2011-11-08 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

mentioned that he was upset with the neighbor because they never returned his phone calls, and that the tenants should be talking to their landlord to solve this issue. Commissioner Au Hoy clarified the Commissions position that the chain-link fence was not acceptable, and that the walkway should be kept unblocked. Mr. Anderson said that since he had written the Coconut Grove lease agreement, he was aware that there were a number of actions that the tenants could take with the landlord about the access issue. Commissioner Hetherington commented that while he respected the applicants property rights and economic hardship, he was not in favor of any fence. Commissioner Dunlap reiterated that better alternatives would be to add a railing onto the existing rock wall or add more lighting rather than constructing a temporary fence, if the applicants main objective was to protect himself from the liability of someone falling off the rock wall in the dark; and that if those were not options to him, there might be some other issues that the Commission was not made aware of. However, recognizing the applicants property rights, he moved to recommend that the Planning Director approve the request, with the following comments: 1) if a fence had to remain in the proposed location, the design should match the existing railing design; 2) the attempt be made by the applicant to reconcile an alternative solution, such as placing a railing on the existing wall; and 3) the fence would be a temporary measure for six months only. Commissioner Au Hoy seconded the motion. Commissioner Stanbro expressed her disagreement, saying that if the proposed fence were to be allowed to alter customer traffic flow of the Coconut Grove, it would be unfair to the tenants who had relied on the previously approved design, and that she did not see the applicants willingness to compromise. Commissioner Saito, questioning the Commissions authority over the permissibility of fence and location, suggested putting in a gate on the fence with a notice to users, so that the continuity of the walkway would be available. In response to Commissioner Dunlaps question regarding the Commissions power and responsibility, Mr. Childs clarified that the Commission was requested to comment on the design aspect, and that in the past the Commission had recommended to the Planning Director approval of projects with changes agreed by the applicants; but even if the applicant was not agreeable to changes suggested by the Commission, which in this case might be, the Commission could still recommend approval contingent upon those changes. With that, Commissioners Dunlap and Au Hoy withdrew their motion and second, respectively. Commissioner Hetherington then moved, and Commissioner Stanbro seconded, that the Commission recommend to the Planning Director denial of the proposed project. Mr. Anderson expressed his concern that if the proposal were to be plainly denied, there would be no guidelines as to what would then be acceptable to the Commission. Commissioner Herbert pointed out that the Commissions suggestions were made clear to the applicant during the discussion, and that the Commissions responsibility was to protect the character of the Kailua Village, and from that standpoint there were more than the liability and security issues that the Commission had to consider. He further said that even if the Commission did not have the power to deny the proposal to build a fence, their recommendation would be that the fence would have to match the existing design of the facility surrounding it. The Commissioners unanimously agreed that the proposed chain-link fence was unacceptable in this location. Commissioner Stanbro suggested an amendment to the motion to include wording that the walkway traffic flow should not be disrupted, even if a fence were to be permitted, so that their concern would be clearly conveyed to the Planning Director. Mr. Mark advised the Commission to give their reason for denial to the Planning Director for her consideration, and summarized the Commissions concerns that the proposed chain-link design was inappropriate, that the design should match the existing design on the property, and that the previously approved pedestrian traffic flow should not be interrupted. He also said that the Commission could suggest that the applicant be invited to submit a revised plan. Commissioner Hetherington, however, stated that he would not amend his motion to include any specific recommendations for the reason that any fence would be unacceptable to him since there seemed to be better alternatives that could serve the 5