HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-04 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAI'I
(MINUTES)
Meeting Date: August 4, 2020
Time: 5:15 pm
Place: Live Stream Meeting (Online)
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioners Present: Shaun Roth, Arne Werchick, John Hetherington, Jasmine Crusat,
Michaela Ikeuchi, Riley Smith, Zon Sullenberger, Ann Kern and
Ching excused.
Planning Department: Rosalind Newlon (Planner), Deanne Bugado (Planner), Terri
Napeahi (Planner), Bennett Mark(Program Manager)
Applicants/Representatives:
A quorum was present. Chairman Roth called the meeting to order. Chairman Roth stated that
based on the Mayor's proclamation regarding COVID-19, these meetings will be on line until
further notice. This is to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and to also maintain social distancing.
Normally commissioners introduce themselves, however since the meeting was online Chairman
Roth read the names as they appeared from a list of those present on the Cisco Webex monitor.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the meetings July 7, 2020 & July 21,2020
Chairman Roth—Minutes of July 7, 2020 were distributed and the Planning Department has
requested that we defer and postpone the meeting minutes for July 21, 2020. Chairman Roth
asked if there were any corrections to the minutes for July 7, 2020. No corrections offered, and
the minutes were approved as circulated.
STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman Roth asked if there were any Public Testimony to be presented and Rosalind Newlon
(Staff) answered none. No statements from the Public.
NEW BUSINESS
1. The applicants, Aleksandr and Tanya Agarkov, are proposing to convert an
existing two-story single-family dwelling into a two-unit duplex with four bedrooms
each. The two-unit duplex convert the storage rooms and workshops on the first
floor to the additional bedrooms. The building permits issued for the single-family
dwelling included 2 storage rooms, 2 workshops, exterior stairs to upper level, 4
bathrooms, dining room, kitchen, living room and family room with a bar sink. The
dwelling was also tied into the public sewer line in 2019.
1
Landowner: Aleksandr and Tanya Agarkov
TMK: (3) 7-5-022:090
Location: 75-198 Alakai Street, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
Ms. Newlon (Staff) commenced her Power point presentation for Applicant Aleksander
and Tanya Agarkov, who proposes to convert a Single-Family Dwelling that's existing to
a Duplex with building permits since 2019. Convert the bottom floor to the extra
bedrooms that were the permitted workshops and storage rooms for personal use. They
will be converting the bar sink upstairs into a full kitchen, to create two small bedroom
units. Slides were used to help orient commissioners as to where the subject parcel
proposed addition will take place.
Slide 2 —Proposed application.
Slide 3 —Photo of the existing two-story dwelling. Showing colors. Muslin color on
exterior, trim color beige, and wood beams.
Slide 4 —Tax Map Key parcel 90 on the corner of Alakai St. and Lamaokeola.
Slide 5 —Aerial photo showing parcels that are duplex's.
Slide 6—Photo of street looking down of Alakai and applicant's parcel.
Slide 7 - Site Plan showing the duplex and landscaping proposed around the boundary
and 4 parking spaces.
Slide 8 —Elevation showing existing colors and two-story building with exterior stairs.
Slide 9 —Another site plan showing the original plans and how they have tied into the
sewer.
Slide 10 —Floor plan of units, showing two bedrooms upstairs. Shows firewall
separating the units.
Slide 11 —Floor plan of the downstairs bedrooms 3 & 4.
Slide 12 —Foundation Plan.
Slide 13 & 14—Roof Plan showing the two exterior stairs.
Slide 15 —Section Plan showing storage.
2
Slide 16& 17—Fire Wall Plan.
Slide 18 —Exterior Elevation.
End of Presentation
Chairman Roth—Thanks Ms. Rosalind Newlon (Staff) for her presentation and
proceeded to ask Commissioners if they had any questions for staff.
Commissioner Ikeuchi—Ikeuhci asked for clarification. Will the applicant be requesting
to increase the square footage of the home and are they only requesting to change the
interior layout of the existing square footage.
Ms. Newlon (Staff) —Staff responded by saying, "No." Their site plan shows no increase
to the square footage of their plan,just interior room changes that were already permitted.
The only change is completing a full second kitchen and then using the spaces on the first
floor that they permitted as workshop and storeroom for personal use. No expansion.
Commissioner Smith—Smith refers a question to sheet A-1. Is this being used as the
base plan for the landscaping design? Two pages later A-I is also used as the Plot Plan.
