Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-08 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I MINUTES Meeting Date: November 8, 2011 Time: 5:26 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 CALL TO ORDER Members Present: Nancy Burns, Fanny Au Hoy, Terry Dunlap, Stephen Herbert, John Hetherington, Riley Saito and Sammie Stanbro (from 5:35 p.m. until 7:10 p.m.) Absent and Excused: Shane Kitchens and Eugene Power Applicants/Representatives: Brian Anderson and Joan Anderson Planning Department: Bennett Mark, Keola Childs and Noriko Sauer Public: Nathan Jacobson, Greg Ogin, Ray Kudo, Richard Leander, Lesley Barley, Anh Nguyen, Joan Johnson, Jan Dalziel, Beth Ivey, Jason Braswell, Jeff Leicher, Teri Leicher, Alicia Miller, Zachary Gibson and Sage Franks A quorum was present. Vice Chair Burns called the meeting to order. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS The Vice Chair suggested that the Commission reorder the business and take statements from the public after presentations by the staff and the applicant, so that the public members would be better informed of the proposal. There were no objections. NEW BUSINESS mauka 1. Design Review of a proposed four foot high perimeter fence along eastern () portions of both the north and south boundaries of the subject property and its entire east boundary, thereby closing off certain existing ADA accessible and commercial walkways which serve and interconnect buildings in the Coconut Grove Marketplace on adjoining parcels of land. Applicant: Cord D. Anderson. Land Owner: State of Hawai‘i. Property Tax Map Key No.: 7-5-009:043. Location: 75-5809 Ali‘i Drive. This site is currently developed as an open volleyball sand court at the center of Coconut Grove Marketplace frontage along Ali‘i Drive. Mr. Childs oriented the Commissioners regarding the subject and surrounding properties on the location map, and described the proposed project. He said that the applicant had stated that the main purpose of the proposed fence was to address liability of persons possibly falling off the retaining rock wall that bisects the property above the volleyball court. He noted that the Planning Department had required the applicant to apply for Plan Approval for the proposed fencing, since the existing improvements on the subject parcel, including the volleyball court as open space and the 1 inter-connective walkways, were considered an integral part of the Coconut Grove Marketplace (Coconut Grove) based on previously issued Plan Approvals. He also noted that the State Department of Land and Natural Resources stated in its advisory letter that the State’s approval of the proposed fence was conditioned upon the applicant first being “in compliance with the character of use provision of the lease”; specifically, actual income-producing use of at least a certain portion of the parcel would have to occur to the satisfaction of the State agency. He said that any commercial use would have to comply with Zoning Code requirements and might require Plan Approval, and that since the applicant had not proposed any commercial activity, it was not yet clear whether the fence would be permitted under Plan Approval. Further, he said that a new or an amended Special Management Area Use permit would also be required prior to any other County permits. With respect to compliance with the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona, he said that the guidelines did not seem to speak to this type of improvements directly, but because of its low height, neutral color and distance from the public street, rather than the aesthetical impact, the proposed fence would essentially make the existing internal pedestrian and commercial loading ways less convenient. Brian Anderson, the applicant’s representative, gave additional background information, and stated that the applicant intended to keep the property as a volleyball court for daytime use as a service to the community, but that due to inadequate lighting at night and the proximity to bars, liability and security was a serious concern to him and to his insurance company. He also stated that the proposed fence would be up only for a temporary period of six months until the applicant could decide what to do with the parcel. He added that this proposal would not affect the existing Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliance and customer traffic flow of the Coconut Grove. Further, in response to the Commissioners’ questions, Mr. Anderson made the following statements: The applicant intends to reopen the volleyball court; the applicant is soliciting hula shows and art shows to be held at the site; there is currently no electricity service to this parcel; the volleyball court had always been well lit with the cooperation from the previous owner of the adjacent parcel until about two years ago when it was discontinued by the current owner; the applicant has tried to discuss the matter with the adjacent property owners, but cannot get their cooperation; the proposed fence would be only temporary for six months until the applicant can get electricity service and while he consider other options; the applicant’s current intent is to keep the parcel as open space rather than build