘au, Puna, Hawai‘i, TMK: 1-5-017: 061. st KERN: 1 CHURCH OF RELIGIOUS SCIENCE (AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 770).Amendment to Special Permit No. 770 to allow the establishment of a spiritual center and educational annex/meeting hall in addition to the existing preschool and day care center complex that was permitted on the subject property through the issuance of Special Permit No. 770. Jeff. st DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our third item on the agenda as you had mentioned is for 1 Church of Religious Science. They’re requesting an amendment to Special Permit No. 770. Just for clarification, the reason for the request for an amendment to Special Permit No.700 rather than submitting a new permit was a discussion that was held between the Applicant and the Planning Director; and they felt this was the most appropriate course to take as far as this change for the permit. The location of this application again is within the Puna District. More specifically we’re looking in Hawaiian Paradise Park, again, just along Paradise Drive. And this is on the corner of Paradise and 31st Avenue. Again, the zoning, the colors on the map reflect the zoning. The light green is Agricultural 1 acre; and the light blue is Agricultural 3 acres, which is Orchidland Subdivision. This is the General Plan LUPAG for the entire area that identifies both subdivisions within the Rural designation. 1 EXHIBIT B This is the Puna CDP Map of Paradise Park which identifies their different regional town centers and village centers. The actual application is within this area. So this is outside of these different town center areas. Special Permit No. 770 was issued to Malamalama School in 1991 for the establishment of a preschool day care center on the subject property. It was limited to 26 children and the hours of operation were Monday through Friday between 7 a.m. and I believe 2 p.m. In 1998 the applicant purchased the property and began operating a spiritual center and educational annex within the former preschool and day care center building. The applicant is requesting to amend Special Permit No.770 to legitimize the operation of an educational annex within the former preschool day care center building and to allow the establishment of an approximately 2400-square foot spiritual center meeting hall on the subject property. st This is the applicant’s site plan. We have 31 Avenue on the right side of the map; and we have Paradise Drive on the lower portion of the map. Currently there is an existing access on Paradise st Drive, as well as on 31 Avenue. This is the existing preschool structure that is there that will be used for the educational annex. This is the proposed 2400-square foot spiritual center meeting hall. As you’ll see the plan identifies parking on the property. At this point this is just preliminary so this isn’t exactly how things might fall. There’s a question as far as landscaping going along the perimeter, and so the possibility of the location of parking might be changed. This is the elevations of the proposed spiritual center meeting hall, and these are some site photos. st This is on 31 Avenue looking towards Paradise Drive, which is in this location, and the access would be on the right side of the slide. This is on Paradise Drive looking towards the highway looking mauka, and the actual subject property is on the left side of the slide. And this is looking towards Paradise Drive, again looking makai. The actual entrance to the property is on the right side of the slide. And this is looking, the lower portion of the map is Paradise Drive. This is the existing educational annex and this is the existing access from Paradise Drive. The Planning Director is recommending approval of the amendment to Special Permit 770 by the Planning Commission. Are there any questions? KERN: Any questions for staff? ONO: I -. KERN: Commissioner Ono? ONO: I’m reading this as saying that basically they’re looking at establishing a church building. DARROW: There are two aspects to the request. One is to amend the permit to go from a preschool day care center to an educational annex that currently is being used by HAAS School; and then also to establish a church or a spiritual center that they referred to, and a meeting hall on the subject property. 2 EXHIBIT B ONO: What happened to the original request to have a day care center? Is that going to be taking a secondary role for the use of the area? DARROW: It would be my understanding that because we are amending the permit that the actual original use would still be allowed, and the additional uses would also be allowed on the property. ONO: When you say it will still be allowed is that the program, the day care program, is that the primary, will that still be the primary function or is that going to be secondary? LEITHEAD TODD: It’s no longer there. ONO: It’s no longer there? LEITHEAD TODD: Malamalama which got the original permit relocated their operations. What’s currently there is I believe it’s used for some of the programs for the Charter School, the Hawaii Arts and Academy of Science that you just recently approved their special permit in the Pahoa area. This is another campus for them where they have some of their activities. And so it’s actually utilized currently by a charter school. ONO: Okay, so now, but -. LEITHEAD TODD: But the use would still be there. In the event that, you know, if they wanted to offer some type of preschool in the future in combination with HAAS, then they would be able to do that. ONO: Okay, I guess my concern is that the existing facility, the building, what is that going to be used for? LEITHEAD TODD: It’s being used by HAAS as an educational facility as kind of a satellite school site. ONO: Okay, thank you. KERN: Any other questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you, Jeff. Can I get the applicant and/or their representative to come forward. Will you all be speaking? TAGGART: I believe I’ll be speaking. KERN: Okay. Well, I’ll get you all to raise your right hands. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TAGGART: I do. REILLING: I do. KERN: Okay, very good. Name and address. 