2019-04-09 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

Commissioner Hetherington asked whether the plans being presented today were the same as the plans that the Commission had considered years ago. Ms. Newlon referred the Commission to a recommendation letter dated November 23, 2015, from the Commission to DPW regarding the action taken at its November 17, 2015, meeting. She recited the recommendations listed in the letter. Chairman Roth called upon the applicant’s representative. Mr. Fritz Harris-Glade introduced himself as an architect representing the owner of the subject property and business. He gave the history of the variance application process that the owner had been going through since 2014. He also went over in detail each of the Commission’s recommendations in the November 23, 2015, letter and the revisions he had subsequently made to the plans according to those recommendations. He concluded by saying that, with those recommended revisions having been made, he considered the current application to be the version approved by the Commission. Chairman Roth recalled that he had been unable to attend the particular meeting in 2015, but had submitted a letter of strong opposition to the original plans. He said that the current design appeared to be much toned down, and that the applicant seemed to be trying to work with the Commission to meet the requirements. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Hetherington, Ms. Newlon and Ms. Bugado clarified that there were two matters before the Commission under this agenda item; the Commission was requested to confirm whether or not the recommended changes had been made and the variance application before the Council was compliant with the Commission’s recommendation, and, secondly, to confirm whether or not the proposed resolution complied with the requested variances. Chairman Roth, noting that Commissioner Hetherington had been present at the November 2015 meeting, asked for his feedback on whether or not the current application reflected the Commission’s recommendations. Commissioner Hetherington responded that to the best of his knowledge and recollection, the application did comply with the Commission’s recommendation. \[At this time Commissioner Ikeuchi asked to be excused for a moment, and left the room.\] Mr. Tanaka commented that the request from the Council was for accurate information because the site plan that had been transmitted to the Council did not match the request of the applicant. He reiterated his request that if the Commission approved a variance application with conditions, the applicant be asked to come back with a finalized application so that DPW could take that information to create a resolution and transmit to the Council. He further said that in this case Council Member Lee Loy had given the opportunity to the Commission to revisit the application to confirm its compliance with the Commission’s recommendation, and that based on Commissioner Hetherington’s earlier confirmation, DPW would be fine with transmitting it to the Council. Commissioner Sullenberger mentioned that he had also been in attendance at the meeting, and said that in his opinion the application as presented today met the Commission’s intent and recommendation. He also said that he had reviewed the draft resolution, and that it seemed to correspond to the information in the drawings. He opined that the set of drawings presented today was a good representation of the Commission’s comments at that time, and that he would 11