Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-07-09 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII MINUTES Meeting Date: July 9, 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, Ann Kern and Zon Sullenberger Absent and Excused: Riley Smith and Arne Werchick Planning Department: Deanne Bugado (Planner) and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) Applicants/Representatives: Linda Schatz, Toby Yamashiro, Jason Knable, and Matt Conte (via telephone) Public: Stefan Buchta and Reiko Buchta A quorum was present. Chairman Roth called the meeting to order and the Commissioners introduced themselves. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Meeting of June 18, 2019 The Commission postponed approval of the minutes at staff's request. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS None. NEW BUSINESS 1. 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, March 5, 2019 and May 7, 2019 meetings. This submission is proposing changes to the Safeway Fuel Center and the Fuel Center Convenience Store. Landowner: Kona Owner, LLC TMK: (3) 7-5-004:007 1 Location: No Street Address Assigned Yet, parcel located the corner of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Henry Street The applicant distributed additional materials to the Commissioners and staff, which included presentation narrative, a revised set of design review submittal prepared by Cuhaci &Peterson Architects, Engineers, Planners, Inc., a landscape detail plan prepared by Monaghan Landscape Architects LLC, roof plan drawings by Dale Ulmer Architect, and a brochure for XactAir air machine [EXHIBIT A]. Ms. Bugado presented the applicant's proposal. She highlighted the modification to the convenience store building where the originally planned windows on the northeast and southwest elevations were removed; consequently, except for the storefront facing the fueling pumps, all the other three sides, including the rear facade along Henry Street, would be blank walls with no windows. She noted that the Plan Approval("PA") for the overall development had so far covered certain components in the large areas but never covered this particular section, and that PA would require the area around the trash dumpster enclosure and air station to be landscaped. She also noted that the color scheme of the building was changed so that it would be more in line with the rest of the complex. Commissioner Hetherington pointed out that there were a couple of un-matching representations of the color scheme within the application package, and asked which showed the true colors. Ms. Bugado pointed to one of the plan sheets that specified four Sherwin Williams paint colors, and said that those were the colors being proposed, and that the other images in the June 17, 2019, submittal were from the master signage plan. She said that she would defer to the applicant's clarification. Commissioner Hetherington also asked for details of the proposed height increase. Ms. Bugado responded that not only the height but also the design of the roof was slightly changed. She described the changes on a drawing, and said that the applicant could provide better explanation. In response to Chairman Roth's question about the landscaping plan, Ms. Bugado said that what the applicant had distributed at the start of the meeting was the only update, which covered the small area around the dumpster enclosure and air station. Chairman Roth called upon the applicant. Ms. Schatz introduced herself as the representative of the owner, Kona Owner, LLC. She stated that the proposed design changes were due to the tenant Safeway's need for practical adjustments. In addressing Commissioner Hetherington's earlier question about the color scheme, she stated that the colors might look different because of the quality of color copies, but that the intent was to follow what the Commission had previously approved and stay consistent from building to building. Mr. Toby Yamashiro introduced himself and Mr. Jason Knable, both from Carlsmith Ball LLP, as well as Mr. Matt Conte from Cuhaci &Peterson Architects, Engineers, Planners, Inc., on telephone line. Mr. Yamashiro went over the additional materials and discussed details, including the following points: 2 • Sheets 1 and 3 of the revised design review submittal showed the dumpster enclosure and the air station, which were inadvertently not shown on the May 28, 2019, submittal. Sheets L-2 and L-3 were supplemental details to the landscape plan, covering that particular area. • Exhibit 1 [i.e. copies of renderings from the master signage plan] to the June 17, 2019, submittal was only meant to depict the landscaping in response to some questions from the Planning Department regarding screening requirements; therefore, the images of the buildings, including the colors, were not up to date. • A portion of Sheet L-2 on Page 2 of the narrative showed the configuration of the dumpster enclosure and air station, as well as the proposed landscape for screening. Page 3 showed the elevations and colors of the dumpster enclosure. The brochure for the XactAir air machine provided information about the machine in detail; the model to be installed would not have the "XactAir" sign on top or the vacuum feature. • Pages 4 and 5 of the narrative showed the elevations of the fuel center and convenience store structures, without color scheme, as originally approved. Pages 6 and 7 showed the elevations of the current proposal, with the color scheme consistent with what had previously been approved. The color scheme was also designed to create faux openings on the rear and side walls in compliance with the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona guidelines regarding articulation of facade. The frames of the faux openings would project about two inches to also create texture. • The originally designed four windows on the front facade were combined into one large window with a glass door in the center to match the Safeway national standards, which would be more appealing as well. • The convenience store floor plan on Page 8 of the narrative showed how the originally designed windows