Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-23 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I MINUTES Meeting Date: April 23, 2019 Time: 5:15 p.m. Place: West Hawai‘i Civic Center nd Planning Department Conference Room – Building E, 2 Floor 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, 96740 CALL TO ORDER Commissioners Present: Shaun Roth, Bryant Ching, Jasmine Crusat, John Hetherington, Michaela Ikeuchi, Riley Smith, Zon Sullenberger and Ann Kern (from 5:30 p.m.) Planning Department: Deanne Bugado (Planner), Rosalind Newlon (Planner), Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) and Bennett Mark (Planning Program Manager, from 5:47 p.m.) Department of Public Works: Neal Tanaka Applicants/Representatives: Scott Dodd and Eric von Platen Luder (New Business Item No. 1); Richard Burrow (New Business Item Nos. 2 and 3); and, Lance C. Sundquist (New Business Item No. 4) Public: Kealohapau‘ole Manakū A quorum was present. Chairman Roth called the meeting to order and the Commissioners introduced themselves. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Meetings of April 9, 2019 The Commission postponed approval of the minutes at the request of the secretary. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS None. NEW BUSINESS 1. The applicant, Scott Dodd with Luana Hospitality Group, is proposing exterior renovations to the former Bubba Gump Restaurant to include replacement of windows and doors which face the ocean, replacement of guardrails a the retail entry and install two new exit doors. The proposal does not include any changes to the existing building area, configuration, exterior building colors or landscaping. 1 Landowner: Watumull Properties Corp TMK: (3) 7-5-008:009 Location: 75-5776 Ali‘i Drive, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Ms. Bugado gave a PowerPoint presentation, and described the project. She said that, according to the applicant, no changes would be made to the existing building area and configuration, landscaping, or outdoor seating numbers, and that all existing building colors would remain the same. She clarified that the exterior doors described as “new” on the plans were actually replacements of existing doors. She said that signage was not included in the application, and that the applicant was reminded that their signage plan would have to be reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner Smith asked whether the proposed roll-up screens as shown on Sheet A4.1 would be installed in front of existing windows or replacing the windows, and whether or not the screen material was see-through. Ms. Bugado asked that the applicant provide the information. Commissioner Smith also asked to clarify the Commission’s responsibility for projects that were not visible from public right-of-ways. Ms. Bugado responded that the Commission’s responsibility was to review any exterior work that was visible not only from public roads but also from any public places, such as the ocean, which was the case of this renovation work in question. Mr. Eric von Platen Luder, representing the applicant, addressed Commissioner Smith’s earlier questions about the roll-up screens, and said that they would replace the windows, and that they were made of see-through mesh fabric. He also said that according to the manufacturer, the fabric was supposed to make rain water run down once it hit the screen and not go through the screen, and that the applicant’s plan was to keep the screens up during the day. Asked by Commissioner Hetherington, he clarified that the manufacturer’s brochure included in the application was showing the screen product half-way down in a cream color, though the photograph was not a good example for their proposal. Also in response to Commissioner Hetherington’s inquiry, he said that there was security at night. Chairman Roth asked about the color of the railing. The applicant, Scott Dodd, replied that it would match the existing color, and Mr. von Platen Luder said which would be blue. It was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Ikeuchi that the Commission recommend approval of the project as presented. There being no discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with six ayes (Hetherington, Ikeuchi, Ching, Crusat, Smith and Sullenberger), no noes, and one absent and excused (Kern). 2. The applicant, Teresa Jones, is proposing exterior color changes and installation of new entry bollards at the Walmart in Kona. The proposal includes changing the exterior colors to gray tones and adding new entry bollards for safety. Landowner: Walmart Stores Inc. TMK: (3) 7-5-004:043 Location: 75-1015 Henry Street, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Ms. Newlon gave a PowerPoint presentation, and described the proposed exterior improvements. She presented color samples, and explained the proposed color scheme. \[At this time, 5:30 p.m., 2 Commissioner Kern arrived and took her seat.