2012-12-18 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

type of signage. Mr. Uyemura responded that it was in the $10,000 range, excluding the general cost for any signs, such as the cost of installation, and added that it was generally high-end customers who would ask for this type of signage. It was moved by Commissioner Burns, and seconded by Commissioner Broderson, to recommend to the Public Works Director approval for the sign permit application as submitted. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with five ayes (Burns, Broderson, Andreae, Au Hoy and Herbert) and two absent and excused (Kitchens and Stanbro). 2.Design Review of proposed building renovations for an automobile sales facility. Applicant: Aloha Auto Group, Ltd.. Landowner: Lanihau Properties LLC. Property Tax Map Key No.: 7-5-004:027. Location: 75-5645 Kuakini Highway, Kailua-Kona, at the east (mauka-Ka‘ū) corner of Kuakini Hwy. and Palani Road (former Shell service station). Copies of a comment letter from Chair Kitchens, who was unable to attend this meeting, were distributed to all the Commissioners in attendance and the applicant’s representative, Russell Wong. At the Vice Chair’s request, Mr. Mark read it aloud to the group. In summary, the letter stated that while Chair Kitchens recognizes that the revised landscape plan is a significant improvement, he believes that some planting immediately adjacent to the building is necessary to mitigate the appearance of a vast white monument. It also indicated his disapproval of the revised architectural plan as submitted, stating that he is disappointed to see the only direction the applicant gave to their draftsman appears to be a roof material change, that despite all their acknowledgements about bringing in historical elements at the last meeting, they have merely proposed a color “midnight blue equal to historical color,” which just by having the word “historical” does not accomplish compliance with the guidelines for Kailua Village, and that even though the existing condition of the property is undesirable, approving this as presented for the sake of seeing an improvement diminishes the value the Commission stands for and ultimately sets a bad precedent. Mr. Childs gave a presentation on the revised renovation plans; the original application had been reviewed by the Commission and consequently withdrawn by the applicant on November 7. He noted that no information was provided regarding exterior lighting or the location of air-conditioning equipment. With respect to the Kailua Village Master Plan architectural guidelines, he said that the low-pitch, gable-end roofline was in compliance, that the addition of eyebrow awning would provide design relief to the long wall, which would meet the objectives of the guidelines, and that the proposed landscaping would be a substantial improvement to the existing condition. In addressing Chair Kitchens’ comments in his letter, Mr. Wong said that they had since had to scale down their renovation project because KIA had made a decision not to sign a contract with them; however, the applicant still wished to improve the property appearance mainly by upgrading the landscape. He added that the renovations would have to make economic sense to them. In response to the Commissioners’ questions, he said that he was not sure of the ownership or the status of an existing fence on property, that there would be no air-conditioning unit on the roof, and that no outdoor lighting was planned except that the building interior lights would illuminate the frontage. He also represented that they would be agreeable to taking down an existing white post along Palani Road, which appeared to be remnants of a sign. 2