Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-22 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING DATE: July 22, 2008 TIME: 5:02 p.m. PLACE: The Mayor’s Office Conference Room, Suite 103 Hanama Place Office Building in Kailua Village ROLL CALL 1.Members Present: Sally Marone, Fanny Collins Au Hoy, Paul Bleck, Cindy Coats, Fritz Harris-Glade, David Ross, Jr., Ann Kern, Greg Ogin, and Steve Herbert 2.Applicants: Al Muro of Permit Expeditors Corp., for Tesoro Refining and Marketing; Michael Riehm of Riehm Owensby Planners Architects and Eric Leuteneker of Betsill Brothers Construction, Inc. for Samson, LLC 3.Staff Present: Bennett Mark, Rosalind Newlon, Noriko Sauer and Keola Childs 4.Public: None The Chair welcomed those in attendance, and the Commissioners introduced themselves. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Ms. Newlon requested that the Commission switch the order of the agenda items. The applicants were present and consented. The chair so ordered with no objection from the commissioners. 1.Design review of a proposed sign for Tesoro Refining and Marketing. Applicant: Al Muro of Permit Expeditors Corp. Land Owner: Liliuokalani Trust Estate and Pres-Kona Coast L.P. TMK: 7-4-015:001. Located at 74-5588 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, HI, near the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Staff Presentation Ms. Newlon described the proposed plan to replace an existing ground sign fronting the Tesoro gas station on Palani Road, at the entrance to Kona Coast Shopping Center. The new sign would use the same location and foundation as the existing sign and add more lettering and colors. The Plexiglas sign material is to be illuminated by internal backlighting; how much of the sign would be illuminated was not clearly specified in the submitted information. The area of the sign and size of lettering and corporate logo comply with the county Sign Code. The blue and white elements of the sign are consistent with the color themes of the gas station itself. 1 Following staff’s presentation, commissioners discussed the number and tones of the colors proposed, noting that there were more than the three colors specified in the Guidelines. Several suggested that white, black and gray might be considered neutral colors that perhaps might be counted as one of the three-color maximum in the Guidelines. Applicant Presentation Mr. Al Muro explained that the sign is to be fully illuminated, by internal backlighting. He said the owner wants to use its corporate colors rather than earthtones as specified in the Guidelines. Commissioners sought clarification as to the proposed colors of the “Gas Express” name to be added below “Tesoro” on the sign, as it was not indicated on the submitted drawings. Mr. Muro said the owner’s preference is red, but would be open to using the dark blue color as also proposed for the background color of the lower portion of the sign. Commissioners expressed varying views of the particular colors proposed for the sign and concern about the extent of deviation from the color chart recommended for use by KVDC. Much of the discussion centered on reducing the number and intensity of colors from those proposed. Staff clarified that the color guidelines are part of the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona, an advisory document, and not part of the County Code, so are not a matter of law. Public Testimony Chair Marone solicited public testimony. There was none. Commission Discussion Commissioners discussed the visual effect of various neutral colors as a background color for the proposed sign. Most commissioners expressed a preference for white in lieu of the gray background indicated on the sign proposal illustration. Action Cmmr. Coats moved, seconded by Cmmr. Kern, that KVDC recommend to the Public Works Director the approval of the sign application, with the following amendment to the sign: that the gray background color behind the words “Tesoro” be changed to the color of white and the words “Gas Express” be in the color of blue or green. A roll call vote was taken and motion carried unanimously. 2 2.Design review of the proposed 149-unit Kumulani Multi-Family Complex on 6.558 acres. The buildings will either be two or three stories in height. Applicant: Michael Riehm of Riehm Owensby Planners Architects. Land owner: Samson LLC. TMK: 7-5-010:013. Located on the north side of Hualalai Road, near the intersection with Aloha Kona Drive, south of the Regency at Hualalai. Staff Presentation Ms. Newlon described the proposed development, showed its location on an enlarged aerial photograph of Kailua Village and explained the subject parcel was “split zoned” into two different zoning districts – Multiple-family Residential (RM) and Village Commercial (CV) – which both allow multi-family residential use and at the 149 unit density as proposed. She noted the owner had brought this project before KVDC for review at its August 8, 2006 meeting. Ms. Newlon noted that although the proposed number of parking stalls (237) exceeded the 187 stalls required for the development per Zoning Code, 25 tandem parking stalls (to accommodate 50 cars) were proposed. She explained that because the Zoning Code requires that all parking stalls be individually accessible, the Planning Director would have to approve the tandem design in order for them to be allowed. Ms. Newlon said that while the proposed buildings complied with the height and setback requirements for the two zoning districts for the site, the front yard landscaping buffer strip, swimming pool and surrounding paved area would all have