Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-12-01 Hearing Transcript - Edward Torrison REZ 16-213WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 1, 2016 A regularly advertised continued hearing on the application of EDWARD L. TORRISON (REZ 16-213) was called to order at 9:35 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Gregory Henkel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Joseph Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, and Raylene Moses. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Myles Miyasato. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Malia Ho (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Kelly Gomes (representing the Department of Public Works), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Christian Kay (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 10 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: EDWARD L. TORRISON (REZ 16-213) Continued hearing on the application for a Change of Zone from a Single Family Residential - 10,000 square feet (RS -10) to a Neighborhood Commercial -10,000 square feet (CN -10) zoning district for approximately 11,642 square feet of land situated between Waianuenue Avenue and Kaumana Drive at 875 Waianuenue Avenue, Pi`ihonua, South Hilo, Hawai'i, TMK: 2-3- 025:063. HENKEL: Okay, we'll continue the meeting with Agenda Item No. 4, REZ 16-213, and looks like Jeffrey Darrow will be making the presentation. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're—since we did a pretty detailed presentation at our last hearing, what we'll do is just put our location map for reference up. Our next Applicant is Edward L. Torrison. This is a continued hearing from our November 3ra 2016 Planning Commission. There was discussion at the last hearing to allow time for the Applicants [sic] to meet with surrounding property owners to try to resolve some of the outstanding issues that were being presented as well as a request from Commissioner Clarkson to receive additional information from the Department of Public Works regarding access from Kaumana Drive. And, so, there was a meeting held. We have received correspondence from the Applicant's representative relative to that meeting that was held as well as additional letters from surrounding property owners discussing their issues, and we did receive an additional comment letter from 10V1111.11 11 the Department of Public Works explaining their reasoning behind their comment to allow right - in, right -out on Kaumana and Waianuenue. This morning, we did receive two additional letters; one from a surrounding property owner and one from the Applicant's representative. If it's okay with you, I will defer to the Applicant's representative to go into detail regarding the contents of his latest submittal. But, just for reference, the subject property is within [the] South Hilo District of Hawaii. More specifically, we're looking at Waianuenue Avenue where it cuts off, separates and allows Waianuenue to go to the north and Kaumana Drive to go to the south. The subject property is identified with a black outline. Currently, it is zoned RS -7.5. The Applicant is requesting a Change of Zone to Neighborhood Commercial – 10,000 square feet. So, what we'll do is we'll leave this location map up for reference, and we'll conclude our presentation at this time. HENKEL: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff from the Commission? Yes, Commissioner Clarkson. CLARKSON: Could you just go over what exists in the indicated commercial zoned areas that are shown on that one more time for me? DARROW: Sure. CLARKSON: Especially the two closest to the DARROW: Okay CLARKSON: subject property. DARROW: Right now, this property or properties, which was existing zoning, is mainly used as a base yard for a property owner. It's, there's not a whole lot of commercial activity that's occurring on there, but it has the potential to allow additional commercial uses. This one is more well-known. This is 7-11 that is on Kaumana Drive, and that's just to the south of the subject property. You might be familiar with the—this is the hospital area that all the medical offices that are along Komohana Street and Ponahawai Street. CLARKSON: Thank you. DARROW: Thank you. HENKEL: Anymore questions of staff from the Commission? Thank you. Will the Applicant and/or the representative come forward, please? KERN: Good morning. EXHIBIT D 2 HENKEL: Good morning. Will you raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? KERN: Yes. TORRISON: I do. HENKEL: Okay, then, please state your name and proceed. KERN: I'm Zendo Kern, a planning consultant. This is my client, Edward Torrison. And, yeah, here we are after the meeting's been continued. We had a, kind of gonna talk a little bit about the meeting we had with the surrounding property owners, then I'd like to give my client a chance to speak a little bit, and then I'll speak to the latest submittal that we just submitted which is a change to the, to the building. So, we had awe had the opportunity to meet with the surrounding property owners, and I'm very grateful that they, that they did take the time. It wasn't too hard to put together. Everybody was willing to meet. We met with four of them at Mr. Torrison's office, and we discussed, you know, we heard the issues. We discussed it. Unfortunately, we really couldn't find much compromise. You know, we talked about the concerns. They brought up concerns. We talked about `em, and I guess it's in my nature to always try to answer the concerns or fix `em, you know, and hearing it and understanding it. And, at the end