\] Ms. Newlon also described the location of the proposed eleven bollards, with which she said there would be 22 bollards in total. Commissioner Smith pointed out that the color palette and the elevation that were shown during the presentation had not been provided to the Commissioners as part of the materials for review. Ms. Newlon responded that those particular materials had been submitted for staff presentation purposes, and that since Sheet A140, Exterior Elevations, showed the proposed colors with color legend, the application packet for the Commissioners was considered sufficient. She showed how the color coding in the drawing corresponded to the color legend on Sheet A140. Commissioner Smith said that the application needed to be clear on what was being proposed so that, if it were to be approved, the Commissioners were sure of what they were approving. Ms. Bugado said that the Commission’s recommendation could specify details, for example, the brand of paint and color name/number, because during the Plan Approval process Planning Department staff would work with the applicant to make sure that the recommendation was reflected on all of the plans. Chairman Roth called upon the applicant. Mr. Richard Burrow introduced himself as an architect representing the applicant. He had no additional information to present, and offered to answer questions. Asked by Commissioner Ikeuchi, he confirmed that the majority of the building would be in the lighter tone of the two grays proposed. Chairman Roth opened the floor for discussion, and said that in his opinion the existing colors had the feel of Southwest rather than Hawai‘i, and, therefore, he would not mind seeing a change. He further said that considering the large size of the building, it would be better to not have lots of colors. Commissioner Hetherington agreed, and said that he was also fine with the proposed neutral colors. Chairman Roth added that it would not be colorless because of the existing green shingles that were to remain. It was moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Ching that the Commission recommend approval of the project as submitted. There being no discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with seven ayes (Smith, Ching, Crusat, Hetherington, Ikeuchi, Kern and Sullenberger) and no noes. 3. The applicant, Teresa Jones, is proposing four (4) signs for the Walmart in Kona that include; 1) a new ground sign that is a non-illuminated polycarbonate mounted sign replacing an existing sign on an existing rock wall; 2) two (2) illuminated, with LED lamps, wall signs constructed of aluminum/polycarbonate replacing existing wall signs, and 3) a third wall sign for the “Pickup” area constructed of white plastic letters with a logo constructed of “gusto gold” colored plastic letters. Landowner: Walmart Stores Inc. TMK: (3) (3) 7-5-004:043 Location: 75-1015 Henry Street, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Ms. Newlon gave a PowerPoint presentation, including color samples, and described the proposed signs. She talked about the past sign applications for the subject property, as well as the recommendations of the Commission at that time, which had resulted in a variance to allow two “Walmart” wall signs to not exceed 150 square feet in size; the current application was proposing to replace those signs. She noted that since the distribution of the application to the Commission, 3 the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) had determined that a sign variance would be required for the other two proposed signs for the following exceptions: The ground sign for the letter/logo height and sign size; the “Pickup” wall sign for the letter/logo height, sign size, number of wall signs and possibly sign elevation. She said that since the current application before the Commission did not include a variance request, the Commission’s recommendation to DPW at this time would be on the design of the proposed signs. Inquired by Chairman Roth, Mr. Neal Tanaka stated that DPW would request that the Commission assess not only the design but also variance for the ground sign and the “Pickup” sign, and that he would defer to the applicant as to what variance was being requested. Ms. Bugado clarified that, according to the request of DPW as stated by Mr. Tanaka, the Commission would be making a recommendation on the applicant’s future variance application based on the configuration being presented in the current application. She also confirmed that generally one ground sign per parcel of land and one wall sign for each street frontage per business were allowed, and that when one business took down its permitted sign and another business was going to put up its sign at the same location, a new sign permit would be required. Commissioner Smith pointed out that based on the method of sign area calculation as set forth in the Sign Code, which had been confirmed by Mr. Tanaka at the previous Commission meeting, the calculation of the sign sizes shown on Sheet A145 seemed incorrect; the total area for each sign was determined by adding the size of rectangle around the word “Walmart” or “Pickup” and the size of square around the logo, instead of drawing one rectangular shape enclosing both the word and the logo. Chairman Roth noted that if the collect calculation method was applied, the size of the “Walmart” wall sign would measure 199 square feet as opposed to 147 square feet, which meant that the existing wall signs might be exceeding the variance allowance. Mr. Tanaka said that DPW did not have a copy of the plans that had been submitted to the County Council for the existing variance, and that he was unable to verify the suspected discrepancy. Commissioner Smith asked whether or not it would be considered a different sign when the color was changed of a sign that had an approved variance from years before. Ms. Bugado responded that if the resolution granting the variance allowed that flexibility, it would not be considered a different sign; however, if the resolution was very rigid and did not provide such flexibility, the new colors would have to be submitted to the Commission for review. Commissioner Smith requested that when staff was to present the applicant’s sign variance application at a future meeting, the presentation be made in such a way that it would be clear to the Commissioners on all the things that were being requested. He said that when additional requests or new information kept coming up verbally during