3 EXHIBIT B st TAGGART: I’m Reverend Taggart; and I reside at 31 and Paradise. KERN: You may begin. TAGGART: Yeah, it’s presently used by HAAS as a testing center. They have computers there. Steve came to me back 12 years ago. The teachers were complaining about the inability to read of the st students that were entering their high school. And rather than complain they started a 1 grade class. That class now is in the high school. And the present use for it is they have computers there, and they bring children in three or maybe four times a week, never more than eight. Sometimes it’s used for one or two for individual tutoring, and there are several teachers who have their offices within the building. And they’d like the option of maybe going into a preschool, just like they went from high school they started at a lower grade to get better educational results. I also use it for teaching my classes to adults in the evening. I teach a philosophy called the Science of Mind, an educational, spiritual, not overtly religious. We come from many diverse religious backgrounds and look to see the commonality. So we’re a spiritual center and we’d like to put up a meeting hall so we could meet on Sundays, occasionally during the week, perhaps a meditation service. And that’s why we’ve come before you to modify this, to legitimize what we’ve already been doing, and realized that it was beyond the parameters of the permit that was given. So we’d like to bring that back into copacetic. KERN: Any questions for the applicant? DOMINGO: How large is your congregation? TAGGART: My congregation technically is 75 people. We generally have 40 to 60 on a Sunday meeting. Many of those people are not technically members. They’re not all big joiners. But they’re contributors and they’re friends of the association. So I’d say less than 100. KERN: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Yes. Do you have any working understanding with the HAAS program in terms of a timetable for them to either move out or is this a, you know -? TAGGART: We do it on a yearly basis. ONO: A yearly basis? TAGGART: Yes. But there’s never been any discussion between Steve and I on leaving. ONO: I see. TAGGART: It generally comes back to, well, do you want to stay another year? 4 EXHIBIT B ONO: Okay. That’s determined at the end of the school year or are we looking at it so that’s a two- year kind of a program? TAGGART: Its August to August. And right now we’re at a place where they’ve released for the summer. So, you know, if Steve didn’t want it, he would have already been to me and told me that. ONO: Thank you. TAGGART: Yeah. ONO: Oh, so they’re the ones that determine whether they want to use the facilities? I mean it’s not -. TAGGART: Yeah, no, we can’t -. We do not have them tied into a binding lease or anything like that. ONO: I see. Okay, thank you. KERN: Any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none, do you other gentlemen want to add anything while you’re sitting up here? You are welcome to. REPRESENTATIVES: No, thank you. KERN: Okay, you all may have a seat. Thank you very much. So we do have two people signed up from the public to testify. I’ll call you up both at the same time, Scott Reilling and Allen Dale Watson. Mr. Reilling, you’ve already been sworn in, so I will swear in Mr. Watson. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? WATSON: I do. KERN: Okay, very good. We’ll start with your, Mr. Reilling. REILLING: Actually you can start with Dale. Dale is on the Board of Directors. KERN: Okay, we’ll start with you, Mr. Watson. Name and district you represent, and you may begin. WATSON: Allen Dale Watson and I’m in District 2 of Paradise Park. And I wrote a letter dated th April 25; and hopefully you guys all got that and read it. We have, in Paradise Park we have bylaws and we have a master plan that we use, and we have a Board of Directors of nine people. And at this point it goes against our master plan, having a church on a one-acre parcel. And the parking is up against the property. As you have noticed on the map the parking is right up against another property. We don’t know, I don’t know who owns that other property, but that guy may have bought that lot in a rural area to build his retirement home. And I would not want somebody who has a congregation of 75 people, cars coming and going at all hours, slamming doors, whatever, and a parking lot right next. I would not want it next to my place. I have a, you were talking about neighbors. I have a family with three kids, and I’m not complaining, they’re very considerate, but I get plenty noise from just the family. And I can’t even imagine having that many cars and what have you next to a piece of property that I was trying to live on. So that’s one of the things. 5 EXHIBIT B And in their application on Item No. H, they say that the agricultural rural district should not apply because it’s pahoehoe lava. But the entire development is on pahoehoe lava. And we have orchards out there, we have nurseries out there. I personally have over 25 fruit trees, and it’s not any fun to dig a hole to plant a tree by hand. But once you get them in the ground the trees do fine. So as far as it not being agricultural land, it is agricultural land. But the designation, in fact, this is more a school than it is a church as far as I can tell. But, at any rate, it goes against the master plan and the Board. This is not just for me, this is a letter that the Board voted to, against this development. And, now you guys, at the risk of, you know, making you mad at us, nine times out of ten you guys override our governing board with your votes and you let these developments go in. But you really need to provide some oversight because the developments don’t get the requirements that you want them to do, do not get done in a timely manner. Sometimes you’ll approve a day care center for 6 kids and in six months there are 26 kids and they’re disturbing the whole neighborhood. So when you override us, it’s my opinion that you guys ought to take responsibility for those developments, or you should. So that’s all I had. KERN: Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none -. ONO: I just have a comment -. KERN: Go ahead. ONO: You’re saying you don’t know who owns the adjacent property? WATSON: No. ONO: Wouldn’t it behoove you to find that out first and have that individual provide testimony, I mean, as a Board? WATSON: Well, they’re agricultural lots; and it’s basically for residential. When you approve something like this right next to it with no buffer you’re -. ONO: Yeah, I understand that. But I’m suggesting s as a Board if the position of the Board is to be concerned about the adjacent owner would it not -? WATSON: It goes against our master plan anyway -. ONO: I understand that. But you’re speaking for someone that’s absent and I’m having a hard time accepting that when the person is not willing to speak on his own behalf. WATSON: I’m not speaking for them. I’m just saying that if that were my piece of property and I was planning on developing it later I would be a little upset if I came in and found out that there was a new development next to it that was not agricultural or residential. ONO: So -? 