to be moved five feet back toward the interior of the site so as to be behind the five foot wide road widening strip required by the County’s rezoning ordinance for this site. Where the portion of the site in the CV zoning district abuts other properties in the RM zoning district, a 42” high screening hedge would be required. She noted that most of the proposed trees were among those specified in the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona, but a few were not. Ms. Newlon noted the site was transected by a historic archaeological feature, the Great Wall of Kuakini, which also demarcated the zoning boundary between the RM and the CV districts. She said that the Wall had been previously breached in the center of the site, and that is where the common driveway is shown to lay; a ten foot wide protective buffer would be established along the portions of the Wall within the site. She also noted that the site included a known burial site which was to be walled and protected with landscaping outside of the walled area. Requirements for widening, shoulder and driveway intersection improvements along the site’s Hualalai Road frontage, as imposed by the Department of Public Works and the County Council pursuant to its rezoning ordinances for this site, were explained. The placement of the fourteen multi-unit buildings and the mix of smaller parking areas around many of the buildings were noted, with the buildings in the lower portion of the site placed close to Hualalai Road frontage and those in the upper portion set back from the site’s common boundary with houselots fronting Hualalai Road in that area. 3 The applicant proposed composition shingle roofing, horizontal siding and board & batten siding. Ms. Newlon noted KVDC’s 2006 recommendation for this project that the buildings use a Hawaiian design theme. The project’s consistency with Master Plan recommendations as to scale, architectural articulation of building exterior walls, and sloping roof lines. The Master Plan recommendation for use of natural materials was also noted; the plans indicated vinyl siding and composition shingle roofing materials. Chosen colors are from the Benjamin Moore Historical Color Palette which KVDC recommends. Commissioners sought clarification as to the colors of the siding, the distinctive landscaping requirements for lands in the CV zoning district and the proposed tandem parking stalls as to the applicant’s design and permissibility under the zoning code. Labeling errors on the submitted plans were corrected by the applicant. Staff explained that special bufferyard landscaping requirements exist where CV zoned lands abut lands zoned in any residential zoning district. Addressing questions as to use of tandem parking stalls, staff explained that the zoning code specifically requires that all parking spaces be individually accessible, and that no provision for tandem parking exists in the code. Several commissioners expressed the desirability of tandem parking stalls when offered in addition to the minimum parking requirements of the code, and suggested ways that such stalls might be found acceptable under the Zoning Code. The nature and characteristics of “grass-crete” parking surfaces, as proposed by the applicant for the deeper half of the tandem parking stalls, was discussed by the commissioners and staff. In response to questions concerning the presence of only one driveway connection with Hualalai Road, staff explained that this was a result of a requirement by the Department of Public Works that a driveway connection in this portion of Hualalai Road be placed across from the location previously approved by the Department of Public Works for a driveway planned for a future development on the opposite side of Hualalai Road, and that this positioning made a second driveway connection infeasible for the applicant. Staff confirmed that only one loading space is required under the zoning code for multi- family residential sites of up to 150 dwelling units. Applicant Presentation Mr. Riehm introduced himself and Eric Leuteneker of Betsill Brothers Construction, Inc., as the building contractor selected by the owner to construct the proposed development. Mr. Riehm explained the developer’s design goals for this project, which included scaling the project buildings to be compatible with that of buildings on other sites flanking the development, avoiding large parking lots in favor of creating traditional street settings wherever possible, and incorporating traditional architectural elements such as lanai, dormers (for ventilation), hip roof lines, and textured-effect siding. Mr. Riehm noted the plan provides for six different building styles among the fourteen residential structures, and that the siding proposed for the buildings was not vinyl but 4 instead is to be a concretized composite such as “Hardi-plank” which is impervious to rot and termite infestation. Eric Leuteneker added information about the developer’s corporate development philosophy, stating it to be oriented to support the traditional architectural and living values enjoyed in Hawaii. Public Testimony There was none. Commission Discussion Commissioners discussed and clarified the designated colors for the siding and trim of the buildings, expressing a desire for more true “white” to be used.Mr. Riehm stated that all trim will be white to match the shade of the white window framing. Commissioners questioned the long term appearance and durability of the “Grass-crete ™” type of paving proposed for surfacing the inner halves of the tandem parking stalls. They further discussed the desirability and