2012-09-25 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

support that the proposed project would develop a local capability of film production, attract production businesses from afar, and promote economic development of the island. The Vice Chair asked whether or not the facility would be open to the public. Mr. Cunningham mentioned that he represented the Film Institute that educates filmmakers and also bridges the industry and communities. He then stated in response that according to their bylaws training for the students would have to be integrated into everything that happens at the facility, and that the facility could offer a quality of service adequate for Hollywood-level production, but only if the bylaws are abided by. Commissioner Stanbro spoke highly of movies produced by Mr. Cunningham, and commented that she had not been in favor of the building as proposed, but because of Mr. Cunningham’s credibility, she was now inclined to support the application. Mr. Cunningham said that they needed a facility to train young people for the filmmaking industry, and that he was thankful for the advice Mr. Childs had given them, which helped them address design concerns that the Commission might have. The Vice Chair recognized the applicant’s responsiveness, saying that the revised design looked much better than the original one. Commissioner Au Hoy opined, however, that while the purpose of the project was excellent, the architectural design was not acceptable to her. She expressed her concern particularly over the visibility from the core area of the Kailua Village, as well as from the cruise ships in Kailua Bay, and suggested that the applicant somehow improve the façade with the idea of lōkahi in accord with the intended name for the building, “Lōkahi Studios.” Mr. Jeff Dobbins, the project manager, requested specific recommendations from the Commission, saying that they were willing to make changes accordingly. Some suggestions were made in the course of the discussion, including textured stucco surface, bands, cornice, eyebrow roof modification, and landscaping. Mr. Cunningham mentioned that the project was funded by donations and therefore had budget constraints. He was of the opinion that upon the installation of additional landscaping, as well as a screen for an adjacent property owned by Kamehameha Investment Corporation, the visibility of the building would be limited. Commissioner Broderson observed, based on what he had seen by driving by the property, that the existing cafeteria building would still be more prominent from the makai direction. Mr. Childs displayed some photographs showing the site from motorists’ point of view, commenting that the applicant thus far had done a fine job with landscaping. He also pointed out that rather than the lava rock wainscot at the base of the building, something else could be used that would be more cost-effective. Following Commissioner Herbert’s remark that the eyebrow roof as proposed was not proportional to the building, discussion continued as to the desirable revisions to the architectural design, as well as the use of landscaping to conceal adverse visual impacts. It was moved by Commissioner Herbert, and seconded by Commissioner Broderson, to recommend approval of the proposed building, with a recommendation that the applicant give further consideration to the exterior appearance. Commissioner Stanbro expressed her desire to specify their recommendations. Mr. Childs also advised the Commission that their recommendations should be detailed enough to provide the Planning staff with clear guidance during their review process. Following further discussion, Commissioner Herbert amended his motion to state that the Commission recommend the Planning Director’s approval of the applicant’s modified design, as submitted at this meeting, subject to the following additional modifications being incorporated into the proposed facility design: 3