a structure on it; the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) approved the proposed fencing at its October 31, 2011, hearing; the applicant has concurrence from his insurance company that, although six feet is preferable, the proposed four-foot height is enough to get his liability covered; and even though the proposed fence would restrict access to an existing walkway, there is another walkway parallel to it about six feet higher, which would be intact, as well as the ADA accessibility and loading zone. Mr. Anderson said he appreciated the Commission’s input, when Commissioner Dunlap suggested that adding a railing onto the existing rock wall would be a better solution for the applicant’s liability issue. However, he urged the Commission to focus on the appearance and impact of the proposed fence and advise the applicant as to what type of design would be acceptable, rather than discuss whether or not there should be a fence. The Vice Chair then called up the following individuals who wished to provide statements: Sage Franks, who has been working in the Coconut Grove for nine years, expressed his concern that the proposed four-foot fence would actually be more hazardous than the existing rock wall, saying that he could easily imagine inebriated people and children climbing it. He was also concerned that the fence would force people in a wheelchair to take a long way to get around the complex. He said that a fence had been put up twice in the past, but taken down within 48 hours due to concerns of the 2 businesses and customers, and also said that the fence had been an eyesore, and that there had seemed to be a power play with a selfish reason and no public interest. Zack Gibson, who owns Kapa Bar in the Coconut Grove, also spoke against the proposal. He was concerned that the proposed fence would be unsightly and would limit customer access to his business. He mentioned that he had experienced less business traffic when a fence had been put up in the past. He said that the applicant should not block off the walkway and should instead consider a railing on the existing rock wall and better lighting. Teri Leicher, who owns Jack’s Diving Locker and the building where the business is located with her husband, said that it was unfortunate that the applicant felt that he had to block off the area, and that while she understood the applicant’s property rights and his concerns, the negative impact of the proposed fence might put people out of business. Jeff Leicher, the previous speaker’s husband, said that they used solar lights on their property, which could be an alternative to light up the subject rock wall area. He also spoke about an accident that had happened years ago, followed by a lawsuit, at the Aloha Stadium involving a gate that had been put up to alter the exit route, causing people to climb the gate to exit because the new route was less convenient. He said people would unquestionably climb the proposed four-foot high fence, mentioning their experience with people climbing over their four-foot fence to get into their pool at night. He concluded by saying that he opposed having a fence as proposed, but if there had to be a divider, a rock wall would look best from a design standpoint. Ray Kudo from ABC Store in the Coconut Grove said that the proposal would affect their customer traffic flow, as well as their delivery people who use the pathway that would be blocked by the proposed fence. He said that it would also affect the efficiency of some businesses, as they would lose easy access to the trash bin located in the back area. Jason Braswell, who owns Big Island Running Company in the Coconut Grove with his wife, also opposed the proposal, saying that it was obvious to him that the fence would disrupt the customer traffic flow and make the existing walkways useless and tourist-unfriendly. He said that it did not make sense for the applicant to fence the area while saying he would reopen the volleyball court for public use. In response to Commissioner Stanbro’s question, he said that he had not attended the BLNR hearing in Honolulu but had sent in a comment letter. Lesley Barley representing volleyball players thanked the applicant for allowing them to use the volleyball court. She said that it would be better to take down the rock wall, grade it down to the volleyball court level and open up the whole area, if safety was a concern and the fence were to be only temporary. Greg Ogin from Clark Commercial Group, the property manager for the Coconut Grove, said that he had worked with the applicant in the inception of the Coconut Grove, and said that the applicant’s vision at that time had been to create a resort community with a volleyball court as a central focus and open space. He said that the volleyball court area had not been pledged to the bank and was not part of the overall lien; however, it had always been a part of the overall development at the County level, mentioning that it had been designed to drain excess water to the volleyball court, and that a lot of the tenants bought into the vision that the applicant had. He opined that the fence would really affect the tenants. He said that the current Coconut Grove owner was looking at alternatives, such