The two drawings have changes made, they are not consistent. The portion along
Lamaokeola, on the two drawings, one of them has a continuous driveway that's almost
the length of the property and the landscape design shows planting along the left side of
the drawing. Smith was confused as to what they are building, because the drawing
showed different information.
Ms. Newlon (Staff) —Staff clarifies that they are showing the back of parking near
Lamaokeola, showing (4) different parking spaces. Newlon mentions that this issue can
be cleared during Plan Approval.
Commissioner Smith—Smith points out that on the Alakai Street, the landscape plan
shows a different landscape layout.
Commissioner Hetherington—Hetherington points out that the main difference seems
to be on the landscape plan. It shows a drive through parking, but it is eliminated on the
Site Plan.
Commissioner Smith—Smith clarifies, that the two drawings are inconsistent.
Ms. Newlon—The main requirement is to provide two parking spaces per unit.
Commissioner Smith—Is this something that we can have the landowner clarify?
3
Chairman Roth—Roth says that they should finish questions for staff. Does anyone
else have any questions for Staff?
Commissioner Smith— The description of the item towards the bottom says, that it is
going to change from a single family dwelling into a two unit duplex and that it talks
about how the building permits are issued for single family dwelling, but it identified(4)
bathrooms and the plan that is being presented shows eight bathrooms. Smith asks for
further clarification on this matter.
Ms. Newlon—This isn't a proposed building, if he puts in additional bathrooms, his new
permit will have to describe (8)bathrooms.
Commissioner Smith—Smith says that the description on the item on the agenda is not
accurate.
Ms. Newlon—Staff clarifies that the description was taken from the building permit
information.
Chairman Roth—Asked if there were any more questions for staff.
Ms. Newlon—The Commissioners can make specific conditions as to parking or
landscaping or to anything that needs to be clarified in the Plan Approval Application,
when they make recommendation decisions or when there is a discrepancy between the
Landscaping Plan and Site Plan. Which can be cleared at that time and made into a
recommendation.
Chairman Roth—Asked if the applicant had anything that they would like to present
today. Asked to introduce himself before he presents.
Applicant—The applicant introduced himself as Alexandr Agarkov. The applicant
clarified that the inconsistency of the first page with landscape and the third page, were
planned when they had the septic tank in mind and further explained that the difference
was because they were trying to make some room where the actual septic was planned to
be. They didn't realize how fast the sewer connection became available and so that
basically changed everything, it gave them more room to play, with the parking lots and
the landscape. The third page was the original when we planned it, before anything
started building and the first page is current.
Chairman Roth—asked if applicant had any more to say about the project.
4
Applicant - The applicant continued to say that there were two factors. When they
originally planned to build a duplex, financially that wasn't possible. They knew that
there was going to be a sewer project coming in at some point, but didn't know when that
was going to happen, because it had been delayed twice. So it was beneficial, because
they would have had to build two septic tanks, which was not feasible for the size of lot.
Chairman Roth - Chairman asked if applicant had anything more he wanted to add.
Applicant - Answered, if the Commissioners had any more questions, he would keep it
simple.
Chairman Roth - Chairman asked Commissioners if they had any more questions.
Commissioner Hetherington - Hetherington referred to Page A-3, between the first and
second floor plans. He understood the fire wall, but mentioned that the applicant had a
number of separation walls that appear to be actually intended to turn into a four-plex and
not a duplex. What are the separation walls?
Applicant - Answered, that it just means there is a wall in between the rooms. That was
just trying to explain the walls in between the rooms. When they were planning the
changes, one of the county officials told them to explain where the actual walls were. The
only fire wall was between two units.
Commissioner Sullenberger —Sullenberger wanted clarification on bedroom 3 and
bedroom 4. He asked if the rooms were one big bedroom and if the wall was to divide
that space.
Applicant—The applicant answered, no. He mentions that where 3 & 4 bedrooms are,
they're two separate rooms. One of the rooms is a storage and the other a workshop. It's
there for structural support.
Commissioner Sullenberger —Clarification was given and Sullenberger was thankful.
Commissioner Smith—Smith points out that the plans do not have licensed architectural
stamps and that's something maybe Planning Staff should clarify. He only saw a stamp
on the page with landscaping.
Ms. Newlon (Staff) —Ms. Newlon, answers Commissioner Smith's question. For Plan
Approval Applications we do not require an architect or engineer stamp. It's when they
come in for building permit, that it is a requirement.
Commissioner Smith—Smith questions. "I thought these were the building permit set?"
5
Ms. Newlon (Staff) - Answers no. This a Kailua Village Design Commission set of
plans. Many people to do provide that, but it is not required. You see an empty block.