permissibility of tandem parking stalls, when provided in excess of the minimum parking requirement. Staff was asked if individual parking stalls designed to a depth which is double the minimum requirement would be permissible. Staff explained that the Planning Director would have to make that determination during staffs’ review of a Plan Approval application for the site, because of the Zoning Code requirement that all parking stalls be individually accessible. In response to Cmmr. Marone’s concern that the driveway width and turn radii into the branching driveway and parking sections appeared overly constrained in the entry zone of the development, Mr. Riehm explained that all driveway widths and curves were wide enough to accommodate fire trucks, per design requirements of the Fire Department and thus would be more than ample for other vehicles. He also explained that the roadway system was purposely designed to be somewhat narrow and angular as a “traffic calming” device to keep traffic speeds low within the development. In response to Cmmr. Au Hoy’s question regarding sufficiency of open, grassed recreational space for children to play in, Mr. Riehm said there were numerous small grassed areas provide within the development and noted the percentage of landscaping provided was close to double the twenty percent of land area required by the zoning code for the portion within the RM zoning district. Addressing a separate question, Mr. Riehm affirmed that interpretative signage would be provided for the archaeological features. 5 Commissioners expressed some concern about the apparent lack of a Hawaiian architectural style. Mr. Riehm said they were employing various architectural features brought in since Western architectural designs were introduced in Hawaii, citing the hip roofs, small lanai provided for each unit and textured sidings as examples. He asserted that mature, substantial landscaping areas within a development, including large canopy trees, represented the most meaningful way to convey a Hawaiian sense of place, and that such plantings would largely obscure the building forms behind them. In response to commissioners’ interest in having the applicant’s proposed window sunscreens be standard rather than optional on an individual unit basis, as proposed by the applicant, Mr. Riehm explained that because of the added cost of this feature and the developer’s intent to keep the cost of purchasing a unit within reach of middle market price buyers, it was not possible for him to commit this to be a standard design feature. He said the sunscreens are usually metal framed construction for durability. Commissioners also queried the applicant as to whether the Hualalai Road improvements would improve the traffic safety, or worsen conditions by allowing higher speeds. There were a variety of opinions expressed, but no conclusions were reached on this issue. Cmmr. Coats asked about the type of common area lighting to be provided. Mr. Riehm stated that traditional-design lighting standards or bollards were intended throughout the development. Cmmr. Au Hoy asked for clarification as to the impacts of the project on public mauka and makai view planes, that is, views to the sea when looking from above the project and views to the mountains when looking from the lands below. Mr. Riehm said that the 60 – 70 foot elevation difference between the bottom and top of the site, and the fact that the buildings were a mix of relatively small two and three-story building, together with the mature landscaping, would result in no meaningful loss of existing view planes over the project site. Commissioners also discussed the design of the exterior stairwells which were not illustrated on the submitted plan, to determine if they were covered and/or the stair treads and risers covered. Mr. Riehm affirmed that both would be covered and skirted for screening. Window design treatments and roofing material textures were also discussed, primarily as to use of high-relief, texture-effect designs such as “Shangles ™”. Commissioners discussed whether color uniformity among the fourteen buildings was preferable, or if a variety of principal siding colors among the building would be more desirable. Mr. Riehm stated that applicant prefers the aesthetics of single color theme unifying the development, and noted the variation and obscuration that would result from different landscaping effects to result throughout the project site. 6 Action It was moved by Cmmr. Harris-Glade and seconded by Cmmr. Ogin to recommend approval of the project with certain recommended changes. Following discussion of the motion, it was amended by the movant, seconded by Cmmr. Ross, to recommend approval of the project with the following recommended changes: 1)That stylized asphalt shingles be used for the roofing material 2)Install sunscreens as shown on the building elevation sheet 3)That the stairwells be partially enclosed so that no exposed stairwell treads or risers can be seen 4)That the exterior colors be reexamined using the Benjamin Moore Historic Color palette 5)Require an interpretive sign for the Great Wall of Kuakini A roll call vote was taken and motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS It was moved by Commissioner Harris-Glade and seconded by Commissioner Ogin that the minutes of the meeting of July 8, 2008 be approved as submitted. The motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. per motion of Cmmr. Harris-Glade, seconded by Cmmr. Ogin, unanimously carried. Respectfully submitted, Keola Childs, Secretary A T T E S T: Sally Marone, Chair Kailua Village Design Commission 7