of the day, and my feeling is, is that the surrounding property owners, they just don't want it. There's nothing that I could, that we could do. There's nothing that we could, you know, compromise or change to make it better. I feel that we have been doing that, addressing the concerns with, you know, right -turn in, right - turn out, minimizing the building, additional parking, etc., which in essence help address the concerns but it doesn't solve the problem. So, and we also met with one of the other property owners, Ms. Hall, at Starbucks, and it was a similar meeting. You know, we talked. It was, but it was kind of the same thing at the end of the day, we just, we just don't want the project. So, you know, we understand that. I completely get that and just really grateful for their time that they did take to meet and try to, try to hash it out and if there was a way to come to some other compromise. You know, obviously we'd be willing to do so, but, you know, here we stand. So, last time, my client was out of the country during the meeting, so I'd like to give him an opportunity to just kind of talk about the project and, you know, where he's coming from with it, how it transpired, etc., and then I will speak on the last submittal I just submitted. So, thank you. Mr. Torrison? TORRISON: All right. Thank you. KERN: Go ahead and state your name. TORRISON: Okay, yeah, Edward L. Torrison. Maybe just a quick overview of how I got the property and what I wanted to do with it. EXHIBIT D 3 My wife, Cheryl, passed away in December of 2014 from stomach cancer. It was just two months to prepare. After the hospital bills and Hospice bills were paid, I used that portion of the insurance money that was leftover to pay down some of my mortgage and then the balance was used to buy this property as an investment. The original plan was to build a home to sell or to rent it out for a long-term cash flow. The idea is to create investment property for cash flow. I decided that a quicker way to generate that was to sell the lot and put it on the market and use the money from the sales as a down payment to buy an existing home in Hilo and rent that out. So, I put it on the market this January, this past January to test the waters. After six months of no activity on the market, I withdrew the listing and wanted to re-evaluate the use of that property and decided that the highest and best use due to its unique location would be commercial and to build a professional office building which could provide long-term cash flow from the lease income. When asked around who could be a good planner to help me, Zendo's name was brought up and so I had been working with him since July, and as a result of that meeting, we're sitting before you today with my proposal for your consideration. Thank you. KERN: Thank you, Mr. Torrison. Yeah, you know, so when we looked at it, it's always a challenging one as I said before. I've sat on the other side of the desk and any time something comes up, does this, does this make sense? So, I always approach it from that standpoint as a commissioner, as a former Council member. How do I feel about it? And, we looked at it, and, you know, while it's in a residential area, to me, it did make sense because it sticks out on that point, and it has those two roads going by it, and it would be far more suited for an office space, I feel. And, it also, like I said before, it creates that buffer to the other homes, and kind of isolates that corner. I don't think we would be sitting here if this were inside the residential subdivision `cause that really just wouldn't make sense. You know, this is on the fringe, so it met the criteria as far as density goes, as far as all the Planning stuff is concerned, County Code requirements, you know, water, sewer. Everything's there for it to happen which isn't always the case. You know, sometimes you'll find a beautiful property. It looks really good. But, you can't get water. You can't get, you know, you can't get sewer. There's issues. So, this one had, met all that criteria so it seemed like a good project to move forward with. You know, as the project has gone on, you know, the original application, the building was larger and what not, so as we talked about it and hearing the concerns of the property owners, we've kind of been, you know, kind of bringing it down to a different level. Thus, the submittal I submitted this morning has a letter, basically a narrative of what the new proposed building would look like as well as floor plans and elevations. So, in essence, the new, you know, I'll just read the letter. After careful consideration of the concerns of the surrounding property owners and working to minimize any impact to the neighborhood, my client, Mr. Torrison, would like to make the following changes to his office building. The new design is much smaller and still keeps a residential look and feel to it. Having less office space will create less possible traffic. As well, there will be fewer tenants. As EXHIBIT D 4 outlined in the Background Report, my client will be occupying approximately one third of the office space. The new building will be a 2 -story office building with approximately 2,520 square feet of office space. The new design will have three offices of approximately 240 square feet each on the ground floor creating about 720 square feet of office space on the ground level. In addition, there will be six parking stalls underneath the building so it'd kind of be, as you can see in the floor plan, offices on one side and then parking stalls underneath it. And, on the second floor we'll have