Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-08 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING DATE: July 8, 2008 TIME: 5:05 p.m. PLACE: The Mayor’s Office Conference Room, Suite 103 Hanama Place Office Building in Kailua Village ROLL CALL 1.Members Present: Sally Malone, Fanny Collins Au Hoy, Paul Bleck, Cindy Coats, Fritz Harris-Glade, David Ross, Jr.; from 5:10pm: Ann Kern, Greg Ogin, and Steve Herbert 2.Applicant: Terry K. Dunlap of Kona Home & Land Design, LLC 3.Staff Present: Bennett Mark, Rosalind Newlon, Noriko Sauer and Keola Childs 4.Public: Jim Roachelle and Sean Asmus of Prime A Investments, LLC, Roger Lundstrom, Edward J. Rapoza, Nancy Pisicchio, Marni Herkes, Glennon Gingo, Barry Francis, Bruce Witcher and Jose Jazmin The Chair welcomed those in attendance, and the Commissioners introduced themselves. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS 1.Design review of a proposed commercial development including restaurants and retail establishments. Applicant: Terry K. Dunlap of Kona Home & Land Design, LLC. Land Owner: Prime A. Investments, LLC. TMK: 7-5-004:031. Located along the south side of Henry Street at the intersection with Kuakini Highway, Kailua-Kona, HI. Staff Presentation Ms. Newlon described the proposed development, to be on 2.39 acres of currently vacant land fronting the south side of Henry Street and Kuakini Highway. The site is in the State “Urban” land use district and the County’s General Commercial (CG-20) zoning district. She explained the design review application before the KVDC was only for the restaurant and retail facilities proposed to be built on the lower two-thirds of the subject property, as the applicant had not yet finalized its design proposal for the gas station and car-wash facility intended for the upper one-third of the property. 1 She noted that the applicant would be constructing the entire internal driveway system, including the upper portion not yet under design review, as part of its development of the lower portion of the property. She also noted that due to the relatively steep grade of the site’s terrain, the parking areas and buildings were terraced to allow practical use of the site. Ms. Newlon described the proposed development as having the following features: Three buildings having a total gross floor area of 10,205 square feet. Two buildings are intended for restaurant use, and one is intended for retail and possibly restaurant use as well, including a “drive-through” lane. 68 parking stalls are provided on the entire site including three accessible (ADA) stalls, plus two loading stalls per zoning code requirements. The three buildings have stucco exteriors with pitched roofs, aluminum roofing with non-glare, baked enamel finishes, decorative copper parapet cup flashing and built-up wood fascia along the eaves. The colors for the retail building conform to the Benjamin Moore Historical color palette recommended by the Commission for Kailua Village. The colors used for the proposed Jack-in-the-Box (JIB) restaurant conform except for the bright red surrounding its entrance. The lavender and red proposed for the Panda Express restaurant do not conform. The site plan conforms to Architectual Design Guidelines set forth in the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona which call for maximizing pedestrian and commercial use linkages by placing parking facilities in rear or side yards rather than front yards, and providing multiple pedestrian openings: two from Henry Street and one to the terminus of a residential street to the rear of the project. Shared parking areas for the various buildings and uses of the site also conform to Master Plan recommendations. In anticipatory conformance with the draft transit-oriented goals of the unadopted Kona Community Development Plan, the site plan provides for a bus stop pull-out at its Henry Street entrance. The scaling and modern design of the proposed buildings is generally consistent with other proposed and under-development buildings on the vacant lands running along both sides of the Henry Street. Although the proposed retail building conforms very well to the Architectural Design Guideline calling for “articulated” exterior design treatments, the two restaurant buildings have prominent areas that are blank walls devoid of any design articulations. Following Ms. Newlon’s presentation, commissioners sought clarification as to where the Alahou Street extension, now being privately constructed along the upper boundary of the subject property, would intersect Henry Street in relation to the existing private access road running north from Henry Street into the existing Lanihau shopping center. Staff explained that the Alahou Street extension would intersect Henry Street directly across from the unnamed private access road serving Lanihau Shopping Center. Staff 2 pointed out that no traffic signalization was planned for that pending intersection. Turning and crossing movements at this new Alahou/Henry Streets intersection would be restricted by the County Department of Public Works for traffic safety reasons. In response to commissioner’s questions regarding consistency with the landscaping theme being applied along both sides of Henry Street between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway, staff said that a wide range of planting themes are being developed along both sides of Henry Street by other landowners; these variations were influenced by the varying natures of those developments, including archeological reserves which allowed for little frontage landscaping with trees other than narrow profile palms. Staff explained that all developments were using plants provided on the KVDC’s recommended plant list, and that the requirement for canopy trees was being consistently applied by the County along the entire frontage of Henry Street. Ms. Newlon pointed out that the applicant was requesting that in lieu of one required canopy tree, a cluster of loulu palms be allowed where