2014-10-07 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

roofing, glass and metal siding on the most visible building face, and windowless walls and concrete retaining walls on the other three sides, was not consistent with the design guidelines of the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona. The applicant’s representative, Michael Riehm, provided additional information, which included the following:  There is a Hawai‘i Electric Light Company (HELCO) easement with two pieces of electrical equipment between the proposed outdoor dining area and Henry Street. HELCO restricts landscaping around the easement area.  There is a pocket of ocean view from the outdoor dining area, which the applicant would like to keep unobstructed.  Due to the topography of the site, only the roof would be visible to motorists traveling down Henry Street, which is designed to conceal rooftop mechanical equipment.  The roof is also designed to accommodate potential photovoltaic panels in the future.  As Ali‘i Drive has a diversity of architecture, the applicant believes that a clean modern appearance of the proposed building would be acceptable in this part of the Kailua Village.  The applicant is researching storefronts in old towns, such as Hilo and Honoka‘a. For instance the metal canopy trusses can be designed to add a traditional feel to the modern architecture. The commissioners expressed their disapproval of the windowless walls, concrete retaining walls, reflective surface of the storefront, roof design, inadequate landscaping and lack of traditional Kailua-Kona character in general. Commissioner Stanbro, who was absent, had also sent in her unfavorable comment earlier by email, which was distributed to those in attendance. Mr. Riehm emphasized that this proposal was submitted to solicit suggestions from the commissioners, and that the applicant was willing to make design changes, including the color scheme and landscaping, according to the Commission’s recommendations. Mr. Childs clarified that the applicant had not applied for Plan Approval for this proposal; therefore, the Commission did not have to approve, deny or defer this particular application. He suggested, however, that the Commission make specific design recommendations for the applicant’s consideration, as the applicant would be revising the design for Plan Approval. He added that the Commission would have an opportunity to review the revised design prior to the Plan Approval process. Commissioner Hetherington moved, and Commissioner Au Hoy seconded, to recommend to the applicant that the following design changes to the proposed building and related improvements be considered prior to resubmitting the project design for the Commission review in conjunction with an application to the Planning Department for Plan Approval: 1.Use rock walls, or rock veneer facades, instead of poured-in-place concrete building walls, privacy walls and retaining walls; 2.Add design features to the north (Henry Street) and south (driveway) sides of the building, such as windows, to provide more articulation in the building form visible from those sides; 3.Provide a landscaping strip fronting the east (mauka) side of the building, in lieu of a sidewalk if necessary, to screen the privacy wall proposed along that boundary, and to provide a lava-rock type of facing on such wall if possible; 4.Provide as much landscaping around the building mass as possible, even if such exceeds the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code and the Planning Department Rule for landscaping; 2