three office spaces of approximately 600 square feet each totaling 1,800 square feet of office space on the second floor. The new design has 11 parking stalls, complies with ADA requirements, and the 11 parking stalls still exceeds the minimum parking requirements per County Code. So, we're trying to maximize the—the amount of parking, minimize the square footage so it still makes sense. In addition to the proposed changes to the building, the new plan calls for a right -turn in and right -turn out on Waianuenue. The reason being is that it will allow emergency access, so basically the original plan was right -turn in off of Kaumana Drive, right -turn out onto Waianuenue. This would just open it up so it would have a right -turn in from Waianuenue in the case of an emergency vehicle ever needing to access that. They wouldn't have to go around the light. They could just come in, and it would, basically it wouldn't create any, any additional traffic flow. The traffic would still flow very smoothly. And, so, according to the Institute for Traffic Engineering Manual that they used to prepare TIAR's or Traffic Impact Analysis Reports, the a.m./p.m. trip generation for this office use is 1.49 trips per 1,000 square feet. Thus, the 2,520 -square foot office building, the projected movements would be 3.75 or less that four movements at any—at peak time a.m./p.m. This is what they use. If anybody has to do a TIAR, this is the basis in which they use it. So. this is the best judgment that I feel that we can make on that. So, as mentioned above, the new design will allow the proposed office building to have a residential look and would basically be not too different than a single-family home if a single- family home were constructed on the property. Being that the property is located in the middle of Kaumana Drive and Waianuenue Avenue, it is not very desirable for a single-family dwelling. This office building will not change the look in the area while utilizing the location to its highest and best use. So, that's the proposed change. There's a, like I say, there's floor plans. There's a new site plan. There's floor plans. There's elevation shots. If you want to take a minute to review that, you know, we can take five if we need to. Otherwise, we really have tried to address the concerns to the best of our ability. We've done basically every effort that we can make. I feel that at the end of the day, that's the best we can do, and then, you know, it's up to you as a body to make that recommendation and that it moves onto the next step. So, I'm happy to hear any questions or any concerns. EXHIBIT D 5 HENKEL: I have a question. Zendo, have the neighbors had a chance to review these, the latest? KERN: No, I just got it printed up this morning. I do have a couple extra copies in my truck of the floor plan that I could certainly grab right now, and if you want to take maybe five to ten minutes to have them look at it, I'd be happy with that. HENKEL: Okay, to summarize it, though, you've added a right -turn in and out as opposed to just the right -turn out? KERN: And, that was coming from a standpoint of an emergency access. Yeah, it was originally right -turn out and right -turn in. We're not opposed to eliminating that right -turn movement off of Waianuenue. It just seemed like it would actually create better flow. So, I'm trying to actually enhance the project. HENKEL: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission to the Applicant? Thank you. TORRISON: All right. Thank you. KERN: Should I, should I—you want me to grab those real fast? HENKEL: Sure, we'll give you a few minutes to get those. MOSES: Are we taking a recess? HENKEL: Let's recess for five minutes. Chair Henkel called a recess at 9:51 a.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 9:54 a.m. HENKEL: Okay, let's bring the meeting back to session. I hope you've had a chance to look over the latest amendments to the plan that Zendo prepared. We have four people signed up to testify, so we'll have all four of you up at once. Ann Usagawa, Joseph Bernabe DELA CRUZ: Bernabe. HENKEL: Bernabe, Julia Moore, and Brenda Hall. Would you please raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission? USAGAWA: Yes, I do. BERNABE/MOORE/HALL: Yes. EXHIBIT D 6 HENKEL: Okay, we'll start with the right. Please state your name, and use the microphone. We'll limit your testimony to three minutes. I'll keep time up here I guess, and then, thank you. HALL: My name is Brenda Hall. I'm a nearby home owner. It is a surprise to see that there is a change of plan. I'm sure the rest of the community would like to see that as well before you make your final decision. I know that Mr. Torrison purchased the property as a residential lot, and was unable to sell it. That was, I think, a speculative move that hasn't paid off for him. I don't think that the commercial change is in the best interest of our community because I've pretty much gone on foot and talked to everyone about what they think is appropriate use for that space, and it's not a commercial building. When I did meet with the two of them one on one, I suggested that he put a modest home on it and perhaps a local family could, you know, start their life together, and he told me that he would build a really big house, and he could even rent the rooms out to college students which I thought was kind of a silly answer. My position hasn't changed. I'm even more firmly against this decision. I think it could be a residential lot if the lot was well priced, and the right home was put it, built on it. Thank you. HENKEL: Mr. Bernabe. You can go