Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-07 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII MINUTES Meeting Date: May 7, 2019 Time: 5:15 p.m. Place: West Hawaii Civic Center Planning Department Conference Room—Building E, 2nd Floor 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 96740 CALL TO ORDER Commissioners Present: Shaun Roth, Bryant Ching, Jasmine Crusat, John Hetherington, Michaela Ikeuchi, Riley Smith, Zon Sullenberger, Arne Werchick and Ann Kern (from 5:33 p.m.) Planning Department: Deanne Bugado (Planner) and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) Department of Public Works: Neal Tanaka(Acting Deputy Chief, Building Division) Applicants/Representatives: Linda Schatz (New Business Item No. 2) Public: Council Member Susan "Sue" Lee Loy 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, and April 23, 2019 Chairman Roth asked if there were any corrections to the minutes of the meeting of April 9, 2019. No corrections were offered, and the minutes were approved as circulated. The Commission postponed approval of the April 23, 2019, meeting minutes at the request of the secretary. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS None. NEW BUSINESS 1. The applicant, Terry Wigzell, President of the Kailua-Kona Restaurant Inc. is proposing exterior renovations to the Pancho & Lefty's Cantina Restaurant to install a new Exhaust Duct to the rear of the restaurant facing Sarona Road. The proposal does not include any changes to the existing building area, configuration, exterior building colors or landscaping. 1 Landowner: G & I Watumull Limited Partnership TMK: (3) 7-5-007:023 Location: 75-5725 Alii Drive, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Ms. Bugado gave a PowerPoint presentation, and described the project. She said that the subject restaurant was moving its location across Sarona Road, that a new exhaust duct would be installed on the rear of the building facing Sarona Road, and that no other changes to the exterior of the building or landscaping was proposed. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Smith, Ms. Bugado said that although no color sample was provided, the plan indicated that the color of the duct would match the building. Chairman Roth asked how the applicant would address noise from the exhaust fan. Ms. Bugado responded that the application did not include any information about noise concerns, and that noise was not a matter controlled by the Planning Department, nor was it considered in the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona. Commissioner Sullenberger noted that the business would have to comply with the County noise ordinance. Commissioner Smith also noted that noise was regulated by the state Department of Health. Ms. Bugado mentioned that the project would require a building permit, for which an application had been submitted earlier in Hilo and got held off pending this Commission review, and that the Department of Health, along with the Fire Department, was part of the permit review process. Neither the applicant nor his representative was present. Commissioner Hetherington asked if there was a reason for installing the duct on the outside of the building rather than the interior. Ms. Bugado responded that based on the floor plan there appeared to be limited space in the kitchen area. Commissioner Hetherington commented that he was fine with the proposal as long as the duct was painted to blend with the wall and would in effect disappear. It was moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Sullenberger 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, Sullenberger, Ching, Crusat, Hetherington, Ikeuchi and Werchick), no noes, and one absent and excused (Kern). 2. The applicant, Linda Schatz, is proposing a revision to Niumalu MarketPlace, which was previously reviewed by the KVDC at its November 21, 2017, March 6, 2018 and March 5, 2019, meetings. This submission is proposing the installation of 3 gas tank locations and the screening landscaping for each. Landowner: Kona Owner, LLC TMK: (3) 7-5-004:007 Location: No Street Address Assigned Yet, parcel located the corner of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Henry Street. Ms. Bugado gave a PowerPoint presentation. She said that the applicant was proposing a revision to the plan that had previously been approved by the Commission, and that the revision was to 2 install propane gas tanks in three locations, together with landscape screens. She showed the applicant's plans for each location and described the proposal. She added that it would be confirmed during the Plan Approval amendment process that no changes were being made to the traffic pattern in the affected areas, and that everything else was true to the existing Plan Approval. Commissioner Smith asked if these provisions should have been included in the original submittal. Ms. Bugado suggested that the question be directed to the applicant; she said, however, that it seemed that as the project progressed, matters requiring review by the Commission were turning up, resulting in a piecemeal application method. In response to Commissioner Smith's further questions, she said that only for substantial changes, was the Commission review required, and that the determination of whether or not a certain change was substantial enough for review was made in consultation with the Chairperson unless it was unquestionable. Commissioner Smith commented that the installation of three propane gas tanks seemed too insignificant to hold up the progress of the project. Ms. Bugado responded that since no indication of even the possibility of installing gas tanks had been presented during the initial review, staff determined that it was a new addition to the approved plan and therefore required review by the Commission. She said further that when a Plan Approval was needed, that was also a trigger for the review requirement. Commissioner Crusat commented that she did not recall naupaka being in the original submittal, and asked if the proposal was to use the previously approved plants. Ms. Bugado responded that naupaka had been in the original plan, and that the current proposal included relocating some of the naupaka from the original locations to the tank sites for screening. [At this time, 5:33 p.m., Commissioner Kern arrived and took her seat.] Commissioner Smith pointed out that the plans did not show any safety bollards, and asked whether or not they would be depicted on the actual building plans. He also questioned the functionality of the parking layout as shown on Sheet L-3. Ms. Bugado responded that those details would be scrutinized during the Plan Approval process. The applicant, Linda Schatz, introduced herself as the owner's representative. In addressing Commissioner Smith's earlier question, she apologized for the piecemeal approach, and explained that they had not realized that the gas tanks would require design review by the Commission. She stated that in selecting suitable locations, they had had to take