Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-12 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I MINUTES MEETING DATE: July 12, 2011 TIME: 5:16 p.m. PLACE: West Hawai‘i Civic Center nd Planning Department Conference Room – Building E, 2 Floor 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, 96740 ROLL CALL 1.Members Present: Shane Kitchens, Nancy Burns, Terry Dunlap, John Hetherington, Sammie Stanbro, Stephen Herbert (from 5:25 p.m.) and Fanny Au Hoy (from 5:27 p.m.) 2.Absent and Excused: Eugene Power and Riley Saito 3.Applicants/Representatives: Jak Hu, Daniel Hyde, Armando Altamirano, Jamie Busch, Daniel Sheinfeld and Phil Tinguely 4.Planning Department: Bennett Mark, Keola Childs and Noriko Sauer 5.Public: None Chair Kitchens welcomed those in attendance and described the meeting procedure. Commissioners introduced themselves. The Commission took up the minutes of the following meetings out of order: May 24, 2011 – It was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Burns that the minutes be approved as circulated. Motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. June 14, 2011 – It was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Stanbro that the minutes be approved as circulated. Motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Design review of a proposed renovation of an existing restaurant/office building for John W. Hoffee. Applicant: Armando Altamirano. TMK: 7-5-009: 034. Located at 75-5864 Walua Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i at the intersection of Walua Road and Ali‘i Drive. Continued from June 14, 2011 Meeting. Mr. Childs gave a brief presentation, summarizing the previous discussion on this item. 1 Daniel Sheinfeld, the architect for the project, presented updated information including their revised railing material and design for the second floor deck and an alternative color sample for the building exterior. He explained that the reason why they had chosen the particular gray color as a possible alternative to the originally proposed yellow was because it would compliment the colorful interior as well as the non-reflective steel-gray railings. In response to the Commissioners’ inquiries, he said that the applicant would be agreeable to a different shade of gray, but yellow would have to be the exact hue that was proposed. The Commission had a long discussion about the proposed colors. Commissioner Au Hoy was in favor of gray, and said that the proposed yellow would be too gaudy for the neighborhood, and that the Commission’s role was to preserve the quaint atmosphere of the Kailua Village. Commissioner Burns opined that gray would look depressing whereas the yellow would bring liveliness to the village. Commissioner Dunlap was concerned about such a large building painted in one shade, whether yellow or gray, and made a suggestion that the proposed yellow could be used as an accent color for the entryway, awnings or the like. In response, Commissioner Burns said that the white windows and the steel-gray railings would break up the main color, and repeated her preference for the yellow over the alternative gray. In response to the Chair’s question, the applicant said that he preferred the yellow, and added that his intention was to bring something good and vibrant to the community of which he felt he was a part. Mr. Sheinfeld answered in the negative to the Chair’s inquiry about the possibility of considering a different shade of yellow. Commissioner Stanbro directed the applicant’s attention to a yellow shade in the recommended color palette for the Kailua Village, which she thought would actually look better with the roof color. Commissioner Herbert was also concerned about deviating from the color guidelines, considering that the subject building was practically a three- story structure. Commissioner Dunlap said that he wanted to support new business in the community, and that the Commission should not halt this project altogether just because of their disagreement over color since there seemed to be no other issues. The applicant’s representatives agreed, saying that they would further look into the color options and submit another proposal for the Commission’s consideration, if the Commission were to forward a favorable recommendation and allow them to go forward with the permit process. Mr. Mark said that once the Commission made a decision, the decision would be final and give the Planning Director the authority to proceed with the next step based on the Commission’s recommendation unless the plan was drastically changed, in which case the change would have to be reviewed by the Commission; the applicant in this case could come back to the Commission with another color choice for informational purposes. It was moved by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Commissioner Au Hoy that the Commission recommend to the Planning Director approval of the proposed project based on the applicant’s specification of the exterior building color to be “Dorset Gold” from the Benjamin Moore Historical Colors palette or similar thereto. The Commission clarified its intent that the final color choice should be approved and specified by the Planning Director in any ensuing Plan Approval, and that the color should be more subdued than the originally submitted color. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with six ayes (Dunlap, Au Hoy, Burns, Herbert, Hetherington and Stanbro) and two absent and excused (Power and Saito). 