ocean views from the building is very important to the applicant. Commissioners discussed the use of oleander as one of the proposed hedge plantings, and whether it should be removed from the approved plant list because of the toxicity of the plant’s sap. Commissioners indicated an interest to remove this plant from their approved plant list as part of a future KVDC action. Applicant Presentation Terry K. Dunlap was introduced by staff, and he, in turn, introduced Jim Roachelle and Sean Asmus of Prime A Investments, LLC, owners and developers of the subject property. Mr. Dunlap elaborated on the basic design features presented by staff and noted the proposed size of the logo features for the JIB and Panda Express buildings exceeded the recommended nine inch height but were felt by the applicant to be necessary in this street front location. [Note: signs for this development were not being considered by KVDC at this meeting.] Commissioners and Mr. Dunlap discussed the proposed colors of the Panda Express building. Commissioners expressed dissatisfaction with the number of colors (five versus the recommended limit of three), the intensity (bright red), hue (lavender), and sharp, harsh contrasting effects (black and white checkering) created for trim. Cmmr. Harris- Glade was concerned that perhaps the proposed building itself, by means of its overall color incongruities, was acting as a giant sign. Commissioners indicated that the proposed colors, including that of the outdoor umbrellas, should be simplified and muted to conform to the approved color palette. Mr. Dunlap explained that the lavender color was an essential one to Panda Express, but that all the other colors, including that of the umbrellas, would be modified to conform to the recommended color palette. He also affirmed that all signage, which would be proposed in a later design review application, would conform to the KVDC guidelines. 3 In response to a question by Cmmr. Bleck as to what use was intended for the corner of the building at Henry Street and Kuakini Highway, Mr. Roachelle replied that while not settled, they anticipated that it may be occupied by a drive-through food service outlet such as a coffee shop. Public Testimony Barry Francis, stating he represented an ownership interest in a southerly abutting vacant parcel in the RM zoning district for which a two and three-story apartment complex was planned for construction, expressed concerns regarding (1) roofing material that may be highly reflective of glare into the future upper level apartments on the abutting parcel, (2) oleander hedge plantings that may be hazardous for children residing in their development, and (3) excessive, all-hours noise that may extend to their planned upper level apartments from the proposed car wash facility. [Note: this portion of the proposed development was not under review by KVDC at this meeting.] Applicant’s developer representative Shaun Asmus expressed certainty that the noise levels of the modern facility proposed would be below conversational levels at the facility itself, would pose no noise problem for abutting residents. He said that information supporting that position would be provided when the car-wash facility comes to KVDC for review. Cmmr. Au Hoy asked what the hours of car-wash operation would be. Mr. Asmus replied that he did not know, as that proposed tenant’s site lease agreement had not yet been finalized. Edward Rapoza, owner of an abutting parcel fronting Kuakini Highway, stated that he had executed a mutual easement (sometimes called a “cross-easement”) agreement with the applicant’s site owner for shared vehicular and pedestrian circulation over both parcels’ driveways, so that both parcels shared a common “right turn in, right turn out” driveway connection at Kuakini Highway, and an unrestricted driveway connection with the Alahou Street extension along the upper boundary of the subject property. Glennon Gingo expressed his belief that the steep grade and the high volume of traffic on Henry Street would result in the Alahou Street intersection creating a serious traffic hazard. Commission Discussion Several commissioners raised concerns as to whether the applicant’s project (right-in, right-out only) driveway connection with Kuakini Highway would create severe congestion at the close-by Henry Street intersection. Mr. Rapoza explained that by sharing a common entrance, exit and circulation systems, visitors to both sites could actually avoid exiting onto Kuakini Highway in favor of exiting above, onto Alahou Street, and thereby to Henry Street if they were mauka- bound. Also, he said that south or makai-bound customers for his parcel would be able to 4 access his site through Alahou Street and the private roadway within the applicant’s development, and thereby reduce incoming traffic on Kuakini Highway. He believed that overall the public would benefit from moving this traffic off of Kuakini Highway by way of these private easement road and driveway connections. Commissioners queried the applicant as to the location and screening of the trash enclosures. Mr. Dunlap replied that although the locations for these facilities were not yet set, he assured the Commissioners that they would be included in the forthcoming application for the balance of the subject property (the upper one-third) that would include the gas station and car wash facility, and that screening would be proposed that complies with the KVDC guidelines. Cmmr. Ogin expressed his belief that the drive-through option for the lower building’s future corner tenant was a good, effective feature that would respond to a desire by the public for quick, convenient access to certain food and beverage items. Commissioners discussed the apparent lack of landscaping at the corner of Henry Street and Kuakini Highway, where a sign is to be placed on a six foot high wall. In particular, there was concern about the visibility of cars queuing at the drive-through pick-up window on the elevated driveway grade