Commissioner Smith- Last question for applicant. He asked if the applicant
constructed any fences.
Applicant—The applicant answered that there is a fence, not in front of the house, but
the back and the side. The ocean side has a fence, the back of the house has a fence, and
a small fence on the other side of the house. They also have a gate for them to enter.
Commissioner Smith—Smith asked applicant, "Do the fences prevent people from
accessing the parking spaces?"
Applicant - Applicant answers, "What do you mean?"
Commissioner Smith—Smith clarifies, having a parking space and the need to enter the
parking space, from the drive-way, and there is a fence in between the drive way access
and the parking space, will the applicant be able to get a vehicle into the parking space?
Applicant - Applicant answers, yes.
Commissioner Smith—Okay.
Commissioner Werchick—Werchick asked applicant to clarify the number of
bathrooms per unit for the record.
Applicant—Explained, that there are two units for the duplex and it has two bathrooms
on the top floor and two bathrooms on the bottom floor. There will be (8)bathrooms
total.
Chairman Roth—Roth mentions that what's troubling him, is that it appears that the
drawings presented are for a duplex at the beginning, however the plans do not show how
it was actually permitted originally. It appears confusing to KVDC, as to what's new and
part of the original single family dwelling plans. Chairman Roth did a drive by of the
parcel and proposed project. Roth mentions, that it appears that the drive way is located
like it is mentioned on the first page. The entrance is actually close to the intersection and
that it may not be allowed. Roth said that he is having a difficult time seeing how the
parking works and it is an important issue to the neighborhood, because the applicant
does not show the shoulders and the roadways are fairly narrow. Therefore the off sight
parking is really critical. Additionally, even though it was permitted as a single family
residence, when the KVDC looks at the layout for the downstairs, it appears as though it
is actually 6 units and not 2 units. Roth says, it is a concern for parking and if applicant
can give KVDC some assurance regarding these issues.
6
Applicant—Explains, that they have permits for the first drawings and the only changes
are the adding of kitchens to the second unit on the second floor. Instead of the workshop
and storage room, they are adding bathrooms and converting them to additional
bedrooms.
Chairman Roth - Roth asked if applicant's workshop and storage rooms, have sinks in
them already.
Applicant - Applicant said, no. They are completely empty. Everything presented is
proposed.
Chairman Roth—Roth says that's what's confusing to him. Applicant is just changing
the room, but actually adding a lot of plumbing. The scope of the change is unclear.
Applicant - Applicant answers, yes. His understanding was that they were to show the
changes from what they have.
Chairman Roth—Roth asked if applicant could address the concern of it looking as if it
were (4) apartments on the lower floor.
Applicant—Applicant explains that with the limited size of the lot, they were trying to
get what they can for the duplex and that was the only way they could have 4 bedrooms
in a duplex. He was just trying to maximize on the actual square footage they had.
Applicant—Applicant continues to explain that the lower rooms are part of the duplex,
on the top. So instead of what they have as a 1,000 square feet duplex, it's actually going
to be 2,000 square feet. So instead of two bedrooms, it's going to be four bedrooms.
Chairman Roth—Roth says, "I know that these are not necessarily your building permit
drawings and that was sort of implied. Looking at sheet A-1, of the Building Code
information, it has wind speed at 85 miles per hour; wind exposure as B and Seismic
Category as D-2. I'm fairly certain that Kailua-Kona is 100 miles per hour on the winds;
Exposure Category C and Seismic Category E. This appears to be a plan from East
Hawaii that was transplanted to here."
Applicant—Applicant explains that the page Roth is referring to, was never supposed to
be included in the presentation. The only reason it was included was because they
wanted to show the septic, which is not needed. What is being presented is what they had
permitted. Their intention was to show the septic. They no longer need septic, because
the applicant will be hooking on to the sewer systems.
7
Applicant—Applicant wanted to assure KVDC, that since they are no longer required to
have a septic tank and have more room to do what is required and that they already have
the measurements and can make the adjustments. He clarifies that they will not be
backing up into the streets.
Commissioner Smith-Smith wanted the applicant to clarify what's constructed in the
ground floor are not the four bathrooms.
Applicant—Applicant answers, yes that is correct. They are empty rooms right now.
There is nothing there,just empty shelves. They will be putting additional bathrooms in
each room.
Commissioner Smith—Smith says, "so if this was approved, in order for you to
construct what's showing on the drawing, you are going to go into a structure that is
already completed and you are going to excavate the concrete slab to put in plumbing for
the bathrooms in the bedrooms?"
