2019-09-17 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

further clarified that the metal roof portion was also extending into the setback area and was covered by the variance. Chairman Roth referred everyone to Sheet A2-G.2, which indicated that the "steel framed awning"portion was "approved by Variance 12.17.2001." Ms. Bugado pointed out, however, that while the variance had approved that portion of the awning in that particular location, whether replacing the entire awning with a solid roof was allowed or not was a question. Asked by Commissioner Werchick, she confirmed that the variance had been granted as-built. Commissioner Werchick commented that it looked as though the original design had been a sidewalk cafe type of appearance, with only a half of the area covered by the awning, and that they were now proposing to roof and virtually internalize the whole outdoor area. Asked by Commissioner Ikeuchi, Ms. Bugado clarified that both metal and canvas portions were approved by Variance No. 1243. Commissioner Ikeuchi commented that her concern was that canvas awnings could easily be removed whereas a metal roof would be more permanent. Neither the applicant nor her representative was present. Chairman Roth opened discussion by saying that he had just driven by the restaurant to see the existing condition, which looked so horrible that if they had come in now for a variance, he would strongly encourage the Commission to disapprove. He also mentioned that the nearby Lava Java restaurant and a couple of others were using umbrellas in their storefronts, which in his opinion was more in keeping with the architecture because the building was intact,the temporary umbrellas let light in and the public could see into the building through them. He said that the subject property currently looked like a dark cave, and that the proposed roof was no better because it looked cheap and did not fit with the building architecturally. He further said that their argument about people upstairs dropping things on their patrons did not seem sincere because there was already a metal roof where things might drop, and that the restaurant seemed to be trying to firmly establish their encroachment onto the street. Commissioner Hetherington commented that he had been involved in this particular building in the past, and that at that time it had truly been a problem that people upstairs would drop things, such as cigarette butts, which no longer seemed to be a concern because they were different owners now. He further commented that he also found the place ugly, and that the only thing that could improve the proposed roof might be a bunch of skylights so that it would look lit underneath. Commissioner Ikeuchi agreed with Chairman Roth that the place looked like a cave, and that the reason provided in the application, stating that it would "prevent dangerous objects falling from upper seating deck,"was a lame justification. She said that while she was excited about the owner's desire to make a change, she was not excited about their proposal, which would also make the place hot with the metal roof and restricted airflow. Commissioner Werchick commented that the change seemed to be going in the wrong direction, and that he would be in favor of the open-air idea as opposed to creating a cave. He said that while the owner's current motivation might be to have something more permanent than a canvas awning because it would have to be replaced periodically, they could propose a front door and walls next and eventually take over the sidewalk. Chairman Roth pointed out that a sidewalk cafe typically did not own the sidewalk but brought out and put away its furniture daily. Commissioner Werchick agreed that it would be a license to use the sidewalk, which could be revoked. Commissioner Kern commented that the property did not contribute to the consistency of design in the area, and that it looked as though over the years pieces of materials had been slapped onto the outdoor dining area, which had been more open before. The consensus among the Commissioners was to deny the application. Chairman Roth suggested that the applicant be advised that the Commission would not consider anything permanent that would extend more than five feet from the building, and that the storefront 4