as redesigning the existing walkways, if the applicant were to be allowed to put up a fence. He also said that they had been directed to turn off the lights for the volleyball court by the applicant when he had 3 started negotiations with the current Coconut Grove owner. He said that the volleyball court was not currently maintained to a playable level, collecting things coming down from the upper parking lot. He testified that there were problems on property around bars, but there had never been any incidents involving the volleyball court. He opined, while recognizing the rights of the applicant, that security should not be an issue, because the site had frontage on a busy street and the area was adequately lit by a lot of torches and lights in the area. He concluded by saying that the two parties would need to come to an agreement. In response to Commissioner Stanbro’s question, he said that he had testified at the BLNR hearing on October 31. Lastly, Dick Leander pointed out that the applicant’s representative had not directly answered some of the questions from the Commission. He demonstrated his opposition saying that if his young children asked why they could not go in the volleyball sand court, he would tell them that is because some adults had put up the fence. The Vice Chair asked the staff whether there were any parking requirements for the volleyball court. Mr. Childs said that the proposed project did not trigger a review of parking requirements by the Department; however, if any new activities were proposed, that would have to be addressed then. Mr. Anderson was called back up by the Commission. In response to Commissioner Saito’s questions, Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant was not going to fence along Ali‘i Drive, because his intention was to keep the area open to the public and he was more concerned about the rock wall area in the back. He also stated that having a fence along the walkway so as not to block off the path would not serve the purpose, because the applicant’s liability starts where the property line is. Also in response to Commissioner Saito’s suggestion on possibly matching the design with an existing railing nearby, he said that since the fence would be up only for six months, the applicant wished to keep the cost down. Commissioner Stanbro inquired what the applicant’s plan for the parcel after six months was. Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant’s goal was to keep it a passive park, if feasible, although he wanted to review other development options during the six months. Commissioner Stanbro said that she couldn’t understand the need for a chain-link fence for six months, as there seemed to be other solutions, such as solar lights, that could address the safety concern for even a longer period. Mr. Anderson responded that the six months would basically be for the applicant to try to work with his neighbor to find a solution, so that hopefully he could keep the area as a passive park. Commissioner Dunlap asked whether people falling off the rock wall would still be an issue after six months. Mr. Anderson responded that it would not be, once the applicant was able to secure a meter and light the volleyball court at night, and mentioned that it had never become an issue for eleven years while the area had been well lit. He also stated, in response to Commissioner Saito’s inquiry, that there was necessary infrastructure in place in the area for electricity. Commissioner Saito commented that even though he understood the applicant’s concern over trespassing, the proposal would not fully address that since the front of the property would still be open for people to come in, and that based on the information provided so far, it seemed to him that there was a bigger picture that the Commission was not responsible for. Mr. Anderson agreed that it was a multi-facet issue, and said that he wished the Coconut Grove tenants would give their input to their landlord as well. Commissioner Saito further commented that he would not recommend a chain-link fence, and that he would like to see a compromise where the walkway would remain unblocked while still mitigating the risk of the rock wall. Commissioner Stanbro also suggested that if a fence were necessary, it be put up on the makai side of the walkway. Mr. Anderson reiterated that the applicant wanted to protect the entire property, questioning why the neighbor should be allowed to use someone else’s property. Commissioner Au Hoy asked whether the applicant had been consulted when the walkway was constructed in the current location. Mr. Anderson said that he himself had the walkway put in eleven years ago, but things were different now so they wanted to block it. He 4 mentioned that he was upset with the neighbor because they never returned his phone calls, and that the tenants should be talking to their landlord to solve this issue. Commissioner Au Hoy clarified the Commission’s position that the chain-link fence was not acceptable, and that the walkway should be kept unblocked. Mr. Anderson said that since he had written the Coconut Grove lease agreement, he was aware that there were a number of actions that the tenants could take with the landlord about the