2 NEW BUSINESS 1.Design Review of a proposed outdoor dining and served seating area addition to an existing enclosed restaurant fronting Kamakahonu Bay at King Kamehameha’s Kona Beach Hotel. Applicant: King Kamehameha’s Kona Beach Hotel. TMKs: 7-5-006: 020 and 032. Address: 75-5660 Palani Road. Hotel is located at the junction of Palani Road, Ka‘ahumanu Place and Ali‘i Drive, above Kailua Pier. Proposed addition to be located mauka (inland) of existing paved beachwalk above Kamakahonu beach. Mr. Childs oriented the Commissioners regarding the subject and surrounding properties on the location map, and described the proposed project. He pointed out that the proposed project was on a parcel of land that was on the State and National Registers of Historic Sites, and that while the project contained desirable attributes such as creation of open activity areas attractive to and supportive of pedestrian use, the provision of umbrellas or similar shade covers could easily be imagined, which could have visual impacts on the historic character of the area. The applicant’s representatives, Jak Hu and Daniel Hyde, were present. Mr. Hyde presented further information, which included that there would be no additional lighting for the subject area, that no umbrellas would be necessary since the proposed dining area was intended for breakfast and dinner business, and that the proposed low rock wall, which would demarcate the dining area from the lawn area, would be similar to existing lava rock walls throughout the hotel property. Commissioner Dunlap observed that the proposed rock wall was too high for its purpose, and suggested that it be reduced in height, possibly designed with an undulating wall height above grade. The representatives agreed to this modification. In response to the Chair’s question, Mr. Hyde said that if the rock wall base were to require more room than what the plan indicated, they would reduce the seating area rather than expanding the total area. Mr. Hu added that the number of seating was not critical to the hotel since the purpose of this project was to create the outdoor ambience, and that an 18-inch wall height would be acceptable. Commissioner Herbert also suggested that the gate from the surrounding lawn area be placed perpendicularly between two overlapped walls, rather than flush with the walls as shown on the plan. The representatives agreed to this modification as well. In response to Commissioner Dunlap’s inquiry, the staff reiterated that their concern would be the visual impacts of potential umbrellas on the historical site. Mr. Hu said that if they were to put up umbrellas, they would choose the same type as what already existed at the poolside for uniformity. Commissioner Au Hoy pointed out that some local community organizations might still see this development as desecration due to its proximity to the Ahu‘ena heiau, and advised the applicant to be sensitive to local people’s feelings. Commissioner Stanbro asked about the State and National Registers of Historic Sites designation of the area, which the hotel property appeared to be encroaching on, as to what value the designation had. Mr. Childs gave some background information on the designation, and said that the regulation of a registered historic site was not within the jurisdiction of the County. Mr. Mark added that the duty of the Commission in this case was to make a recommendation to the Planning Director regarding the architectural design of the proposed project with respect to the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona. 3 The Commission also had a brief discussion about adding some landscaping, which might soften the appearance of the rock wall and restaurant activities, and also reduce a potential noise problem. The representatives noted that there was already a lot of foliage in the area and they would rather not hide the new rock wall. They also addressed the noise concern by noting that they already had lū‘au four evenings a week and live music at the poolside, and that they did not anticipate this outdoor dining area to add much to the existing noise level. Commissioner Herbert made a motion to approve the project and Commissioner Dunlap seconded the motion. Commissioner Au Hoy reiterated her concern about possible adverse impacts on the historically significant area, and strongly recommended consultation with the state Department of Land and Natural Resources. Commissioner Dunlap then withdrew his second and suggested revising the motion to include a condition that the project should not conflict with the wishes of local historical and/or cultural communities. After further discussion, Mr. Hu made a statement about the hotel’s continuous contribution toward the heiau and the community. With no second for the revised motion, the motion could not be considered. Commissioner Hetherington made a new motion that the Commission recommend to the Planning Director approval of the proposed project with the following request and condition:  The Commission requests that the proposed rock wall height surrounding the proposed dining area be lowered in part or in its entirety, and that appropriate landscaping along the rock wall be considered.  The recommendation for approval is made with the condition that, prior to any permitting decision being made, the Planning Director consult with appropriate local historical experts such as caretakers of the Ahu‘ena heiau about the project’s potential impacts on the historical site. Commissioner Au Hoy seconded the motion and emphasized the need for sensitivity to the historical importance of the area. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with five ayes (Hetherington, Au Hoy, Burns, Dunlap and Herbert), one no (Stanbro) and two absent and excused (Power and Saito). 2.Discussion of the Department of Public Works (DPW) program for revisions to Chapter 3, Hawai‘i County Code (the Sign Code), including the DPW report made to the Kailua Village Design Commission on May 24, 2011 and revision program information provided to the Planning Department for use by the Commission. Discussion to also include alternative or additional recommendations for revisions to the Sign Code as it relates to Kailua Village. It was moved by Commissioner Burns and seconded by Commissioner Hetherington that this item be deferred to the next meeting. Motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. 3.Formation of a Sign Committee of the Kailua Village Design Commission. It was moved by Commissioner Burns and seconded by Commissioner Hetherington that this item be also deferred to the next meeting. Motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. 4 ANNOUNCEMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at 8:32 p.m., it was moved by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Commissioner Au Hoy that the meeting be adjourned. Motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary A T T E S T: Shane Kitchens, Chair Kailua Village Design Commission 5