ahead. BERNABE: Like Brenda was saying, you know, this is like a last minute thing. I didn't even look at it because I still stand on what I said in my, in my letter that, you know, this is only a purpose for Mr. Torrison to run his business from that place, and have somebody rent it out to pay for his rent, `cause he's paying right, right now at the old Miko Meat building that he doesn't want to pay rent anymore. So, it's only just for one person and one person only, and doesn't benefit our community or the public, and so, I still stand on what I say, and that I'm opposed to the, the rezoning. Thank you. HENKEL: Thank you. Next? State your name, please. USAGAWA: I'm Ann Usagawa, and I'm a neighbor. I'm going to read my testimony if you don't mind really fast because I know we have a time limit. But, may I first make two comments or corrections to Mr. Kern's comments earlier? That when we met, when Mr. Torrison and Mr. Kern invited neighbors to attend a special meeting at the request of the Planning Commission the last time, I believe, there were just three of us neighbors there, not four. I know it's hard to remember, but it was three people, and at that time, there was no—we didn't have the proposal. We didn't have any proposed changes. We just, everyone just stated their mana`o, their ideas, including Mr. Torrison. So, I'll read my testimony now if that's okay. Hello, everyone, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on this zoning proposal. My name is Ann Usagawa, and I'm a neighbor of the proposed project. I respectfully share the following. I sympathize with the Applicant's wish for a new office space and to maximize the value in real property. My concern is with the appropriate use of the residential zoned land, and the location. EXHIBIT D 7 This lot sits on the strategic intersection where Kaumana Drive begins and joins with Waianuenue across Gilbert Carvalho District Park. Called Kaumana One Mile Kumiai in the old days, the streets were quiet back then, but not anymore. This is an outgrowth of the expanded services of the hospital, the Kaiser Clinic, Hale Anuenue facility, Veterans Home, Veterans Clinic, radiation and oncology treatment clinic, the Hospice office, plus the older church, HCEOC, ARC of Hilo, Adult Day Care, and Rainbow Falls, which are all upstream of Waianuenue. I'm concerned with the mix of land uses. I know this sounds ironic since I myself go to 7-11 on Kaumana, although I believe it replaced a pre-existing mom and pop convenience store. The Women's Club House, which does small event rental to fund UH scholarships, has full use at times on Lele and Kaumana Streets, but only about twice a month. There is a physical therapy office on Pu`u Hina, but with not a busy parking lot. As a former long-range planner, this was more than 20 years ago, I know that perfect planning and zoning is not possible, but I believe in trying to keep land uses alongside similar uses for the integrity of the zoning district. My other concern has to do with emergency vehicle pathway because there is only a partial view of the intersection on a car's downhill approach due to the curve. Ambulances naturally go up the hill with a sick patient, but although it doesn't happen every day, sometimes the ambulance crews have to turn right around after delivering a patient to the Hilo ER, and speed down the hill due to a new 911 call. I've seen this because of my home location and also because I worked, I'm now retired, as a social worker in the emergency room for six years. Ironically, on the day that I came to the Planning Department, that was November 14th, to look at the application and purchase Xerox copies, when I came home, between 1:30 and 3 o'clock p.m., I saw and heard three ambulances speeding down the hill to go and pick up patients. HENKEL: Could you summarize please, Ann? USAGAWA: And that's it. HENKEL: Okay, thank you. USAGAWA: That's my comments. Thank you so much. Aloha. HENKEL: Julia Moore, then? MOORE: Yes, thank you. I'm also going to read my testimony, and basically I also want to thank you for a chance to speak. Mr. Torrison's goal with this project seems to be to own his own real estate office. Mr. Torrison and Mr. Kern seem to feel that because they met the County requirements, they should get approval. They allowed us to voice our concerns in the meeting but dismissed them and called them abstract. They said they may not happen and, therefore, there was no way to address them. I would suggest that this works both ways. When Mr. Torrison was asked whom he would rent to, he said he didn't know. Maybe medical offices, profession people. But, there's no way to know for sure at this point who would end up in these offices. It could be an office that 10V1111.11 11 generates a fair amount of traffic. There could be overflow parking on Waianuenue that poses a hazard to pedestrians, bicyclists, and emergency vehicles. Also of concern is the fact that there are many allowed uses for this type of commercial property. Once the zoning is changed, Mr. Torrison could change his mind and decide to put something else on that lot. At the last meeting, Mr. Kern made a point that this was a junk lot, and not suitable for a home. He asked who would want to live on this lot. At the end of the meeting, I suggested that Mr. Torrison put an inexpensive HPM type home and bless some family with an affordable starter home. He could recover his investment and use it to buy property in a more appropriate place. His reply was that he intended to build on this lot regardless of the outcome of the zoning request, and if he couldn't build a high-end home and sell it to a, an—let's see—his reply was that he intended to build on this lot, and if he couldn't get the zoning changed, he would not put a cheap home on it. Instead, he intended to build a high-end home and sell it to a doctor that wanted to live close to the hospital. So, I guess, the answer to the question of who would want to live on this lot is some doctor who would pay big bucks for the privilege. I would like to reiterate that this is an established residential neighborhood. A commercial building in this area does not make sense. There is too many unknowns. There are many areas in Hilo where this would make sense, and I respectfully request that you deny this zoning request. Thank you. HENKEL: Thank you, Julia. Are there any questions for these testifiers from the Commission? It not, you may return to your seats. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to testify? Would you like to respond to any of the testimony? KERN (from audience): Yes. DARROW: Mr. Chairman, just to interject shortly. I did pass out, by request, a copy of the portion of the Zoning Code that references the Neighborhood Commercial District. So, that's been passed out to the Commission. HENKEL: Okay, thank you. And, after Zendo finishes, we'll maybe take five minutes to give the Commissioners a chance to review it. KERN: Thank you. Yes, so Zendo Kern here again. You know, appreciate the public testimony. This is part—this is part of the process. This is what makes this process, you know, democratic, and we're not always going to agree on everything. One thing was mentioned about the, the new changes how, you know, they're coming out today. If the Commission does feel the want to have, you know, me send those out to everybody again, I'm open to doing so. Just so that's out there. You know, I know one of the concerns is that, you know, there's going to be a Change of Zone here, and then what could happen there. And, that's kind of always one of the concerns with any Change of Zone. You know, the nature of the location is not going to be suitable for any high EXHIBIT D 9 traffic business and, you know, there's a condition in there that anything that would change up would be needing a TIAR, and chances of the, of that coming out clean at a high, you know, high—high use, high traffic development is not just going to happen. This place is suited for an office building in the commercial arena. If we could spot, you know, do a spot zoning, this would be great with a Use Permit on it, but we're not allowed to do that, so we're basically forced to, you know, go with the CN zoning. Everybody has their opinions and interpretations of the meetings and how we communicated, etc., etc., and I don't want to get into a back and forth, you know, so I'm going to leave it alone. We tried our best. We hear the concerns. And, I go back to the, you know, the basic criteria that --okay, this is a tricky one because you're forced to look at emotions and then the actual Code, Charter, you know what I mean, the facts. The facts are this meets criteria. The facts are this got a positive recommendation from the Planning Department. That's what we're moving for, moving towards. The emotions, we can go either way. We could start getting up here and pulling the emotional strings, too, and it's just where do we go with that? So, for me, as a prior decision maker, I always had to let the emotions go when I had to go with what made sense. Does it make a factual sense, and having spent the time here being a decision maker, that, you know, it's tough—it's a tough one. It's not the easiest thing to always do. And, the same thing on Council. When you're actually voting for this to prove, you know, a rezone. Does it meet the criteria? That was, that's always been my philosophy on things, so, you know, this one does. Open to the Commission on any questions, concerns. Take five. Look at the CN, you know, Neighborhood Commercial Districts if you want to. HENKEL: I have one question, Zendo. Is, there's no parking on Waianuenue at that location, right? KERN: There's no parking on Waianuenue or Kaumana Drive. And, to park anywhere else would be, wouldn't really make sense. You know, some places it would make sense for you to park on the street and run over to that spot, but the location of that, it really wouldn't. And, that's why, again, we've been trying to maximize the office space, too. Now, about a third of it will be taken up by my client. A real estate office. Most of the realtors do not go to the office. They work from home or they're on the street, hustling meeting clients, etc. So, while he may haveI mean, how many agents do you have? TORRISON: I have four in my office. KERN: So, four in the office. Those four aren't going to be there. They're going to come, and they're going to pick up their Commission check. Maybe do a little bit of work and take off In talking to my client, with his current office, he tells me that they're rarely ever there, which means you have a third of the building occupied by my client and minimal, minimal traffic for that. It would be, you know, it'd be the other tenant where they would be that, and with having the 11 parking stalls plus ADA, parking really shouldn't be too much of an issue. So, that's how we, you know, trying to address all the concerns and make it so, you know, traffic and parking. And, visual impacts. And, I feel that we have addressed all of those to the best of our ability, and the decision will be, the recommendation will be in your hands. EXHIBIT D 10 HENKEL: Anymore questions from the Commission? Thank you. KERN: Thank you. TORRISON: Thank