access issue. Commissioner Hetherington commented that while he respected the applicant’s property rights and economic hardship, he was not in favor of any fence. Commissioner Dunlap reiterated that better alternatives would be to add a railing onto the existing rock wall or add more lighting rather than constructing a temporary fence, if the applicant’s main objective was to protect himself from the liability of someone falling off the rock wall in the dark; and that if those were not options to him, there might be some other issues that the Commission was not made aware of. However, recognizing the applicant’s property rights, he moved to recommend that the Planning Director approve the request, with the following comments: 1) if a fence had to remain in the proposed location, the design should match the existing railing design; 2) the attempt be made by the applicant to reconcile an alternative solution, such as placing a railing on the existing wall; and 3) the fence would be a temporary measure for six months only. Commissioner Au Hoy seconded the motion. Commissioner Stanbro expressed her disagreement, saying that if the proposed fence were to be allowed to alter customer traffic flow of the Coconut Grove, it would be unfair to the tenants who had relied on the previously approved design, and that she did not see the applicant’s willingness to compromise. Commissioner Saito, questioning the Commission’s authority over the permissibility of fence and location, suggested putting in a gate on the fence with a notice to users, so that the continuity of the walkway would be available. In response to Commissioner Dunlap’s question regarding the Commission’s power and responsibility, Mr. Childs clarified that the Commission was requested to comment on the design aspect, and that in the past the Commission had recommended to the Planning Director approval of projects with changes agreed by the applicants; but even if the applicant was not agreeable to changes suggested by the Commission, which in this case might be, the Commission could still recommend approval contingent upon those changes. With that, Commissioners Dunlap and Au Hoy withdrew their motion and second, respectively. Commissioner Hetherington then moved, and Commissioner Stanbro seconded, that the Commission recommend to the Planning Director denial of the proposed project. Mr. Anderson expressed his concern that if the proposal were to be plainly denied, there would be no guidelines as to what would then be acceptable to the Commission. Commissioner Herbert pointed out that the Commission’s suggestions were made clear to the applicant during the discussion, and that the Commission’s responsibility was to protect the character of the Kailua Village, and from that standpoint there were more than the liability and security issues that the Commission had to consider. He further said that even if the Commission did not have the power to deny the proposal to build a fence, their recommendation would be that the fence would have to match the existing design of the facility surrounding it. The Commissioners unanimously agreed that the proposed chain-link fence was unacceptable in this location. Commissioner Stanbro suggested an amendment to the motion to include wording that the walkway traffic flow should not be disrupted, even if a fence were to be permitted, so that their concern would be clearly conveyed to the Planning Director. Mr. Mark advised the Commission to give their reason for denial to the Planning Director for her consideration, and summarized the Commission’s concerns that the proposed chain-link design was inappropriate, that the design should match the existing design on the property, and that the previously approved pedestrian traffic flow should not be interrupted. He also said that the Commission could suggest that the applicant be invited to submit a revised plan. Commissioner Hetherington, however, stated that he would not amend his motion to include any specific recommendations for the reason that any fence would be unacceptable to him since there seemed to be better alternatives that could serve the 5 applicant’s purpose. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with six ayes (Hetherington, Stanbro, Au Hoy, Dunlap, Herbert and Saito), and two absent and excused (Kitchens and Power). ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 1. Approval of Minutes of the Meeting of September 27, 2011. The Vice Chair stated that the published agenda cited the incorrect meeting date, and that the minutes of the September 27, 2011 meeting had already been approved at the previous meeting. She further stated that the Commission would defer approval of the minutes of the meeting of October 25, 2011, which was the correct date, to the next Commission meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Dunlap announced his resignation as of November 30, 2011, due to the fact that he had accepted a planner position in the Planning Department. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at 7:12 p.m., it was moved by Commissioner Au Hoy and seconded by Commissioner Hetherington 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: Nancy Burns, Vice Chair Kailua Village Design Commission 6