immediately behind that exposed wall section at the street corner. Action Cmmr. Herbert moved for approval of the application, seconded by Ann Kern, subject to the following conditions: 1.resubmittal of a simplified color scheme for the Panda Express building which eliminated the gold and black and white trim features and added architectural articulation features to the “blank wall” on the north elevation of the building; 2.landscaping features to be added to camouflage vehicles using the drive-through lane from being visible from the Kuakini-Henry Street intersection; 3.replace the oleander planting with a non-toxic hedging from the approved plant list; and 4.show the location of the necessary trash enclosures and proposed screening materials. Discussion followed regarding the effect of passing a motion requiring re-submittal to KVDC vis-à-vis the Planning Department accepting and processing the Plan Approval application for the proposed project. Staff said that the Department would treat the motion as a recommendation for approval and therafter accept a plan approval application. Cmmr. Ross asked if the plan approval review would include the buildings in the upper portion. Mr. Dunlap said that the applicant only needed approval as to the site grading and traffic circulation requirements of the project as to the upper portion of the project site, as the whole site had to be designed as one integrated system. He added that plan approval review would necessarily include the upper buildings as simple “masses,” not detailed architecture with proposed colors and complete architectural 5 details. He reaffirmed that they will be submitting these details in a forthcoming KVDC submittal. Mr. Mark said that should Final Plan Approval be granted before KVDC has reviewed and commented on the remaining site structures, the Final Plan Approval would address only the facilities located in the makai portion of the property under review here today. Cmmr. Herbert clarified that his motion was for approval of the entire site plan but only as to the lower three buildings and not the upper two buildings and trash enclosures for which plans were not yet submitted for KVDC review. Cmmr. Coats asked if “resubmittal” of the application with the requested changes was necessary. Discussion among the commissioners followed. Cmmr. Herbert moved, Cmmr. Kern seconded, to amend the motion to be a recommendation for approval with the following four conditions being recommended as requirements to be imposed by the Planning Department.: (1)For the colors of the proposed Panda Restaurant building: the lavender color should be toned down; the gold color area above the doorway should be removed; the alternating black and white trim should be removed; a solid color should be used for the umbrellas that coordinates with the awning color. (2)The blank wall of the proposed Panda Restaurant building facing Henry Street should be architecturally enhanced. (3)Additional landscaping treatment for screening should be added to shield the drive-up window lane adjacent to the proposed Retail Building A, as it is seen from Henry Street and to shield the future trash enclosure areas (4)For landscaping planting types, Oleander should be replaced with another recommended non-poisonous plant. A roll call vote was taken and motion carried with seven ayes (Ross, Ogin, Harris-Glade, Au Hoy, Kern, Herbert and Coats) and one no(Bleck). 2.Kona Community Development Plan – Overview by Nancy Pisicchio, County of Hawaii Planning Department. Ms. Pisicchio, a consultant contracted by the Planning Department as community liaison for the preparation of the Kona Community Development Plan (Kona CDP), gave a brief presentation about the status of the current public review process for the draft plan and several key concepts it contains: The Planning Commission is expected to complete its review and recommendations in August and refer the draft with any recommendations to the County Council, possibly by September. The Council’s Planning Committee would presumably begin its review process shortly thereafter, with formal Council adoption by ordinance hopefully effected within several months thereafter. Ms. Pisicchio pointed out that the Council is expected to be reviewing three other CDP more or less concurrently, which made time estimates for adoption very difficult. 6 The plan contains the concept of a mass transit or bus “hub” at an unspecified location near the center of the Kailua urban area. The plan contemplates a more detailed “master plan” being developed following adoption which would articulate specific, unique changes to the county zoning code that would be applicable only for this urban area. The plan calls for creating a county “design center” office where applicants or landowners could discuss directly with county decision-makers the particular requirements, constraints and options they would have in developing a new use or changing an existing use on any specific parcels in the planned area. The plan calls for an “Implementation Committee” to be established to monitor, comment on and encourage the actual implementation of the various plan provisions; an Implementation Committee is foreseen to be called for in each of the four CDPs now in draft form. Cmmr. Ross asked if the improvements and improved government functions being called for in the CDP would be paid for with County funds. Ms. Pisicchio indicated that those drafting the plan foresee that it will be funded by a full range of private and public sources, according to the feature and circumstances. Chair Malone thanked Ms. Pisicchio for her availability and presentation. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS It was moved by Commissioner Ross and seconded by Commissioner Coats that the minutes of the meeting of May 27, 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 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Keola Childs, Secretary A T T E S T: Sally Marone, Chair Kailua Village Design Commission 7