2011-09-13 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

Resort-Hotel zoning designation had a 20-foot building setback from the Ali‘i Drive property line, the Kona Community Development Plan envisioned this area as the urban core with zero building line setbacks to encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic. From the standpoint of the Master Plan guidelines, he said that the unpermitted enclosing walls, which were only partially visible from Ali‘i Drive, were painted the same color to match the rest of the buildings’ exterior walls, and that the proposed roof extension was consistent with a pedestrian-oriented redevelopment plan for the Kailua Village and would replace the existing mixture of umbrellas and makeshift awnings. He added, however, that entrance and signage features were not addressed in this proposal and could be important elements in the final appearance of this project. Commissioner Hetherington at this time disclosed that he had worked on the subject complex for about a year, and that although he was no longer involved, his knowledge of the project history might affect his decision. Mr. Mark suggested that Commissioner Hetherington recuse himself from the discussion and vote, and just provide testimony as a public member, if he wished to share his knowledge with the Commission. Commissioner Hetherington agreed and the Chair accepted his recusal. The Chair asked whether the unpermitted walls met safety requirements, particularly the fire code. Mr. Mark said that the Fire Department was one of the agencies that had reviewed the original PUD application and would have an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. In response to Commissioner Herbert’s inquiry about whether there were any permit violations, Mr. Mark said that there had been a number of notices of violations issued by the Planning Department; however, the Planning Director was requesting at this time input from the Commission concerning the project’s compliance with the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona prior to her decision on the PUD amendment. Mr. Peter Piper, the applicant, and Mr. Greg Ogin of Clark Realty, the property management company for the subject commercial complex, were in attendance. Mr. Piper gave additional background information. He assured the Commission that any code requirements including the fire code would be addressed later in the PUD permit amendment process. He emphasized that the proposed roof extension would be in keeping with the guidelines for the Kailua Village; it would match the architecture and color theme of the existing building, clean up the current hodgepodge of sunshades, provide comfort to and protect the diners from rain as well as rubbish falling from the second-floor deck, and create a sidewalk café which was pedestrian-oriented. The Chair recommended that the proposed column design be modified to match the existing columns of the upper floor. Mr. Piper responded that although it was a steel structure, fake wood could be used to achieve the similar look. Commissioner Dunlap suggested that skylights on the proposed roof extension be considered, as it would otherwise make the inside dining area dark. He also said that he was excited about this opportunity to clean up the signage and improve the appearance of the potentially attractive building. In response to his question as to whether all existing signs would be re-installed after construction, Mr. Piper said that the property manager wanted to bring the signage to compliance, and that he would be happy to help his client with that aspect as well. He commented that he found the Sign Code and the approval process to be convoluted. Mr. Ogin said that they would support the signage cleanup and have no problem with inclusion of a condition in the Commission’s approval, requiring them to come back with a signage plan. 2