2019-07-09 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

package did not show responsiveness to that condition as he had hoped for. He further commented that he did not care about Safeway's national guidelines, as other national brands, such as Kentucky Fried Chicken and Honda, had in the past made way to recognize Kona as a special place. Commissioner Ikeuchi agreed, and said that even though the joists and equipment were mentioned, the Safeway national standards seemed to be their main concern, which she did not see much validity in accepting as justification since other projects had conformed. Commissioner Kern also said that she did not find the argument to be legitimate. Chairman Roth said that he had no issue with the dumpster enclosure and air station since it was a small area in the interior of the complex; however, he had concerns about how the corner by the convenience store was going to be landscaped, which was one of the most visible places of the entire project. He added that the landscape plan as originally shown to the Commission seemed no longer feasible. Commissioner Hetherington Commented that he might be agreeable to the height increase provided that it met Zoning Code requirements, that there were technical reasons, and that the roof pitch and appearance were kept; however, he found the combination of height increase and pitch alteration to be not approvable. Chairman Roth agreed, and said that the appearance of that corner was critical as opposed to the view from the interior parking lot, and that if the owner wished to preserve the proportion that the Commission had previously approved, there were ways to achieve it; for example, a rock veneer platform could be built to make the structure look like a short building sitting on a stone base, which could look very attractive. Commissioner Crusat, noting she was having a hard time visualizing the building with the additional height of 2 feet 5 inches, questioned if that would raise the location of the store sign as well. Chairman Roth said that it should not because the sign was to be mounted on the wall. He also said that it was difficult to visualize because the representation of renderings was as if the building sat on a flat site, which did not provide a sense of how the building was situated in relation to the sidewalk. He further commented that when he had driven by the site, it had appeared to him that there might have been a grade change of about 4 feet at the corner by the entryway intersection, but the grade change had increased to be 6 or 8 feet at the other end; therefore, with additional 2 feet 5 inches on the roof, the building would be towering over the sidewalk. Commissioner Ikeuchi brought back the issue of inconsistency between the original landscape plan and the present version, and asked if a motion could mention anything about it even though the particular portion of the landscape plan was not part of the current application. Ms. Bugado responded that the matter before the Commission was the fuel center and the convenience store, so comments for that particular area would be considered, and that since what was being presented appeared different than what the Commission had previously approved, the Commission could comment on that. Chairman Roth also said that if the Commission found this plan to be inconsistent with what it had approved, that should be mentioned. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Hetherington, Chairman Roth asked Ms. Bugado if deferring action would be a smoother way as opposed to recommending denial where the application would proceed to the next step in the process even with the negative recommendation. Ms. Bugado 5