6 EXHIBIT B KERN: Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: I do have a question. When was your master plan adopted? WATSON: Sixty one. LEITHEAD TODD: Okay, do you know if you folks testified on the original permit? Because the original permit for Malamalama was granted in 1981. And was there opposition to it back then? WATSON: No, I have no idea. LEITHEAD TODD: Oh, you have no idea. Okay, thank you. DARROW: Mr. Chairman? KERN: Yes. DARROW: Just for information purposes, when applicants submit special permits, or use permits, or change of zones, they have a requirement to notify surrounding property owners. Within a special permit the requirement is that they have to notify property owners within 500 feet of all property boundaries of that property. They have to do this two times, when they first submit the application and then when they’re notified of the date, time and location of the hearing. So these surrounding property owners within 500 feet were all notified of the application when it was submitted, as well as today’s hearing date. KERN: Thank, you, Jeff. Mr. Reilling? REILLING: Yeah, I would just like to support Dale’s position, using the master plan for HPPOA. And one of the items it has in here is it is recommended that the properties develop a green border of approximately 10 feet along the side and back boundaries to provide a habitat for birds and wildlife. And then it says it’s further recommended that the general landscaping preserve native plants such as ohia trees. That’s just to back Dale’s position up about the border and the parking along the perimeter directly adjacent to both properties that abut it. One other comment I’d like to make is that also in the master plan it says cottage industries that would not create extra traffic or nuisance to neighbors will be permissible throughout HPP. And the original special permit application was for a Monday to Friday type of situation for the school; and now they’re expanding it to Sunday. And the Board of Directors, who I can speak for now, are concerned that there is going to be heavy traffic and possible noise violations on Sunday mornings; and the Board is concerned about that. And, furthermore, in the master plan, there are town center areas, as the clerk showed you on the map, on the slide previously. And the Board of Directors would like to see in the future moving forward that any application, special permit applications, are pushed toward these areas that the master plan has chosen to be developed, and not a residential type area zoned Ag-1. 7 EXHIBIT B KERN: I have a quick question for you. When was the last time you folks made an amendment to those designations on where you would like some sort of industry to be in the park? REILLING: As far as I know they’re still from the original plan, the master plan, back when the subdivision was formed, I’m going to say 1972, somewhere around there. KERN: Thank you. The other one was when you had mentioned about keeping the green space and the bulldozing, that’s part of the bylaws, I just want to clarify, that you folks have? REILLING: No, that’s not the bylaws. That’s the master plan. KERN: That’s the master plan, that’s the wording in the master plan? REILLING: That’s correct. KERN: Planning Director. LEITHEAD TODD: The master plan is not in any CC&Rs on any of the lots, is it? REILLING: There are no CC&Rs. LEITHEAD TODD: Okay. And you, there was a comment from the other gentleman about churches. What does your master plan say about churches or religious centers? REILLING: You have any idea? WATSON: Well, it’s supposed to be on the 20-acre parcels. REILLING: I can’t quote the master plan on that, BJ. But the master plan does try to develop the areas for churches and light industrial and recreation areas. LEITHEAD TODD: On those 20-acre parcels that are owned by the Watamulls? REILLING: If I’m not mistaken, well, they’re not owned all by the Watamulls. The Association also owns a few of them. LEITHEAD TODD: Okay, and has the Association made any of those parcels available for churches or spiritual centers to locate on? REILLING: What do you mean by available? LEITHEAD TODD: Have you offered it up to the community to say, hey, we’ve got this parcel here and if you want to locate your church here that the parcel is available? REILLING: I don’t know if that has been done, but it would just take an applicant to come and meet with us. 8 EXHIBIT B LEITHEAD TODD: I’m just, kind of where I’m going here is if you have, and this has been the criticism from members of the public who have come forward to testify on previous applications, is that if the 20-acre parcels where you designate certain activities are owned by or controlled by entities that are not moving forward to do anything with those parcels, so if the ones owned by the Watamulls, if the Watamulls are not developing their parcels for commercial or industrial uses, if the Association which I think those parcels are supposed to be for, I think for park purposes, the ones that are owned by the Association, if the Association isn’t doing anything with those parcels then you end up having a demand from the community and other people within that subdivision to provide those needs for the community, because it’s not happening where the plan says it’s supposed to happen. The other concern I have, which I don’t know that we need to get into today, is that you have to have, you know, some reasonable opportunity for people to establish religious centers, and we have to treat them equally as any other application. And in this case what you have is a piece of property that has an existing permit that runs with the land, albeit it says Monday to Friday and they’re talking Sunday. But to me if you were looking at putting something it would seem to be better to put in on a parcel that already has an existing permit, already has some existing facilities on it, rather than taking another parcel that hasn’t been utilized before. I’m just, you know, kind of thinking that. And I know that it might not exactly fit the master plan, but this is something that already has a permit, and a permit that goes back to 1981, as well as already having a facility on it they’re asking to expand. But you had some, mentioned that you said, did I hear correctly that a one-acre parcel was insufficient area for a church? Did I hear that correctly? REILLING: Not necessarily insufficient, except when you add the parking you’re getting awfully close to other properties. And, you know, you’re encroaching, if not physically, you’re encroaching noise wise just as the lady that was here on the one up Waimea. So it’s just something that they need enough space for their parking and not to disturb the neighborhood with it. LEITHEAD TODD: You are aware that agriculturally zoned lots could have bulldozers and tractors and husking materials and other agricultural type noises which are allowed at a higher rate than you would have in residential? REILLING: Yes. LEITHEAD TODD: Okay. REILLING: Just one quick question that I had though, you said that all of these applications run five years? No? LEITHEAD TODD: No, the recent ones that we’ve done have time limits. REILLING: Okay. LEITHEAD TODD: But the earlier ones that were granted many years ago run with the land and do not have an expiration date. 9 EXHIBIT B REILLING: Okay. KERN: Commissioner Ono. ONO: Yes, to the staff. I don’t want to assume here because I’ve been in trouble in the past. Okay, when you say that there were notices to the surrounding, owners in the surrounding, was it complied with? Would you know if -? DARROW: Yes, both notices were complied with. ONO: Through the newspaper or individual letters, how -? DARROW: We have documentation from the Post Office that the letters were sent to each property owner. ONO: Thank you. REILLING: You don’t have the result of the survey though? DARROW: The survey results that you’re referring to in the application are -. What we’re referring to is the notification that is required when an applicant comes in to notify surrounding property owners. The survey that you might be referring to is in the previous application, is that correct? REILLING: No, no, no. The notification that was sent out to the surrounding properties, I think it would be the Board’s position that they would want the documentation on that to see what the answers were from the applicants. KERN: There is no required answer. It's to say hey, here's what is going on in your area. If you are so inclined, write a letter, come in, talk about it, and show up. And usually the non-action is taken with the assumption that they don't really have a problem with it. So it's not really, you don't put a responsibility on to them. At any given time you could go and look at the application that is up for consideration and see what people may have responded to or not. Commissioner Domingo, you had a question? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, you know, I am ready to make the motion right now. KERN: Okay. With that being said you gentlemen may have a seat. Thank you very much. I do have a quick question for the applicant if I could get you to come forward real quick. You've got a chance to look at the recommendation and the conditions? TAGGART: Yes. KERN: And you're agreeable? TAGGART: Yes. 10 EXHIBIT B KERN: Thank you very much. TAGGART: The only provision I am seeing is that they are requiring us to put in concrete or asphalt in all the parking spots, thus covering a third of our land in rock; and then in the very next thing they say we should preserve the natural essence of our land. And these two things do not seem to comply with each other. We would much prefer to put in grass to reduce the dust. Then you have a statement from the police department stating that there will be no discernible increase in traffic. Other than that, no, I have no complaints at all. I think it is wonderful to put in plants along the edges. We would have done that anyway. But now we will come up with a plan for it. KERN: Thank you. You may have a seat. Commissioner Domingo, were you still interested? DOMINGO: I don't have any questions, but I am ready to make a motion. KERN: Then I’m okay with that. ST DOMINGO: Okay, Mr. Chairman, with regards to applicant 1 Church of Religious Science, amendment to Special Permit No. 770 I move for its approval. KERN: Is there a second? AU: Second. KERN: Okay. Discussion. Any discussion? Commissioner Au. AU: Question for staff. What is the rule in Hawaiian Paradise Park for driveways? I believe its entrance is only from the roads, is that correct? And you can't have an entrance off of the main roads? DARROW: In reference to the comment letter submitted by the Hawaiian Paradise Park th Administrative Services dated April 25 that is the current rule. It appears that if there is an existing driveway on the property that it can be grandfathered in, in a sense, which in this particular case it is even identified in their comment letter that this is an existing drive way. But they are still preferring st that the applicant only ingress and egress off of 31. AU: You know, that’s a big problem in HPP. I live in HPP, entrances off of the main drag is a problem. You know, people are going at, you know, 45. The speed limit is 35, right? You know, people generally go faster than that. And besides turning off the roads, you know, you have people stopping in the middle trying to turn into their driveways. So, you know, I think it is a big problem. And so what I would like to do is I'd like to amend Taka’s motion to delete that entrance. KERN: Okay. Any other discussion? We will get back to that here in just a minute. PUBLIC: We’d -. KERN: This is our time, sorry guys. I have a discussion, or do you want to discuss this Taka? Or are you looking to make a dash? 11 EXHIBIT B DOMINGO: No, no discussion. Only, I will yield to the wishes of the commissioner from Puna with regards to amending. KERN: I have a little bit of discussion. I think as a very large subdivision that was built by the Watamulls back in the heyday, that they are the ones that do control the primary large land in that area that hasn't been amended, and then the Association holding the other. I completely feel, as the Director was saying, that those things should be opened up and not, maybe not to -. A lot of people don't know, I mean, if you guys want to see some change there open it up to say, hey, we do have space available for these types of things. Until then it is ridiculous. It is not conducive, you got no area to do any type of development in there. You've got no area to do any type of enterprise in there. It is all controlled. And it is a huge subdivision. Not only is it controlled in that way, but you have to pay money to live in there and it is not cheap money. You guys know that. You guys living there, you pay it. And it is going up every year because the roads are getting paved. That's a good thing. When I was there my road didn't get paved, I had to still pay the same money. I got, you know what I mean, I mean there's a give and take. And, I mean, if you want to have a strong say, you've got to be a little bit more current in some of the issues that we have going on right now. I think the Association needs to get more involved with the CDP cause I think the CDP is awful for most of Puna, it really is. And so until there are some areas opened up that give reasonable opportunity for people to go in and do something such as a religious facility or a school facility, we are going to be seeing this, and we are going to be faced with this challenge every single time. And it is never an easy one. But I would really hope that, what would be great for us is if the Board would open some of that up or define some other areas, maybe to work with the CDP to open up some smaller lots. Because what we do see is that there are people out there willing to do stuff. They just don't have the money to go buy 20 acres or they don't