conflicted with the store layout; there would be restrooms along the north wall and coolers along the south wall, making windows on those walls unfeasible. • Pages 9 and 10 of the narrative showed the original and revised elevations side by side for comparison. The facade facing Henry Street was more or less unchanged. Chairman Roth asked if the comparison drawings on Page 9 and 10 were shown at the same scale, as the "Revised" appeared to be wider than the "Original." Mr. Yamashiro responded that though not exactly, they were approximately at the same scale. Mr. Conte confirmed that the building would be higher but not larger. Mr. Yamashiro clarified that the height increase was for the convenience store building only, and that the height of the fuel center canopy would remain the same. He also stated that the modifications to the roofs were made to meet the Safeway design standards and to accommodate under-roof equipment; the original design would expose some of the equipment whereas the revised pitch and height would hide the entire equipment from public view. He added that the actual increase was 2 feet 5 inches. Chairman Roth asked for clarification on the location of the convenience store. He said that the original plan had appeared to have more room for landscaping between the building and the sidewalk, but that the area looked tighter in the current drawings. He added that that was why he had asked earlier if the building increased in size. Ms. Schatz said that the building size remained the same, and that she would have to confirm with the landscaper as to the exact distance between the building and the sidewalk. Asked by Ms. Bugado, she also said that she was not sure whether or not the building was relocated. Chairman Roth further asked if the gray area on Sheet L-2 3 depicted the building. Ms. Schatz answered that that should be the area Safeway was leasing from the owner. She mentioned that although the PA did not cover this area, the plans should still have defined the lease limit lines in relation to the sidewalk. Chairman Roth made reference to Sheet 2, Site Plan, pointed to the dashed line noted "PROPOSED RETAINING WALL BY OTHERS," and asked how that would reconcile with the approved landscape plan. Ms. Schatz responded that the area would still be landscaped with a tree, low-line brush and mid-line hedges. Ms. Bugado commented that it seemed that the public would be seeing more of the building than what was depicted on the master signage plan drawings, which the applicant had provided as reference. Commissioner Hetherington asked whether the revised roof design where the flat portion appeared to be much larger was their final decision or not. Mr. Yamashiro responded that as he understood, it was the final decision because it was necessary to accommodate the under-roof structures. Commissioner Hetherington commented that he would understand there had to be extra space, if there was too much equipment, but that according to what was presented, it seemed to him that either roof design would work fine. Chairman Roth asked if the previous designer, Architects Hawaii, had communicated with the current architect the things the Commission had discussed with them. Ms. Schatz responded that there had been multiple meetings, and that the architect had been provided with all the previous Commission materials and conditions that had to be met. Mr. Conte explained that it seemed that Architects Hawaii had not had all the information at the time of their initial rendering;part of the reason why the height was raised was to make the roof structure with a lot of joists and mansard roof all around work properly, as well as to accommodate Safeway's specific furnishings underneath the joists. He further explained that there would also be condensing units and other equipment on the roof, which they wanted to make sure to screen from public view. Ms. Schatz was able to display on her iPad a close-up image of the landscape plan for the area questioned by Chairman Roth earlier, and agreed that there appeared to be some inconsistency. Chairman Roth repeated his question as to whether or not the edge of the gray area was the wall of the building. Ms. Schatz said that it was not necessarily the wall but was identified as the limit line of the tenant lease. In response to Chairman Roth's further inquiry for clarification, she said that the edge could be the wall but not the roof overhang. Chairman Roth pointed out that in that case the roof overhang would be halfway into the tree. Asked by Ms. Schatz, Mr. Conte stated that there were about 3-to 6- or 8-foot buffers between the building walls and the lease limit line; there was a retaining wall proposed along the facade fronting Henry Street, and the building would be located at least 6 feet from the retaining wall, with roof overhang around the entire building at 3 feet. There being no further questions for the applicant, Chairman Roth opened the floor for discussion with his comment that the previous design had had a little more of a residential scale, although paring the residential scale and the 10-foot plate was already a contradiction; therefore, he would question if it would make sense to allow a 2-plus feet height increase for this particular location. He also recalled that the pitch of the roofs had been one of the issues discussed during the first review because the plan at that time had shown an odd mix of different pitches, and that the initial approval had been on condition that all the pitched roofs would look like that of Building 1, which had probably been a 4/12 or 5/12 slope. He expressed his disappointment that the supplemental 4 package did not show responsiveness to that condition as he had hoped for. He further commented that he did not care about Safeway's national guidelines, as other national brands, such as Kentucky Fried Chicken and Honda, had in the past made way to recognize Kona as a special place. Commissioner Ikeuchi agreed, and said that even though the joists and equipment were mentioned, the Safeway national standards seemed to be their main concern, which she did not see much validity in accepting