you. HENKEL: I want to take time for us to bring public testimony session closed, please? I'm looking for a motion there. CLARKSON: I move that we close public testimony. IKEDA: Second. HENKEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. HENKEL: Opposed? Okay, and now I want to ask for another five-minute recess just to give the Commission a chance to look over the zoning requirements that were just handed out to us. Chair Henkel called a recess at 10:10 a. m., and the meeting was reconvened at 10:13 a. m. HENKEL: Commission, have you all had a chance to review the information? Let's continue. At this point, I would look for a motion to action. CLARKSON: I'd like to make a motion on this. HENKEL: Yes. CLARKSON: I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for Change of Zone Docket No. REZ 16-213 based on the following reasons. And, I do want to say I'm conflicted about this. I can see the case being made that this is not a wonderful residential lot, that some other use might be higher and better, but I think the burden is on the Applicant for a Change of Zone to show that not only does it meet the requirements for the Change of Zone, but that its impact on the neighborhood would not be adverse. And, I see a great deal of evidence that people are, in the neighborhood, are very unhappy. Another reason is it's a—it's a, not contiguous with any other commercial zoned property which is many of the cases we see here for rezoning. And, I do agree that even though it's not a perfect residential parcel, a residence could be built on it and sold and used enjoyably by someone. And, then the last thing I want to say about it is that a lot of mention has been made about the traffic on Kaumana and Waianuenue, and I think that the lots in the neighborhood of the subject parcel are affected by that. I don't think they can help but be affected by it, and I see a EXHIBIT D 11 commercial operation of any type that could be built on this property, if it were to be rezoned, would be to just add one more aggravation to the neighborhood that's already kind of in a less than quiet and peaceful situation as it is. Why add to their burden? So, those are my reasons, and I made the motion. HENKEL: Okay, there's been a motion for an unfavorable recommendation. Is there a second? IKEDA: I second. HENKEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Clarkson and seconded by Commissioner Ikeda. Discussion, please? MOSES: Yeah, I just want to add to what Commissioner Clarkson just shared. I think with the presentation that you, you gave, Zendo, and the effort that you and Mr. Torrison made with the members of the community to try to come together, appreciate that. But, in your own words, you stated that regardless of what it is that you intend to do with that they are in opposition, and so even though that you downsized the building and the structure and all of that, I believe that they are still feeling the same way. And, I agree with Commissioner Clarkson's reasons that although it meets every criteria to approve as the Planning Department has recommended, the Planning Director's recommendation, it does have a factor of bearing the impact it has on the neighborhood. It has in the past for me, and it continues to do so. So, like Commissioner Clarkson—yes, there is that. That is a conflict, and I will also vote in that way. Thank you. HENKEL: Any other comments or discussion from the Commission? I'd like to say that, you know, historically, I found that the Commission has, has been responsive to neighbors and neighborhoods. You know, but having said that, to me, the biggest problem with the project and the biggest concern seems to be traffic. And, yet, II agree with Zendo that just the nature of the building, the limited number of parking spaces and available and no parking on Waianuenue would, would just naturally eliminate, you know, a great deal of traffic for a business that required a lot of traffic. So, I would tend to support the project, but is there any more discussion? With that then, we'll do a roll call vote. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is an unfavorable recommendation based on the reasons stated on the record. With that, we'll take the roll call. Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Dela Cruz? EXHIBIT D 12 DELA CRUZ: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman. HENKEL: No. DARROW: The motion passes four to one. HENKEL: Thank you, and you'll be notified in writing of the IKEDA: You need to make another motion. HO: Oh yeah. IKEDA: You have to make another motion. CLARKSON. Okay. IKEDA: Hold on, yeah? HENKEL: I'm sorry? IKEDA: He has to make another motion. HENKEL: Okay, there's another motion required since that motion failed—or that motion passed, the unfavorable. CLARKSON: I move that the adoption of written findings and recommendations of the Commission be what? HO/IKEDA: Continued. CLARKSON: Continued to the next scheduled meeting to allow time for staff to prepare the findings and recommendations consistent with the Commission's decision today. IKEDA: Second. HENKEL: It's been moved and seconded to allow the staff to prepare for the next meeting which we will be voting again on it? Is that— IKEDA: I'm not sure, I think so. EXHIBIT D 13 HO: Just approve it. HENKEL: Okay, any discussion? Is this a roll call? All in favor, say aye? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. HENKEL: Opposed? Okay, thank you. That caught me by surprise. So, again, you will be notified in writing of our findings. The discussion ended at 10:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT D 14