have the clout to talk to the Watamulls into selling them or developing a massive complex, but they will do something if they are allowed to do something in their small areas. The paving part of it, I can go back and forth on this one, guys. I mean it’s kind of one of those things where sure you got the paving that is good in certain ways, but then you got the drainage issues, and then you have to put potentially a drywell in there. I may be opened to changing that one around a little bit. Other than that I would support this. I actually went to that school when I was in kindergarten and I have fond memories of that place. It’s kind of an enchanting property. And I will also agree with Commissioner Au on the driveway issues. So that’s my discussion which I could go on longer but I won’t. Julie. MECKLENBURG: So we have a main motion on the floor to approve the request for the amendment in accordance with the Planning Department’s recommendation. If the Commissioners would like to put forth a motion to amend that motion, we can consider that within the main motion. AU: I would like to call up the applicant, if that’s okay, Mr. Chair. KERN: Yes. AU: And, you know, just see what they have to say about that before I make a motion. 12 EXHIBIT B TAGGART: This driveway has been there longer than Paradise Park. The original home was, what was the name, Watamull, yeah, this was their first home; and it was from this location that they split and divided and created Paradise Park. Another aspect of it is the row of mailboxes that are just past our driveway. Many people coming down the road are slowing to make a turn into that path; and worst than that coming up the road coming across the lane of traffic so they can reach out their driver’s side window and take their mail out of the box. What we are suggesting is that we have only entrance through that driveway so no one is coming back st out on to Paradise Park other than on 31 where there’s a stop sign, and it’s adequate. And I believe that this is a reasonable compromise, that rather than totally shutting down that driveway we make it entry only. Any other questions? KERN: You’d like to -? COOPER: Yes, I would like to add to that. Thank you for your time. My name is Lonnie Cooper. KERN: The district you represent? COOPER: I actually live in Paradise Park. As a matter of fact I purchased in Paradise Park in 1977. And on my street, two doors down, is Kamehameha School. I have seven children. I am very, very encouraged to see schools and spiritual centers developing in my community. There are certain types of development that go on there that are not questioned that I don't, and it is my bias, don't really appreciate. Okay? Having said that I am the contractor, general contractor, of record for this project. I have no major economic vested interest in this project, but I have signed on because I am very sympathetic and supportive of these kinds of projects. I am currently involved with Habitat For Humanity for the last six years, that’s a matter of record. And I am actually engaged constantly in access issues before we design and create properties. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that with regard to traffic that the existing design is the most efficient, safest, and best; and I would testify to that. Thank you. MECKLENBURG: By existing design, you mean the one way entrance off of Paradise Drive, ingress -? COOPER: The way it is designed right now, two blocks off the main highway, you don't get a chance th -. Cause I live on 20, you don't get a chance to really build up speed, and I know that variation that you spoke to. It’s absolutely correct. But two blocks from that main highway is where this center will be located. You would make an easy right-hand turn because nobody is coming out of that driveway. st It is an entrance only. Then you pick your parking place and you proceed out to leave that area on 31. That design which is in their plan, as far as I’m concerned, is without a doubt the most efficient and safest and best way to develop this property. KERN: How about for outward-bound traffic having to make a left-hand turn against a double line into there? st COOPER: If you had to have people coming and entering only on 31 you’d have that all day long. 13 EXHIBIT B KERN: It’s, the only thing I can think of is at least people know. You know, I used to ride my motorcycle up and down there. When I was getting into a cross section I’d make sure I was real loud, I’d slow down, because I knew that that’s an area where we could see that’s a sneaky driveway, not a sneaky driveway, but a driveway that’s not known by everybody, I could potentially see it as being a st little bit different in a sense. You’re moving onto 31, you know that that’s a turning area. Somebody making a left-hand turn where they don’t see that, it’s like what is this person doing? Like they’re not supposed to be slowing down right here, this is weird. You’re making a right- hand turn into there coming down, that’s pretty straightforward. So that would be my only –. COOPER: I, you know, again, I can only say to you that it is my opinion that without question or doubt, this is the most efficient design, the safest and the best way to go about developing this property. KERN: Very good, thanks. Is that good for you, Commissioner Au, or do you want to -? AU: Where is the mailbox located? Is it located after the property? COOPER: If you go back to the photographs, you can see it. DARROW: Right here. This is the entrance right here to the property. Here’s the mailboxes. COOPER: And that telephone pole marks approximately the back. AU: You know traffic is one of the biggest things we have to deal with on every application. Okay? And the reason why HPP, you know, that driveways that got deleted, entrances from the main road, and that is why – cause traffic. I understand you guys already have it this way, your building is already situated there, but I will make that motion. Because, you know, we have to follow the plan, okay, we have to try and we have to make everything safe. You know, I understand what you're saying, is you believe that this particular way is the correct way. But, you know, we need to get away from that and we need to just not have any driveways cause it's a big problem. You go down every single street, almost every other house almost has driveways coming in off of the main road. KERN: Well, any other questions for these gentlemen? Seeing none, you may have a seat. Thank you. So if you are going to do that, Mr. Commissioner, you have the mike. AU: So -. MECKLENBURG: It sounds like you wanted to make a motion to amend Condition 6. AU: Yes, Condition 6. MECKLENBURG: So that the existing entrance from Paradise Drive shall be eliminated? AU: Shall be eliminated. KERN: Is there a second? 