2014-07-22 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

that it would virtually be out of sight of the public due to the irregular shape of the parcel, and the surrounding structures and foliage. He noted in conclusion that the proposed architecture was consistent with the historical theme of the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona (“Master Plan”). The applicants, Harry and Sandy McDonald, provided additional information, and stated that they had designed their proposed home in a traditional style similar to the historic Moku‘aikaua Church, particularly with the use of lava stones and coral plaster on the exterior walls. Commissioner Hetherington moved and Commissioner Broderson seconded that the Commission recommend the Planning Director’s approval of the proposed project as submitted. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion carried with six ayes (Hetherington, Broderson, Akina, Au Hoy, Burns and Kitchens) and two absent and excused (Andreae and Stanbro). 2. Design review of proposed railing and roof modifications to the recently completed Habanero’s Restaurant. Applicant: Armando Altamirano. Landowner: Los Habaneros, Inc. TMK: 7-5-009:034. Address: 75-5864 Walua Road. Located at the intersection of Walua Road and Ali‘i Drive, across from the Royal Kona Resort. Mr. Childs said that the Certificate of Occupancy process had revealed two areas of concern; instead of the originally proposed steel cable, stained cedar was used for the railing, and air conditioning ductwork was visibly mounted on the first-floor rooftop, which had not been shown on the original plan. He clarified the application’s request for approval of the existing cedar railing as built and the proposed railing extension for the purpose of screening the air conditioning ductwork. The applicant, Armando Altamirano, explained that the railing modification was owing to budget constraints, and that regarding the rooftop air conditioning ductwork, he had not realized that his architect had failed to show it on the original plans. He said that he would be willing to paint the railing to match the roof color, if recommended. He also mentioned that he wished to mitigate the sight of the air conditioning equipment by extending the railing because there was leftover lumber he could utilize. The Commissioners agreed that the air conditioning ductwork had to be screened even though it was situated considerably higher than Ali‘i Drive, and that in addition to the proposed railing, something should be done to further mitigate the reflective surface of the ductwork. The Commissioners’ suggestions included direct painting, shade cloth behind the railing, covering the ductwork with dark-colored insulation material, and placing a solid visual barrier between the railing and the mechanical equipment. Mr. Altamirano responded that despite the Commissioners’ doubt about energy efficiency, his preference would be direct painting for the time being because of budget constraints. The Commissioners agreed to allow the applicant to have the flexibility to modify the method in the future without the Commission’s review. Commissioner Hetherington moved, and Commissioner Burns seconded, to recommend the Planning Director’s approval of the existing railing as built and the proposed extension of the railing, which acts as a partial visual barrier for the air conditioning ductwork, with a recommendation that the ductwork be further disguised by either direct painting or a physical screen. After a brief discussion on the motion, Commissioner Hetherington moved to amend his motion to include that the color of the paint or physical screen be the same or similar to that of the exterior walls. The motion to amend 2