My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-06-07 KVDC Minutes
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Kailua Village Design Commission
>
Minutes
>
2006-2024
>
2016
>
2016-06-07 KVDC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/23/2016 11:33:42 AM
Creation date
6/23/2016 11:33:41 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
encouraged by the KCDP, and said that the proposed project contained various elements of Smart <br />Growth, such as shade trees, compact mixed uses and walkability. In response to Commissioner <br />Andreae’s question about alternate access for pedestrians, Mr. Davis said that they were working <br />with the landowner Queen Lili‘uokalani Trust whose idea was to possibly provide a pathway from <br />the corner of Pawai Place to Kuakini Highway, mentioning, however, that a 1969 subdivision <br />requirement that there be no pedestrian access to Kuakini Highway was still in effect. He also <br />mentioned that there was currently a ramp between their property and the adjacent ‘Ilima Court <br />property. <br /> <br />Mr. Van Pernis pointed out the cross-hatch pattern on the end of cul-de-sac \[Pawai Place\], as well <br />as the entrance areas of the parking lot, and asked if the applicant was committed to the pattern if <br />not the different colors of the pavement. Mr. Riehm clarified that the Pawai Place improvements <br />were not part of this application, and said that the applicant was committed to this plan so long as <br />the budget allowed, and that it was possible that the cross-hatch might be replaced with another <br />design, which they would be happy to resubmit to the Commission for its approval. Commissioner <br />Roth commented that this was a fantastic project regardless of the color or the design of the <br /> <br />pavement, and that the Commission should notmake an issue out of those features. Commissioner <br />Sullenberger noted also that the Commission should focus on the application that was currently <br />before the Commission, which was for the renovation of the existing buildings and revisions to the <br />parking lot and landscaping. Mr. Riehm stated that they would come back to the Commission with <br />changes to this application, if any, and also with plans for the other lots. He explained that the <br />reason why they showed more than just the subject lot on their drawings here was so that the <br />Commission could see the applicant’s vision for the entire Brew project. Commissioner Broderson, <br /> <br />who is a landscaping professional, endorsed the proposed landscape plan. <br /> <br />It was moved by Commissioner Broderson and seconded by Commissioner Roth that the <br />Commission recommend the Planning Director’s approval of the proposed project as submitted. <br />During discussion on the motion Commissioner Andreae encouraged the applicant to plant shady <br />street trees. Mr. Riehm reiterated that the County right-of-way \[Pawai Place\] improvements shown <br />on the plan were only conceptual and not part of this application, and that they would be happy to <br />present their proposal to the Commission when they made their selection of street trees. He <br />explained that they preferred street trees to other types of landscaping in order to take full advantage <br />of the sidewalk width, create a mercantile look as opposed to a residential look, and minimize the <br />need for water and maintenance. He then asked whether they would have to resubmit the entire <br />street design to the Commission as a separate application, even if the current conceptual plan did <br />not change, or they would be able to present their tree selection only. He said that their street <br />improvement plan included certain elements that were not consistent with the County street <br />standards, such as extra wide sidewalk with trees, but that they had already discussed the matter <br />with Mr. Kiran Emler of the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, and received his <br />okay. He added that their vision for the wide sidewalk was also to accommodate golf carts that <br />would transport patrons, and that they still had to work out the idea with the Police Department. <br />Commissioner Roth expressed his support for the wide pedestrian-friendly sidewalk, and suggested <br />that the Commission should expedite the process by also approving the right-of-way design, if <br />possible, to help this project move forward. In response to Chair Dahlberg’s question about the <br />Commission’s duties and procedure, Mr. Mark said that while the Commission usually reviewed <br />projects requiring Plan Approval and made recommendations to the Planning Director, the powers <br />3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.