presentation, it tended to become confusing as to what the Commission was supposed to consider. Ms. Bugado responded that staff would work with DPW to get detail of any sign variance applications in the future. Chairman Roth called upon the applicant. Mr. Richard Burrow stated that he was representing Walmart and he was from BRR Architecture, Inc., the architect for the project. He stated that the two “Walmart” wall signs and the ground sign were like-for-like replacements of the existing ones, with no change to the size or the color, and that the only addition was the “Pickup” sign that would be mounted on the front wall of the building. Inquired by Ms. Bugado, he said that his understanding was that the existing McDonald’s logo sign would be moved over to the middle of the building in order to make space for the “Pickup” sign. In response to Commissioner Ikeuchi’s 4 question, he stated that the “Pickup” sign and the “Walmart” wall signs would be illuminated but not the ground sign. Commissioner Sullenberger pointed out that there was conflicting information on Sheet A145 where the signage schedule indicated the ground sign to be illuminated while the detail drawing No. 7 specified it as a “non-illuminated sign.” Asked by Chairman Roth, Mr. Burrow stated that he had no knowledge as to why the existing ground sign did not have a permit, or as to whether the McDonald’s logo sign had a permit or not. In response to Commissioner Smith’s question, Ms. Bugado said that despite the fact that Walmart and McDonald’s used the same door, McDonald’s was entitled to one wall sign for itself as a separate business entity; however, McDonald’s still had to come before the Commission for a sign permit and possibly for variance for the logo size and sign elevation. She further confirmed that the same was true for any other individual businesses in the building. Commissioner Hetherington commented that the wall sign facing Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway seemed to be seen only from the ocean and not give good exposure to the highway traffic due to the angle and elevation of the building. Commissioner Sullenberger said that the sign actually had good visibility to the southbound traffic on Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway, which he found useful for wayfinding. Chairman Roth said that since the two wall signs had previously been approved for variance, the Commission was almost obliged to approve the like-for-like replacements as long as they met the variance allowance; however, if the correct calculation proved that they exceeded the allowance, the Commission should make a recommendation that the sign size be reduced. Commissioner Crusat asked if there was a way to rescind a prior variance. She said that with more businesses coming in, the Commission should take that into consideration to be fair and consistent. Mr. Tanaka responded that he did not recall such a case, but that he was aware of a condition within variances that stated that the variance would become null and void, if that particular business were to cease. He said that he would guess that rescission would also have to be adopted by the County Council through resolution. Commissioner Hetherington spoke of the Planet Fitness case across the street where the variance granted to the previous tenant, Borders Books and Music, had become nullified when the business had closed. Chairman Roth said that which meant to the “Walmart” ground sign was that even if the variance had been approved for the previous “Crossroads” sign, it was not valid for Walmart. Mr. Tanaka commented that the confusion of whether or not the ground sign would be illuminated had to be clarified prior to any action by the Commission. He said that there was also confusion as to why no variance application was included. He suggested that the signs that would require variance be considered at a later date while the “Walmart” wall signs be taken up for a decision at this time. Chairman Roth responded that the best action might be a deferral with detailed recommendations for all four signs. Mr. Tanaka also suggested that the relocation of the McDonald’s logo sign be clarified. Commissioner Hetherington agreed, and said that the Commission needed to know the new location. Chairman Roth asked for Commissioners’ thoughts on the ground sign. Commissioner Ching said that he had no objection to the current sign, which in his opinion just needed a permit, and that he would still like to defer decision and have the applicant present a complete application. Commissioner Smith mentioned CU Hawai‘i Federal Credit Union who was trying to meet the 22-square foot wall sign allowance according to the Commission’s recommendation despite the 100-foot setback from the highway, and said that the “Walmart” wall sign was potentially 5 147 square feet at about 400 to 500 feet away from the roadway. He opined that it was a matter of perspective rather than the correlation between the setback distance and the sign size, and that considering the huge size of the wall, he would be fine with everything as submitted so long as the information was accurate. Commissioner Sullenberger commented that the “Pickup” sign, if installed at the current location of the McDonald’s logo sign, would not be seen from off-property. Commissioner Smith spoke of the past discussion on the Niumalu MarketPlace signage master plan where it had been said that all tenant signs, regardless of visibility from a public right-of-way, had to comply; he asked staff to confirm whether or not visibility from a public road was a criteria. Ms. Bugado responded that the standard section of the Sign Code required a sign permit if the sign was visible from a public