as justification since other projects had conformed. Commissioner Kern also said that she did not find the argument to be legitimate. Chairman Roth said that he had no issue with the dumpster enclosure and air station since it was a small area in the interior of the complex; however, he had concerns about how the corner by the convenience store was going to be landscaped, which was one of the most visible places of the entire project. He added that the landscape plan as originally shown to the Commission seemed no longer feasible. Commissioner Hetherington Commented that he might be agreeable to the height increase provided that it met Zoning Code requirements, that there were technical reasons, and that the roof pitch and appearance were kept; however, he found the combination of height increase and pitch alteration to be not approvable. Chairman Roth agreed, and said that the appearance of that corner was critical as opposed to the view from the interior parking lot, and that if the owner wished to preserve the proportion that the Commission had previously approved, there were ways to achieve it; for example, a rock veneer platform could be built to make the structure look like a short building sitting on a stone base, which could look very attractive. Commissioner Crusat, noting she was having a hard time visualizing the building with the additional height of 2 feet 5 inches, questioned if that would raise the location of the store sign as well. Chairman Roth said that it should not because the sign was to be mounted on the wall. He also said that it was difficult to visualize because the representation of renderings was as if the building sat on a flat site, which did not provide a sense of how the building was situated in relation to the sidewalk. He further commented that when he had driven by the site, it had appeared to him that there might have been a grade change of about 4 feet at the corner by the entryway intersection, but the grade change had increased to be 6 or 8 feet at the other end; therefore, with additional 2 feet 5 inches on the roof, the building would be towering over the sidewalk. Commissioner Ikeuchi brought back the issue of inconsistency between the original landscape plan and the present version, and asked if a motion could mention anything about it even though the particular portion of the landscape plan was not part of the current application. Ms. Bugado responded that the matter before the Commission was the fuel center and the convenience store, so comments for that particular area would be considered, and that since what was being presented appeared different than what the Commission had previously approved, the Commission could comment on that. Chairman Roth also said that if the Commission found this plan to be inconsistent with what it had approved, that should be mentioned. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Hetherington, Chairman Roth asked Ms. Bugado if deferring action would be a smoother way as opposed to recommending denial where the application would proceed to the next step in the process even with the negative recommendation. Ms. Bugado 5 clarified in response that unlike sign permit applications, which could advance through the permitting process in the Department of Public Works even with a negative recommendation from the Commission, design review requests stayed with the Planning Department where the applicant would be required to address Commission's concerns unless staff was told otherwise by the Planning Director. She agreed that a deferral would be a smoother process for the applicant and also for the Commission. Commissioner Sullenberger commented that the additional height to the peak of the mansard roof was not an issue to him, but that the issue seemed to be the raising of the roof fascia, or the eave. He said that lowering the roof fascia could bring back the appearance closer to the approved roofline, although that would decrease the area for the rooftop equipment and could also affect the roof access. He agreed Chairman Roth's earlier comment that keeping in the spirit of the roof pitch that the Commission had approved was important, particularly on the convenience store building, which was an entryway building. Chairman Roth recalled that the first overall approval had been a result of a lot of discussion about allowing a huge area of flat roof in exchange for nice slope roofs on buildings that were visible from the entryways. He opined that it would not be unreasonable to ask the applicant to stick to the tradeoff. Commissioner Hetherington reiterated that the original roofline seemed to provide enough space for the equipment. Commissioner Hetherington then moved to defer action and Commissioner Kern seconded the motion. Commissioner Sullenberger asked if the Commission should add conditions to the deferral. Chairman Roth noted that the owner's representatives had heard the entire discussion. He asked them if they had questions about the potential deferral. Mr. Knable responded that the discussion had been very helpful, and that they would appreciate the deferral. He said that Mr. Conte had also been listening to the discussion and they would consider the comments and present another plan for Commission's review. Commissioner Kern requested that there be one set of plans, and remarked that it had been very confusing having to look at multiple sets. Chairman Roth said that it would also be helpful to see an updated street corner view with the elevations in context. There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with six ayes (Hetherington, Kern, Ching, Crusat, Ikeuchi and Sullenberger), no noes, and two absent and excused (Smith and Werchick). ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS None. ANNOUNCEMENTS Next meeting tentatively scheduled for July 23, 2019. Ms. Bugado announced that there were tentatively two applications on the meeting agenda for July 23, 2019. 6 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Roth adjourned the meeting at 6:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary ATTEST: Shaun Roth, Chairman Kailua Village Design Commission 7