into consideration that the tanks could properly be screened from public view, that the sites could provide good access for the gas company to reach the tanks, that requirements for distance from buildings and other features could be met, and that the ground had to be level; in their opinion the proposed locations were most favorable. She also confirmed that safety bollards were required around the tanks, and that they would be inside the naupaka screen as well. She said that for the L-1 site where motorists might see the top of the tank due to the elevation drop from the roadway, they were proposing to relocate three kala trees there to cover the top. She also said that they had selected naupaka for its fast growth and drought tolerance. She mentioned that they had made sure that the parking count was not reduced by this change. Commissioner Hetherington commented that he was fine with the proposal except that he was concerned about using naupaka, as the plant might have to spread wide to grow high enough to screen the tanks. Commissioner Ikeuchi asked why the naupaka was not shown to be planted all around the tank for the L-2 site like the other two locations. Ms. Schatz responded that the L-2 site was a loading area, which was not visible due to the elevation drop and landscaping plants, 3 and that since no one would be able to see the area, one side was left open for maintenance ease. In response to Commissioner Smith's questions, Ms. Schatz stated that the screening hedges would be on the outside of the bollards, and that although the plans before the Commission did not show the bollards, they were shown on the building permit drawings, which the developer had already shared with the Fire Department for its preliminary review. Asked by Commissioner Smith, Ms. Bugado confirmed that this was the last time that the Commission would review this particular proposal. Also in response to Commissioner Smith's questions, Ms. Schatz stated that dumpster enclosures had already been addressed, and that she anticipated to come back to the Commission with an outdoor furniture plan for the subject development. Commissioner Hetherington repeated his concern about the choice of plant, and recommended considering other options that would grow straight up, such as hibiscus. Commissioners Crusat and Sullenberger expressed their agreement. Commissioner Sullenberger also suggested that a motion include a recommendation that the safety bollards be provided in accordance with applicable requirements. Commissioner Smith added that a motion should also state that the bollards be screened. Chairman Roth commented that there appeared to be enough room for naupaka at the L-1 site, and that the Commission could suggest other plants, such as ti or hibiscus, for a thinner hedge and approve those as alternates for the other two sites. Commissioner Sullenberger pointed out that the screening hedge might actually obstruct the line of sight and create a hazardous parking condition at the L-2 site, and that he would approve less planting for that location. Ms. Bugado commented that during the Plan Approval process the applicant would be required to provide plans or documentation that the proposed landscape would be safe for traffic circulation. Asked by Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Sullenberger clarified his position that he would be more flexible about the screening requirement at the L-2 and L-3 locations. Commissioner Hetherington commented that he would not be in favor of having no screening, and that he would still like to see some foliage. Commissioner Smith said that he had driven the area along Henry Street the day before and seen that particular section being in a hole below the bank that was 25 to 30 feet high, and that one of the reasons why the applicant was not proposing a lot of landscaping in that area was apparently because it would be down in a hole, with buildings on three sides. Commissioner Hetherington said that he would agree to allow less landscaping for the L-2 site, but that in his opinion the Commission should recommend some landscaping for the L-3 site, as the area was designated as public parking. Commissioner Hetherington made the following motion addressing each gas tank location separately as shown on the plans: • Location L-1: That the Commission recommend approval as presented; • Location L-2: That the Commission recommend approval as presented, but if desired by the applicant, only the screening of the tank be allowed to be eliminated but not the additional landscaping proposed for the area; • Location L-3: That the Commission recommend approval as presented, with a recommendation to consider ti or hibiscus for the visual buffer landscaping instead of the proposed naupaka; and, • For all locations: That the safety bollards be enclosed by the landscaping. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. There being no discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with eight ayes (Hetherington, Smith, Ching, Crusat, Ikeuchi, Kern, Sullenberger and Werchick) and no noes. 4 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS None. ANNOUNCEMENTS Next meeting tentatively scheduled for May 21,2019. Ms. Bugado announced that the Commission would meet on May 21, 2019, as scheduled. Commissioner Hetherington informed the Commission that Planet Fitness had taken down its unpermitted signs. Commissioner Smith, followed by the other Commissioners, thanked Mr. Neal Tanaka for issuing an electrical citation to Planet Fitness, encouraging its immediate response, and also for participating in the Commission meetings. Ms. Bugado mentioned that Planet Fitness was working with the Department of Public Works on an application for a compliant sign, which would be submitted to the Commission for review. Chairman Roth questioned if the Commission was responsible for reviewing outdoor furniture. Ms. Bugado responded that outdoor furniture was subject to the Commission review, if it was to be permanently placed. In response to Commissioner Smith's follow-up question, Ms. Bugado clarified that even if the furniture was movable, if it was considered a permanent feature of the business operation, it had to be reviewed by the Commission; for example, the Commission had reviewed the outdoor furniture for the Huggo's On The Rocks restaurant, even though it was put up and taken down daily. Commissioner Smith said that that guideline should be clear to the applicant [referring to Niumalu MarketPlace]. Ms. Bugado said that it had been communicated to them earlier, that in fact the applicant had mentioned her intent to come back later with a furniture plan during her prior presentation, and that the developer had to proceed quickly in order to get the anchor tenant to open for business as soon as possible, thus the piecemeal applications for the project. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Roth adjourned the meeting at 6:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary ATTEST: Shaun Roth, Chairman Kailua Village Design Commission 5