roadway; however, the Kailua Village Special District (“KVSD”) section of the Code stated that any sign within the KVSD was required to get a sign permit, with no provision about visibility. She said that, therefore, to err on the side of caution, the Niumalu master plan covered all tenant signs in the entire complex. She added that the Code also stated that enforcement would defer to the more stringent requirements, such as those for the KVSD. Commissioner Kern commented that in her opinion it did not matter whether or not the “Pickup” sign was visible from the roadway, that the sign appeared comparable to the other signs, and that the matter of visibility should not be made a condition of any decision. Inquired by Commissioner Crusat, Mr. Burrow stated that the “Pickup” sign was for online grocery order where customers could stay in their cars and their order would be delivered to them. Commissioner Hetherington commented that considering the last meeting where other variance requests had been either deferred or denied, the Commission should particularly be careful about the potential to set a precedent. Chairman Roth said that he appreciated the fact that the applicant was going through the process to get everything in order; however, neither the excuse that they had not been aware that a permit had been required, nor the fact that the ground sign was still unpermitted was acceptable. He reiterated that the Commission needed a complete package of all the requests that was clear and well organized. It was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Crusat that the Commission defer action. Chairman Roth asked for Commissioners’ suggestions for specific recommendations on each sign. Commissioner Hetherington expressed his concern about providing detailed recommendations with a deferral action, and questioned if the Commissioners were in agreement on each of the signs. Chairman Roth said that the purpose was to clarify the Commission’s positions so that the applicant could come back with a revised application that would be approvable. Chairman Roth said that he would be fine with indirect lighting on the ground sign, but would oppose to internal illumination. Commissioner Ikeuchi responded that in her opinion illumination was unnecessary for the ground sign. She proposed an amendment to the motion to include the following recommendations: The square footage of the two wall signs be clarified and they match the existing variance; the new location of the McDonald’s logo sign be clarified; and the ground sign be not illuminated and clarification on the size be provided. Commissioner Hetherington withdrew his motion, and suggested that Commissioner Ikeuchi make a new motion. 6 It was moved by Commissioner Ikeuchi and seconded by Commissioner Crusat that the Commission defer action, with the following recommendations:  For the two wall signs, the size and dimensions be clarified, and how they match the existing sign variance allowances be identified;  For the McDonald’s logo sign, the dimensions and the new location be identified;  For the “Pickup” sign, the size and dimensions be clarified; and,  The ground sign be not illuminated, and the size and dimensions be clarified. Commissioner Sullenberger pointed out that there had been inconsistency in the method for calculating sign areas, and that if calculated correctly, the existing wall signs would measure 199 square feet as opposed to 147 square feet as previously determined. He said that he wanted to bring to the Commissioners’ attention that the Commission would be recommending that the proposed wall signs, which were essentially identical to the existing ones, be reduced in size based on the calculation method that was different from the previous time when the existing signs had been considered. He questioned whether that was the intent of the Commission or the intent was to allow the existing signs to be replaced with new ones so long as they were exactly the same. Chairman Roth responded that the Commission had to follow the rules. Commissioner Hetherington also responded that the motion clearly stated that the square footage had to match the variance, and for that purpose the calculation had to be done in accordance with the method confirmed by DPW. Upon inquiry by Chairman Roth, Mr. Burrow stated that his understanding was that the proposal was to replace only the faces of the existing signs, and that if the size were to be reduced, the existing signs could not be utilized and new signs would have to be made. Mr. Tanaka suggested that DPW do its due diligence to determine what the existing variance allowed and provide cross-reference material to the Commission. Requested by Chairman Roth, Mr. Tanaka confirmed that DPW would work with the applicant to make sure that this matter was clear when a revised application was submitted to the Commission. Mr. Burrow also confirmed that the applicant was fine with the motion as stated. Commissioner Ching said that he would not mind allowing the signs to be lit, if it was done in a classy way. Commissioner Hetherington said that his objection would be to having all four signs illuminated. Chairman Roth commented that he would like it if Kona had a small district where businesses could do more with lights, but not for the general area. Commissioner Ikeuchi spoke of the Waikoloa Beach Resort as an example, and said that some of the signs there were not lit internally but had attractive light pointing at them that created softer glow, which looked classy for certain locations. Commissioner Sullenberger agreed, and said that he would be fine with indirect lighting, but would object to self-luminous lighting. Commissioner Smith said that he supported Commissioner Ching’s point of view, and that in his opinion, as long as the place stayed open for business at night, illuminated signs, direct-lit or not, should be allowed, which would be helpful particularly to tourists. Commissioner Ikeuchi said that she would not object to indirect illumination, and amended the last condition of her motion to state:  For the ground sign, the size and the dimensions, as well as whether it would be non-illuminated or indirectly illuminated, be clarified. 