14 EXHIBIT B DOMINGO: Second. KERN: Okay, motion made and seconded. Now we’re up for discussion. Any discussion on that? Commissioner Ono? ONO: Just a clarification. It seems as though the individuals are not in favor of this amendment. So I am having a difficult time thinking about the amendment, you know, what you're asking for and what they are desiring. And it seems to me that, their argument seems more sound in that it makes for an ease of traffic motions. So, do you dispute with their comments? AU: Okay, this site plan that I'm looking at, so if you guys can refer to it. I don't know what is existing and what is not existing . Okay? And I do understand that you don't want to put in concrete or asphalt, so maybe if we can go back to the other one. Okay, so there is an existing day care center. Okay, and then there is the proposed meeting hall. You know, I am pretty sure you guys worked hard at this design and, you know, I guess that is the way the traffic is going right now. Is that correct, applicant? TAGGART: Yes. AU: You know, I’ve seen accidents because of this. Okay, people are just turning right off of the main drag going into it. This is a school. It’s a spiritual center. You know, there is going to be a lot of people there. There’s a mail box there. You know, you have a big congregation, you’ve got kids there. You know, we need to make it as safe as possible. You’re going to have to just redesign it. TAGGART: I’ve been on this site for the last eight years, there has never been an accident in front of the school. Their access -. NOMURA: Excuse me, microphone, please. KERN: Yeah, this isn’t quite the forum to go by. ONO: Yeah, I’m just kind of curious. So with your amendment, what are you looking at in terms of suggesting a proposal? AU: You know, I’m not an architect. I’m not going to suggest anything. I just don’t agree with driveways off of the main drag. KERN: I’ve heard that a lot. I mean you basically on each, you have the main road going down, right, the paved road, then you have the cross streets and there are two lots in between that. So let’s say you stth have 31 and 30, those two lots back up to each other. There is no access except from the main road, just on the lots that go on the main roads, Paradise and Makuu Drive. So the main access is made off thst of the lateral road, be it 30 or 31, or whatever number you want to use there. And it has been a thing in Paradise Park for a long time to try and move away from entrances or egresses off of the main Makuu, Paradise, Kaloli or Shower Drive, and keep the traffic turning onto main sides, or, you know, cross streets. And, so that’s the issue. 15 EXHIBIT B ONO: Yeah, okay. If we’re offering this amendment, we’re not offering any suggestions to adjust this. st KERN: Go in and out of 31. ONO: I beg your pardon? st KERN: Go in and out of 31. MECKLENBURG: But to clarify, it would require the applicant to modify the site plan to accommodate it. ONO: Okay. I’m very, I need it to be done visually. When you say -. st KERN: See all the way on the right, 31? ONO: Okay. KERN: All the way to the right, and you got like the round things that look like trees there, yeah? TAGGART: They are trees. KERN: They are trees. Yeah, so that would be where the entrance and exit would have to be, somewhere along that side, that’s all. ONO: So that would call for a whole new planning. I mean, doesn’t it call for a complete change of their development? LEITHEAD TODD: Well -. KERN: Madam Director. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, number one, if you have a one way in and one way out, then the width of your driving area can be narrower. If you’re going to have them come in and out of the same entrance then you would probably need to accommodate that by widening the driving area. The other thing is the angle of the parking stalls is designed for one way traffic, if you can see them. So that would have to be completely reconfigured. In order to accommodate that number of parking stalls and have them be able to be accessed, obviously that alignment does not work if you are, you know, coming in off of 31st. So you'd probably have to reconfigure them to have them straight, you know, running basically, you know, at 90° angles to the boundary, which would also change that configuration. I would think that it would mean that they'd have to move the location of the building. Because if you going to widen that area -. So, yeah, it changes where the building goes. I think it changes the size of the driving area and it changes the configuration of the parking stalls. The difficulty I think will be not so much looking at that site plan, and referring to the top part of it, I don't 16 EXHIBIT B 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 KERN: Yes. ONO: Then should this amendment pass then basically everything is going to be deferred until we come up, we have a new plan? KERN: No. ONO: No? KERN: No. If this were to move forward, they would just have to adjust their drawing, and they go in front of the Planning Department to deal with that, the plan approval and what not, to allow for a parking situation and a roadway situation inside their property that would work for them. It’s not, they don’t have to come back, they don’t have to show that. That’s their intent. Now we’re making a change to that. We know that that is going to change some of that layout. That’s why they still have to go in front of the Planning Department to make sure that they comply with the normal requirements that are in here and other regular building requirements. ONO: I see. KERN: Makes sense? ONO: Makes sense. KERN: Okay. AU: You know -. KERN: Commissioner -. AU: One comment that I would like to make to Commissioner Ono, you know, I’m a building contractor so I understand that this is not, this building is not built yet. Okay, if it was an existing building I would not have made this amendment. But this building is not built yet and you have room, you have a whole acre. So, you know, just keep in mind, you know, I mean that’s one of the factors I took into consideration when I made that amendment. ONO: Okay. KERN: Okay, let’s vote. So let’s go ahead and vote on Commissioner Au’s amendment, the original motion is still open. I have something I want to add in after we take a vote. So let’s vote on the amendment to the motion. Is that right? MECKLENBURG: Yeah. If I could just -. KERN: Please do, Julie. 