Applicant - Applicant answers, "It's already there, and we have a plumbing system
already going up. All we need to do is just tie it in."
Commissioner Smith- Smith questions, "The ground floor is slab?"
Applicant - Answer, "Yes, that is correct."
Commissioner Smith- Smith asked, "The plumbing is under the slab? But, you have
not constructed the four bathrooms? You do not have the proper size plumbing down
stairs?"
Applicant - Applicant explains that they could not have any plumbing because it was a
storage and that they had all the measurements on the site plan with the actual plumbing.
Commissioner Smith—Smith said, "I understand what you are saying, I just wanted to
confirm that you're representing, that the ground floor has not been constructed as you
would like to build it."
Applicant - Applicant answered, "I am sorry, I miss understood your question."
Commissioner Smith—Smith reiterated, "You said that the ground floor has not been
constructed to install the four bathrooms including the showers?"
Applicant—Applicant answered, yes.
Commissioner Smith- Smith thanks the applicant for his clarification.
8
Chairman Roth—Roth asked Commissioners if they had more questions for the
applicant.
Ms. Newlon (Staff) —Newlon comments that when a building permit comes in for a
review by plan checkers, and they see bar sinks on a counter similar to these presented, in
each bedroom down stairs, they will be stamped as not approved and as a second kitchen.
They will be giving a single family dwelling notice to the owner, notifying them that
these are to remain as a single family dwelling. Each duplex can only have a single
kitchen. They will be approved as bar sinks and not approved for second kitchens.
Chairman Roth—Roth moves forward to a discussion. He begins the discussion by
stating that he is not completely convinced on what the applicant has presented. Referring
his concerns to the parking and the inconsistency of applicant's story. Roth supports
additional housing and keeping it low cost. He said that it is a great place to have more
housing, but housing should not be substandard. It starts to become substandard when it
doesn't follow all the rules and that he would like to see a consistent presentation of the
yard space and what is on the parcel currently. The applicant described the bottom floor
to be empty spaces, however, it is being presented as a duplex and not a single family
dwelling. "This raises questions," said Roth. "It's a nice looking project. The finishes are
tasteful. It has a nice lanai, and sounds like there is a lot of good things about it."He
understands the applicant's story of the sewer being a question, and has a legitimate
reason to have their plan changed from a single family dwelling to a duplex. The bar
sinks in bedrooms and other places around houses, are not necessarily a red flag. Roth
explained that he does a lot of high end residences where there are bar sinks all over the
place. He thinks people should be allowed to do that, but at the same context, need
assurance that this is not going to become a six unit building. Parking and safety is a
concern.
Chairman Roth—Chairman opens the floor to discussion.
Commissioner Hetherington—Hetherington agrees with Chairman. He was concerned
about rooms on the second floor having their own entrance and no access from one room
to the other, a concern that could raise red flags, but not illegal. He commented that the
KVDC went a little beyond their duties as Commissioners, by addressing building and
planning matters. The applicant should have had his contractor rough in the plumbing,
but building looked good and hopes that the landscaping is installed as designed.
Commissioner Smith- Commissioner Smith suggested to defer and would like clarity
on all the questions Chairman Roth stated.
Chairman Roth - Chairman wanted Commissioner's to be clear and sure that if they
were to defer, what is it that they want to see when the applicant returns to KVDC. Chair
9
hopes to see consistency in the presentation and agrees with the applicant that they can
make the revisions and surely make it work. Chair said, "A working four space parking
lay out that also includes the existing improvements, such as the fences. That would go a
long ways to approval point. The look of it is fine."
Chairman Roth - Chair asked Commissioners what they would like to see.
Commissioner Werchick -"I think, what we need is a new set of drawings that will
eliminate the contradictions that have been pointed out tonight." He mentioned that a
clear set of drawings will make it very simple for Commissioners to approve and thinks
that most of them would want to approve the application.
Commissioner Kern - Kern agrees with Commissioner Werchick, that it would be much
easier to visualize the property, if they had a consistent set of a plans. "The plans should
not be such that they have to be explained, they should tell the story, because they're
clear and that's not happening right now."
Commissioner Sullenberger - Sullenberger reiterates what was said by Commissioner
Kern. He thinks that the floor plan should have a comparative between the existing and
the proposed, so that it's very clear what's being added. "I think with that, I would
happily approve it."
Chairman Roth - Chairman Roth said, photos with the existing would be adequate.
