Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-13 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I MINUTES MEETING DATE: September 13, 2011 TIME: 5:15 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, Stephen Herbert, John Hetherington and Sammie Stanbro (until 7:15 p.m.) 2.Absent and Excused: Fanny Au Hoy, Eugene Power and Riley Saito 3.Applicants/Representatives: Peter Piper and Greg Ogin 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. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS None. NEW BUSINESS 1. Design Review of existing unpermitted exterior walls and a proposed roof extension in the Coconut Grove Marketplace for Eugene K. Gregory Trust, Anekona LLC, LRG Real Estate L.P. and PFP Anekona L.P. as follows: (a) two “as-built” (after the fact), unpermitted exterior walls which enclose covered deck and hallway areas to enlarge an enclosed dining area and create a storage room for Bongo Ben’s Café and connect two existing buildings, and (b) a proposed ground floor roof extension from an existing metal awning within the minimum required front yard (building setback) along Ali‘i Drive, to enlarge a covered dining area for Bongo Ben’s Café. Applicant: Peter J. Piper. Property Tax Map Key Nos.: 7-5-009: 025 and 027. Located at 75-5801 Ali‘i Drive, Kailua-Kona. Mr. Childs oriented the Commissioners regarding the subject and surrounding properties on the location map, and described the two requests: (1) after-the-fact approval for two exterior walls, and (2) approval for a proposed extension of an existing metal roof to cover all of an existing outdoor dining area for Bongo Ben’s Café, which would extend to a three-foot setback distance from the Ali‘i Drive property line. He gave an overview of permit history, and said that the owner had applied for an amendment to a previously issued Planned Unit Development (PUD) permit, which would allow the proposed roof extension. He pointed out that the straight roof edge shown on the applicant’s drawing would have to be corrected with a notch or curvature to accommodate an existing palm tree. He noted that while the subject property with its 1 Resort-Hotel zoning designation had a 20-foot building setback from the Ali‘i Drive property line, the Kona Community Development Plan envisioned this area as the urban core with zero building line setbacks to encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic. From the standpoint of the Master Plan guidelines, he said that the unpermitted enclosing walls, which were only partially visible from Ali‘i Drive, were painted the same color to match the rest of the buildings’ exterior walls, and that the proposed roof extension was consistent with a pedestrian-oriented redevelopment plan for the Kailua Village and would replace the existing mixture of umbrellas and makeshift awnings. He added, however, that entrance and signage features were not addressed in this proposal and could be important elements in the final appearance of this project. Commissioner Hetherington at this time disclosed that he had worked on the subject complex for about a year, and that although he was no longer involved, his knowledge of the project history might affect his decision. Mr. Mark suggested that Commissioner Hetherington recuse himself from the discussion and vote, and just provide testimony as a public member, if he wished to share his knowledge with the Commission. Commissioner Hetherington agreed and the Chair accepted his recusal. The Chair asked whether the unpermitted walls met safety requirements, particularly the fire code. Mr. Mark said that the Fire Department was one of the agencies that had reviewed the original PUD application and would have an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. In response to Commissioner Herbert’s inquiry about whether there were any permit violations, Mr. Mark said that there had been a number of notices of violations issued by the Planning Department; however, the Planning Director was requesting at this time input from the Commission concerning the project’s compliance with the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona prior to her decision on the PUD amendment. Mr. Peter Piper, the applicant, and Mr. Greg Ogin of Clark Realty, the property management company for the subject commercial complex, were in attendance. Mr. Piper gave additional background information. He assured the Commission that any code requirements including the fire code would be addressed later in the PUD permit amendment process. He emphasized that the proposed roof extension would be in keeping with the guidelines for the Kailua Village; it would match the architecture and color theme of the existing building, clean up the current hodgepodge of sunshades, provide comfort to and protect the diners from rain as well as rubbish falling from the second-floor deck, and create a sidewalk café which was pedestrian-oriented. The Chair recommended that the proposed column design be modified to match the existing columns of the upper floor. Mr. Piper responded that although it was a steel structure, fake wood could be used to achieve the similar look. Commissioner Dunlap suggested that skylights on the proposed roof extension be considered, as it would otherwise make the inside dining area dark. He also said that he was excited about this opportunity to clean up the signage and improve the appearance of the potentially attractive building. In response to his question as to whether all existing signs would be re-installed after construction, Mr. Piper said that the property manager wanted to bring the signage to compliance, and that he would be happy to help his client with that aspect as well. He commented that he found the Sign Code and the approval process to be convoluted. Mr. Ogin said that they would support the signage cleanup and have no problem with inclusion of a condition in the Commission’s approval, requiring them to come back with a signage plan. 2 John Hetherington provided testimony saying that although the Department of Public Works did not recognize it as such, the two buildings connected together by the subject enclosing walls should be considered one according to their PUD permit, regardless of the parcel boundary between them. He also said that he was in favor of sidewalk café; he added, however, that the Commission might set a precedent by approving this and start seeing many similar applications in the future. It was moved by Commissioner Dunlap, and seconded by Commissioner Burns, to recommend the Planning Director’s approval of the requests with exterior colors as proposed, subject to the following conditions:  The steel support columns for the proposed roof extension be enlarged, by wood cladding or framing, to have finish widths of approximately eight inches by eight inches;  The side and street-front fascia of the roof extension should be widened to approximately twelve inches, with the roof and fascia color matching that of the roof of the existing building;  All signs on the subject buildings (the two buildings now connected by enclosing walls and decking above), including temporary signs and those on temporary structures placed in front of the subject buildings, are to be made compliant with the Sign Code. In addition to these conditions, the Commissioners agreed to include a recommendation that the addition of skylights or similar to the roof extension be considered. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with five ayes (Dunlap, Burns, Herbert, Stanbro and Kitchens) and three absent and excused (Au Hoy, Power and Saito). The Chair suggested that the Commission take up the minutes of the previous meetings at this time, then continued discussion on the Sign Code, and lastly the formation of a sign committee. There were no objections. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 1. Approval of Minutes of the Meetings of July 26, 2011 and August 23, 2011. It was moved by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Commissioner Hetherington that the minutes be approved as submitted. The motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. (Note: The minutes of the July 26, 2011, meeting had previously been approved; however, an inadvertent omission of the approval of the minutes of the July 12, 2011, meeting had subsequently been noted and corrected.) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1.Continued discussion of the existing Sign Code (Chapter 3, Hawai‘i County Code) as to provisions applicable to the Kailua Village special design district (“the District”) and which provisions the Commission may wish to recommend be amended. Discussion to include: a. Commissioner’s individual presentations and recommendations as to current and preferred boundaries of the District, the Kailua Village Core, and the Kailua Industrial Subdivision as presently defined therein; 3 b. Discussion of some or all of those boundaries; c. Other general discussion relating to the Sign Code, including sizes and types of signs and sign fabrication materials allowable in those areas, and all other provisions applicable to the District; and d. Concept of conducting one or more commissioners “field trips” through some or all of the Kailua Village special design district to view the range, location, appearance and visibility of existing signs in the district. Commissioners Hetherington, Burns, Dunlap and the Chair presented their recommendations and preferred boundaries. Commissioner Dunlap also shared some photographs he had just taken, saying that he was surprised by the number and repetitiveness of signs, including separate signs advertising each product and/or service that businesses offered. The following points were raised and discussed:  Kona Bay Estates Subdivision should be removed from the Kailua Village Special District (KVSD) due to its irrelevancy.  Businesses may possibly be motivated to eliminate illegal or extra signs, if reasonably large signs are allowed. For example, Kona Commons, which is outside of the KVSD, has larger signs and is not cluttered with additional signs.  People have different expectations in the industrial area where product signs are actually helpful to shoppers, although those signs can easily result in a cluttered appearance.  One way to reduce clutter is to more strictly enforce what signs can be made of.  There are two sets of issues: the size of signs and the number of signs.  The current Sign Code is too restrictive. One of the goals is to minimize the number of variances that people have to go to the County Council for.  Signage is a safety issue; motorists of all age groups should be able to identify or find their destinations easily. Legibility of directory signs is important.  The same sign restrictions should apply to both sides of roadway.  Even within the same type of traffic area, the one-size-fits-all approach does not work because of the uniqueness of size, orientation and character of each building. While signage must be aesthetically pleasing, sufficient exposure should be allowed to be fair to businesses.  Even a sign that is larger than permitted or made of undesirable material can be acceptable, if it is installed at the right location, e.g. ground as opposed to roof top, or not accompanied by additional small signs – for example, the yellow arch of McDonald’s on Kuakini Highway.  The challenge is how to translate these ideas into words; this task can be included in the scope of the prospective committee. 4  Good examples of signs adhering to the character of the area can be found at the Parker Ranch Center in Kamuela (ranch country theme) and in the Lahaina Town on Maui (whaling town theme).  The Commission should strongly recommend that the Sign Code be enforced.  Businesses with existing signs can be given a grace period of five to seven years before they must comply with the amended Sign Code, at which time they may be more willing to invest in new signage, while new applications must comply as of the effective date.  The Commission may want to consider going forward with the KVSD section, to the extent it can, independent of the Department of Public Works who has been working on the amendment to the entire Sign Code for years.  According to Section 25-7-5 of the County Code, the KVSD boundaries were subject to review in 1979 and every five years thereafter by the County Council, and may be amended as appropriate. The amendment to the KVSD section of the Sign Code could be incorporated into this redistricting process instead of the island-wide Sign Code amendment. The prospective committee can explore this option as well.  Although they are not responsible for the Sign Code, the Council members, especially the one representing this district, should be informed of the ineffectiveness of the current Sign Code, the signage mess as a result of non-compliance, confusion and frustration of the community, and the difficulty the Commission is faced with.  The Commission’s recommendations should be submitted with supportive data such as that of federal traffic studies. The Chair concluded the discussion by requesting the staff to re-agendize this matter for the next meeting, with notation that it would be the final opportunity for the Commissioners to individually present their recommendations and preferred boundaries. Commissioner Dunlap then also requested the Chair and staff to put on the next meeting agenda discussion as to whether or not the Commission, under the authorized powers and duties of the Commission, could be involved in buildings that have been repainted, in order to maintain continuity. NEW BUSINESS 2.Formation of a Sign Code Review Committee of the Kailua Village Design Commission. (The Commission may decide to re-order this agenda item to follow related matters listed below as Unfinished Business.) While recognizing the fact that this item had been postponed a number of times in favor of overview discussions about the Sign Code elements, the Chair still expressed his preference for having the full membership in attendance in order to give every member the opportunity to volunteer or comment. After a short discussion, the Chair requested that this item be put on the next meeting agenda in order to conclude the business, and that the staff inquire of all Commissioners in advance, especially those who would be absent, whether they would be interested in serving on the subject committee. There were no objections. 5 ANNOUNCEMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at 8:15 p.m., it was moved by Commissioner Herbert and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap that the meeting be adjourned. The 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 6