18 EXHIBIT B MECKLENBURG: If I could ask staff, would we also need to amend Condition No. 2 just to, which currently states “The proposed project shall be constructed and operated in substantial compliance with the representations made to the Planning Commission, except that the site plan shall be modified to comply with Condition 6?” Or is that not necessary? DARROW: I wouldn’t think it’s necessary. I mean they would just have to -. Just so I’m clear here. We have a motion on the floor. The motion has been amended and Condition 6 has been changed. It would -. MECKLENBURG: There’s, it has not been changed yet but there is a motion to change it, I guess. DARROW: Okay. So we have two motions on the floor then. MECKLENBURG: Right. KERN: Yeah, so we need to vote on the amendment. MECKLENBURG: It’s a motion within a motion. DARROW: Okay. Okay, the original motion was to approve as the Planning Director -. MECKLENBURG: Correct. DARROW: So it would seem like wouldn’t you want to amend the original motion to -? Do you know what I mean? MECKLENBURG: Yeah, the motion to amend is being brought by Commissioner Au, so we’ll take that motion within the larger motion. DARROW: Okay. MECKLENBURG: So first we’ll vote on the motion to amend Condition 6. DARROW: I mean the only reason why I’m saying that is we have a motion to approve as the Planning Director had suggested. LEITHEAD TODD: There’s a motion to amend the motion. DARROW: Right. KERN: The motion maker did second, the original motion maker did second the amendment. Does that help? DARROW: I would think that would be more cleaner because then we wouldn’t be -. It might be good to -. 19 EXHIBIT B LEITHEAD TODD: Jeff, there is a motion on the floor to approve, then there’s a motion to amend the main motion that was made by Commissioner Au to eliminate the driveway on Paradise. So the Commission will need to vote first on the motion to amend; and then once, depending whether that’s approved or not, then they would go back to the main motion. And if it has been amended, then it would be the main motion as amended. Otherwise, it’ll just be the original. DARROW: It sounds to me like there’s possibly another amendment coming your way. Would it be appropriate to take up that at this time as well, prior to taking a vote on the main motion after this first motion is made? DOMINGO: I’d prefer not to cloudy up the main motion as amended right now, as proposed, amendment. Take that action first. And then as we consider the main motion as amended, then if anyone would like to entertain another motion to the main motion as amended can do so. That’s much, much clearer. KERN: So let’s just do that first. We’ll keep the original motion open, we’ll take a vote on the amendment right now, see if that moves forward or not, and that if we want to put for another amendment or whatever we can do that afterwards. LEITHEAD TODD: One amendment. KERN: So one amendment at a time; and let’s do that. Thanks, Jeff. DARROW: Okay. The amended motion before us is to amend Condition No. 6 by deleting the words, well, the Condition 6 will be amended to read as follows: “The existing driveway on Paradise Drive shall be eliminated.” Correct? LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah. DARROW: With that we’ll take the roll. Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: No. DARROW: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? 20 EXHIBIT B KERN: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes four to zero, four to one. KERN: I don’t get to do this very often anymore, but I guess I get to this place. I’d like to make a motion to adjust or delete part of Condition No. 4 with requirements for paving of parking stalls and driveway. I would like to see that be done with being able to do it with gravel or grass pavers, or something of that nature. I don’t know. I just don’t want to see too much asphalt and concrete everywhere. So I move that we amend Condition No. 4 to the effects of at the end where it says “shall comply with requirements of Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), with the exception of driveways and parking required to be paved,” something worded eloquently like that. DARROW: What we can do, if it’s to your liking is we can just eliminate the words “paved” and take out the reference to “asphalt” and “asphalt-concrete”. KERN: Yeah, the only problem I see with that is, you know, in that part it says “Plans shall identify existing and proposed structures,” and it’s mostly, that’s saying the plans need to identify those things. It’s not saying they’re required. You get a little further down in there and where the requirement comes in is “requirements of Chapter 25 (Zoning Code).” Does that make sense? Cause the one is saying to identify them. DARROW: I believe -. KERN: Or I might be reading it wrong. DARROW: I know that there’s, under 25 we’re looking at the amount of parking stalls. Okay, so you would, I mean you would want to eliminate -? KERN: And I may be going down the wrong path. It may not be necessarily requiring it to be paved, but I think if we could just put some language in there that the applicant does not have to pave the driveways or parking stalls somewhere. Julie? MECKLENBURG: I think you could, I’m sorry I don’t have the language of Chapter 25 in front of me as it relates to parking. But you could just insert a clause saying “provided however that nothing contained herein shall require the applicant to pave the driveway or parking stalls.” KERN: That’s exactly what I was thinking. You got that, Jeff? DARROW: Correct. But we would still eliminate the references to pave as well as asphalt and asphalt-concrete MECKLENBURG: If you want the plans to show the driveway and parking stalls that are not paved, in the event that they are not paved, the plans should still show them. So I think staff is probably correct. 21 EXHIBIT B KERN: Yeah, okay, that makes sense, yeah? That’s fine. If I could just get a second that’d be great. ISHIBASHI: Second. KERN: All right. You want to read it to me? DARROW: Sure. Your wording again “nothing in this section -?” MECKLENBURG: So this would be “Parking for all functions shall be maintained on the subject property and comply with the requirements of Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), provided however that nothing contained in this condition shall require applicant to pave the driveway or parking stalls.” DOMINGO: One question. KERN: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: With regards to Chapter 25, we’re looking at the number of parking stalls that needs to be put in. About how many stalls are we looking at considering the -? KERN: About 32.