2019-07-09 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

depicted the building. Ms. Schatz answered that that should be the area Safeway was leasing from the owner. She mentioned that although the PA did not cover this area, the plans should still have defined the lease limit lines in relation to the sidewalk. Chairman Roth made reference to Sheet 2, Site Plan, pointed to the dashed line noted "PROPOSED RETAINING WALL BY OTHERS," and asked how that would reconcile with the approved landscape plan. Ms. Schatz responded that the area would still be landscaped with a tree, low-line brush and mid-line hedges. Ms. Bugado commented that it seemed that the public would be seeing more of the building than what was depicted on the master signage plan drawings, which the applicant had provided as reference. Commissioner Hetherington asked whether the revised roof design where the flat portion appeared to be much larger was their final decision or not. Mr. Yamashiro responded that as he understood, it was the final decision because it was necessary to accommodate the under-roof structures. Commissioner Hetherington commented that he would understand there had to be extra space, if there was too much equipment, but that according to what was presented, it seemed to him that either roof design would work fine. Chairman Roth asked if the previous designer, Architects Hawaii, had communicated with the current architect the things the Commission had discussed with them. Ms. Schatz responded that there had been multiple meetings, and that the architect had been provided with all the previous Commission materials and conditions that had to be met. Mr. Conte explained that it seemed that Architects Hawaii had not had all the information at the time of their initial rendering;part of the reason why the height was raised was to make the roof structure with a lot of joists and mansard roof all around work properly, as well as to accommodate Safeway's specific furnishings underneath the joists. He further explained that there would also be condensing units and other equipment on the roof, which they wanted to make sure to screen from public view. Ms. Schatz was able to display on her iPad a close-up image of the landscape plan for the area questioned by Chairman Roth earlier, and agreed that there appeared to be some inconsistency. Chairman Roth repeated his question as to whether or not the edge of the gray area was the wall of the building. Ms. Schatz said that it was not necessarily the wall but was identified as the limit line of the tenant lease. In response to Chairman Roth's further inquiry for clarification, she said that the edge could be the wall but not the roof overhang. Chairman Roth pointed out that in that case the roof overhang would be halfway into the tree. Asked by Ms. Schatz, Mr. Conte stated that there were about 3-to 6- or 8-foot buffers between the building walls and the lease limit line; there was a retaining wall proposed along the facade fronting Henry Street, and the building would be located at least 6 feet from the retaining wall, with roof overhang around the entire building at 3 feet. There being no further questions for the applicant, Chairman Roth opened the floor for discussion with his comment that the previous design had had a little more of a residential scale, although paring the residential scale and the 10-foot plate was already a contradiction; therefore, he would question if it would make sense to allow a 2-plus feet height increase for this particular location. He also recalled that the pitch of the roofs had been one of the issues discussed during the first review because the plan at that time had shown an odd mix of different pitches, and that the initial approval had been on condition that all the pitched roofs would look like that of Building 1, which had probably been a 4/12 or 5/12 slope. He expressed his disappointment that the supplemental 4