7 Commissioner Crusat maintained her second. Commissioner Smith advised the applicant to be mindful of the light ordinance; for example, a shield would be required for the indirect light to shine downward. There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with seven ayes (Ikeuchi, Crusat, Ching, Hetherington, Kern, Smith and Sullenberger) and no noes. 4. The applicant, Lance C. Sundquist, has submitted a revision for the double family residence located on Lamaokaola Street, which was previously reviewed and approved by the Kailua Village Design Commission on October 23, 2018. The revision has been submitted to address design issues identified during the building permit process with regard to the flood zone which crosses the property. Landowner: Enhua Chen and Huizhu Lin TMK: (3) 7-5-022:096 Location: 75-5753 Lamaokaola Street, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Ms. Newlon gave a PowerPoint presentation, and circulated color chips of the proposed paint. She said that because of flood zone issues that had been identified during the Plan Approval process, the applicant had had to modify the plan; it was necessary to convert the ground level to parking, which would reduce the living area of each unit from 2,000 square feet to 1,000 square feet over one level on the second floor. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Ikeuchi, she confirmed that there were no other modifications being proposed. In response to Commissioner Sullenberger’s question, Ms. Newlon confirmed that the proposed paint colors were the ones that had previously been approved by the Commission. Asked by Commissioner Smith, Ms. Newlon clarified that the approved colors were Benjamin Moore HC-57 for the exterior walls and Sherwin-Williams 6350 for the trim. Commissioner Hetherington asked whether the proposed landscaping plan would be functional, considering the fact that the property was in a flood zone. Ms. Newlon responded that that would be analyzed along with a site drainage plan during the Plan Approval process. Chairman Roth called upon the applicant. Mr. Lance Sundquist stated that he was not sure how the landscaping was supposed to function in the 100-year flood zone at this moment, but that the matter would be addressed. In response to Chairman Roth’s questions, he stated that the columns were proposed to be raw concrete but could be painted. Commissioner Hetherington commented that it would not be too much to ask for the columns to be painted in one of the approved colors. Chairman Roth said that he would not mind bare concrete, if that was the applicant’s preference, as it could better withstand accidental contacts by vehicles. He also mentioned that he wished that the project could offer two more units, or more bedrooms, because of the need for housing in this area of Kona. Ms. Newlon noted that the zoning would only allow two units on the property. Upon inquiry by Mr. Tanaka, Ms. Newlon said that parking was required, two spaces per unit, on the double-dwelling zoning. Chairman Roth mentioned that the previous plan had provided the parking out in front, and that this plan would make parking easier. Commissioners Hetherington 8 and Sullenberger also commented that the new parking arrangement was better and nicer for the residents. It was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Kern that the Commission recommend approval of the project as shown. Commissioner Hetherington said that he was in favor of the landscaping plan as presented, but that he would acknowledge that it might have to be changed according to the applicant’s drainage plan. Chairman Roth also commented that he was glad to see more plants shown on the plan because having the parking with columns underneath the units would make landscaping in the front more important. There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with seven ayes (Hetherington, Kern, Ching, Crusat, Ikeuchi, Smith and Sullenberger) and no noes. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS None. ANNOUNCEMENTS For the Commissioners’ information Ms. Bugado distributed copies of a letter dated April 22, 2019, from Mr. Mark Van Pernis to the Planning Director, with copies to the Mayor, Council Members, Director of DPW and Corporation Counsel. The letter talked about Planet Fitness’s continued violations of the Sign Code and the Commission’s April 9, 2019, meeting where the Commission unanimously voted against its sign variance application. Mr. Tanaka informed the Commission that Planet Fitness had notified DPW that they would be taking down their signs, and that they had started turning off the lights at night. He added that that was in response to a notice of DPW’s intent to issue a notice of violation and order, with daily fines, as well as in response to the Commission’s authority. Next meeting tentatively scheduled for May 7, 2019. Ms. Bugado announced that the Commission would meet on May 7, 2019, as scheduled, and that there was already an application to be agendized for the following meeting of May 21, 2019. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Roth adjourned the meeting at 6:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary A T T E S T: Shaun Roth, Chairman Kailua Village Design Commission 9