Commissioner Sullenberger and Commissioner Werchick concurred and agreed.
Chairman Roth - Chairman Roth asked if there were any more discussion, then asked
for the Commissioners to make a motion.
Commissioner Werchick - Werchick asked, "Do we move to table or do we move to
defer?"
Chairman Roth - Chairman said, "We can approve, deny or defer." Chair explains that
if the Commissioners deferred, than that allows the applicant to come back with
additional information. If the Commissioners deny it, than it goes through the process as
a denied application, and would continue to go on to Planning and so forth. It would
become a little more difficult for the applicant to just make the corrections.
Commissioner Werchick - Werchick said, that he would move to defer the applicant as
soon as possible. Get a revised set of plans and move on to the questions that have been
raised in their discussion.
10
Chairman Roth—Chairman Roth said, "So, motion by Commissioner Werchick. Do we
have asecond?"
Commissioner Kern - Kern seconded the motion.
Chairman Roth - Chairman confirmed that the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Kern.
Chairman Roth - Chairman asked if the Commissioners had any discussion on the
motion.
Commissioner Hetherington—Hetherington asked, if they needed to list in the motion
what they would like to include, or could it be taken from the minutes.
Commissioner Werchick - Werchick said, that it can either be taken from the minutes or
consultation between the applicant and staff.
Chairman Roth—Chairman assured Commissioners that the applicant heard their
comments regarding his presentation and project. He also assured the applicant that the
Commissioners want to approve his application, but would need the story of his project to
be more reliable and something they can understand.
Chairman Roth—"We have the motion on the table by Commissioner's Werchick and
Kern. Is there any discussion on the motion?"
Ms. Newlon (Staff) —Staff needed more clarity on the motion.
Chairman Roth—Chairman asked if Commissioner Werchick could restate the motion.
Commissioner Werchick - Werchick stated, that the motion was to defer and request
that the applicant submit a revised set of plans, showing what the project will actually
consist of. He made it broad enough so that it will allow the applicant to submit
photographs as Chairman Roth suggested, as existing and the applicant doesn't have to
do a new set of drawings. The applicant can decide what will be the best way to show
their plans, but need to present something to the Commissioners of what they want to
build and what they plan to change. "It's a motion to defer, to request a revised set of
plans, to answer the questions about the project that were raised at tonight's
meeting."
Ms. Newlon (Staff): Staff repeats, "It's a motion to defer and have the applicant submit
a revised set of plans to show what the project will actually consist of and include photos
so that Commissioners understand what the applicant is proposing to build."
11
Commissioner Werchick—Werchick said, that his motion did not require him to submit
photos.
Ms. Newlon - Staff replies, "So that the Commissioners can understand what he is
proposing to build, for the Duplex?"
Commissioner Werchick - Confirms and says, yes.
Ms. Newlon—Staff moves forward to do a roll call vote. Commissioner Ching is
excused. Commissioner's Crusat(aye), Hetherington (aye), Ikeuchi (aye), Kern
(seconded motion) (aye), Smith(aye),
Sullenberger (aye), Werchick(maker of motion) (aye). 7 aye votes. Majority votes.
Chairman Roth - Chairman said, "The motion to defer is passed."
Applicant - "May I ask a question?"
Chairman Roth - "It's better now than later."
Applicant - Applicant asked, "You mentioned that you want a better explanation of the
parking lot and also mentioned about taking a picture. Taking a picture will help you?
On the front page there are measurements, but if a picture of an overview helps, I'll be
more than happy to do that"
Chairman Roth - Chairman replied, "The picture will be helpful, but at the same time,
for your plan approval and building permit, you will have to do a site plan with the
dimensions of driveway. Ideally you will need to show that to us. There is a lot of area
there, so a drawing will show that's how it works. You can show a video of how the
driveway works, I'll go with that. But dimensions will work."
Applicant - Applicant reiterates, "The questions you have are mostly about the parking
lot and what's going on, on the bottom. So, I can take pictures of the existing and what
we have done so far, including perhaps a video of how I am parking in and out. That will
basically satisfy the commission. Thank you."
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Ms. Newlon (Staff) -No Administrative matters.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
12
Ms. Newlon (Staff) - mentioned that there was an application submitted, but it did not
have enough information to schedule for the August 18, 2020 meeting. There will be no
August 18, 2020 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There were no further business, Chairman Roth adjourned the meeting at 6:16 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Terri L. Napeahi, Planner IV
ATTEST:
Shaun Roth, Chairman
Kailua Village Design Commission
13