-, DOMINGO: So 32? KERN: Yup. DOMINGO: Okay. I have some, in deference to the maker of the motion, I have some reservations about this. For one thing, it will become somewhat like a public facility because you’re entertaining people from around the area; and then they’ll be coming in, you’re coming for the church service or whatever function you have. You know, I think the parking in this kind of situation should be of an utmost safety and I think something that would blend to the beauty of the place, you know, putting a, let it be either gravel -. Are we looking at gravel, Mr. Chairman? KERN: Well, yeah, I think there has to be something there for them to park on. I was thinking either, you know, gravel or grass pavers or, or something in the event of, you know, I mean it’s their place. If it doesn’t look good and it’s kind of funky people aren’t really going to come, or they’re going to complain about it. So it’s taking with a leg, it’s a little assumption that gravel would be done. DOMINGO: So that’s my feeling. KERN: Do you not like gravel? DOMINGO: No. Well, when you speak of gravel it will probably be cinders, because that’s what they usually use in Puna, you know. And I don’t think that’s conducive to a place that would be accommodating that number of people. You know, when you look at people coming in with, let’s imagine 32 parking stalls at full capacity, how much people will there be, you know, and how many 22 EXHIBIT B cars would be going in and out? I’m concerned about that, as well as I was concerned about the safety aspect of going out onto Paradise Street. KERN: I guess I have a concern of too much “pave Paradise and put up a parking lot.” You know, it’s a challenge. It’s clean, it’s nice, it’s pretty when it’s asphalt, you know, or concrete. But at the same time you’ve got to do something with that water, with that runoff from that water, where it’s going to go; and then it also kind of takes some of the Hawaiiana out of it, to me, when you drive by places that can be kind of quaint but there’s a lot more pavement in there. It’s a preference, you know. I think it’s a personal thing. DOMINGO: I think without paving it’ll probably cause to create more puddles on the, within that area; and then, you know, it won’t be clean because it’s splashing water, people walking through it. KERN: You know, yeah, one of the things though with coming up with that green building is to try and get more porous substances on the ground that will actually absorb the water and lighter colors of concrete. They have a white concrete that actually makes things cooler. So, I mean, there’s different things you can do. I’m just a little tired of black concrete or black asphalt, but that’s my opinion. So we can agree to disagree. Yeah? Okay, Jeff. Any other discussion? Julie. MECKLENBURG: Sorry, if I could just -. I’m looking at Chapter 25 and I think it doesn’t speak to it being paved. Is that -? KERN: So does it actually state on here, cause I’m trying, I mean, it sounds like it kind of does but it kind of doesn’t say. MECKLENBURG: No, it doesn’t require it to be paved as drafted. It implies that it will be because it says the plans will show the paved driveway and paved parking stalls. But -. KERN: But it doesn’t read as a requirement, then? MECKLENBURG: Correct. KERN: Then I’ll just withdraw my motion, Commissioner Domingo; and I don’t have to disagree. DARROW: Well, your condition still states that parking shall be paved. So we would have to still amend the condition to eliminate 4. KERN: Which condition is that? DARROW: Four. MECKLENBURG: I think the point is that it doesn’t state that outright. KERN: It doesn’t state that outright. It states some of that in there, but it doesn’t state -. 23 EXHIBIT B DARROW: No, what we would do is the Planning Department, if they came in with plans we would require them to pave the parking, based on this condition. MECKLENBURG: So if that’s the interpretation of the Planning staff, then you would need your amendment. I would just say rather than saying “provided however that,” just make it another sentence saying “Nothing contained in this condition shall require applicant to pave the driveway or parking stalls” and remove the reference to “paved driveway and paved parking stalls.” Is it both the driveway and parking stalls that you’re referring to? DARROW: Yes. MECKLENBURG: Yes, okay. DARROW: The other option too would be instead of in the parenthesis “asphalt or asphalt concrete” we could eliminate the references to paved and you could put gravel or grass pavers like you had mentioned. KERN: Could we just put that, those options in there, it could be asphalt, it could be asphalt-concrete, or could be gravel or grass pavers? DARROW: Yeah, we can add that in. KERN: Cause I don’t want to, I mean if they want to go ahead and pave it, that’s fine, if they want to. You know, I just don’t want to be requiring everybody to do it. DARROW: It’s my understanding that I believe certain stalls will be required to be paved regardless; and I believe that’s the -. KERN: ADA? DARROW: Yeah, ADA. Yeah, so there’s no way getting around that. But -. KERN: Well, then let’s do that. I’d like to change my amendment, withdraw my current amendment and amend it to the effect of just adding in there that parking stalls, and then in parenthesis “(gravel, grass pavers, asphalt, or asphalt-concrete).” AU: Second. KERN: Thank you. And that way it’s clear. DARROW: I had a second from Commissioner Ishibashi. Sorry about that, Commissioner Au. So would you want to reconfirm the -? ISHIBASHI: Second that motion. KERN: Okay, I’m good. 24 EXHIBIT B DARROW: So at this point, just stepping back, what we’re going to do is we keep everything the same, and just add in gravel, in the parenthesis “(gravel, grass pavers, asphalt, or asphalt-concrete),” and everything else remains the same. KERN: And, yeah, you know, and delete paved and just put parking stalls, and then the parenthesis will actually take care of that, and paved on the driveway and paved on the parking stalls. DARROW: All righty. KERN: And then add that into the parenthesis to say that it’s possible. DARROW: So we won’t add anything after the reference to the Zoning Code. KERN: Right. DARROW: We’ll take that out. Okay. All right I think we -. KERN: So we’re going to vote on that amendment now, right? DARROW: Yes. KERN: Great. DARROW: Okay. The amendment before us is to amend Condition No. 4 to take out reference to paved driveway and paved parking stalls, and to include gravel and grass pavers, along with asphalt or asphalt-concrete within the parenthesis. Correct? KERN: Yes. DARROW: With that we’ll take the motion. Mr. Chairman? KERN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: No. 25 EXHIBIT B DARROW: And Commissioner Ono. ONO: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes four to one. KERN: And now we’re back to the main motion, to approve with the two amendments that were made. Is there any discussion on that? Seeing none, Jeff. DARROW: Okay. The motion before us is to approve along with the amended Condition No. 6, as well as the amended Condition No. 4. With that I’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: No. DARROW: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? KERN: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes four to one. KERN: You’ll be notified in writing. TAGGART: Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 12:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 26 EXHIBIT B