Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-22 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I MINUTES Meeting Date: July 22, 2014 Time: 5:17 p.m. Place: West Hawai‘i Civic Center nd Planning Department Conference Room – Building E, 2 Floor 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, 96740 CALL TO ORDER Commissioners Present: Paul Bleck, Alvin Akina, Jr., Fanny Au Hoy, Adam Broderson, Nancy Burns, Shane Kitchens and John Hetherington Absent and Excused: Theresa Andreae and Sammie Stanbro Planning Department: Bennett Mark, Keola Childs and Noriko Sauer Applicant/Representative: Harry McDonald, Sandy McDonald, Armando Altamirano and Winton Nicholson Public: Peter Dahlberg and Zon Sullenberger A quorum was present. Chair Bleck called the meeting to order and the Commissioners introduced themselves. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of the Meeting of June 17, 2014. It was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Kitchens that the minutes be approved as circulated. The motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners present. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS – No statements were presented under this section of the agenda. NEW BUSINESS 1. Design review of a proposed single-family dwelling. Applicant: Harry and Sandy McDonald. Landowner: JP’s Nevada Trust. TMK: 7-5-006:019. Address: 75-5679 Ali‘i Drive, adjoining the north (Kohala) side of The Fishhopper restaurant, and to the rear of (behind) the existing single-family dwelling fronting Ali‘i Drive. Mr. Childs oriented the Commissioners of the subject and surrounding properties on aerial and site photographs. He clarified that because the proposed project is a second dwelling on a Resort-Hotel zoned parcel, a Plan Approval, and thus the Commission’s review and recommendation, is required even though it is a single-family dwelling. He described the proposed two-story building, and said 1 that it would virtually be out of sight of the public due to the irregular shape of the parcel, and the surrounding structures and foliage. He noted in conclusion that the proposed architecture was consistent with the historical theme of the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona (“Master Plan”). The applicants, Harry and Sandy McDonald, provided additional information, and stated that they had designed their proposed home in a traditional style similar to the historic Moku‘aikaua Church, particularly with the use of lava stones and coral plaster on the exterior walls. Commissioner Hetherington moved and Commissioner Broderson seconded that the Commission recommend the Planning Director’s approval of the proposed project as submitted. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion carried with six ayes (Hetherington, Broderson, Akina, Au Hoy, Burns and Kitchens) and two absent and excused (Andreae and Stanbro). 2. Design review of proposed railing and roof modifications to the recently completed Habanero’s Restaurant. Applicant: Armando Altamirano. Landowner: Los Habaneros, Inc. TMK: 7-5-009:034. Address: 75-5864 Walua Road. Located at the intersection of Walua Road and Ali‘i Drive, across from the Royal Kona Resort. Mr. Childs said that the Certificate of Occupancy process had revealed two areas of concern; instead of the originally proposed steel cable, stained cedar was used for the railing, and air conditioning ductwork was visibly mounted on the first-floor rooftop, which had not been shown on the original plan. He clarified the application’s request for approval of the existing cedar railing as built and the proposed railing extension for the purpose of screening the air conditioning ductwork. The applicant, Armando Altamirano, explained that the railing modification was owing to budget constraints, and that regarding the rooftop air conditioning ductwork, he had not realized that his architect had failed to show it on the original plans. He said that he would be willing to paint the railing to match the roof color, if recommended. He also mentioned that he wished to mitigate the sight of the air conditioning equipment by extending the railing because there was leftover lumber he could utilize. The Commissioners agreed that the air conditioning ductwork had to be screened even though it was situated considerably higher than Ali‘i Drive, and that in addition to the proposed railing, something should be done to further mitigate the reflective surface of the ductwork. The Commissioners’ suggestions included direct painting, shade cloth behind the railing, covering the ductwork with dark-colored insulation material, and placing a solid visual barrier between the railing and the mechanical equipment. Mr. Altamirano responded that despite the Commissioners’ doubt about energy efficiency, his preference would be direct painting for the time being because of budget constraints. The Commissioners agreed to allow the applicant to have the flexibility to modify the method in the future without the Commission’s review. Commissioner Hetherington moved, and Commissioner Burns seconded, to recommend the Planning Director’s approval of the existing railing as built and the proposed extension of the railing, which acts as a partial visual barrier for the air conditioning ductwork, with a recommendation that the ductwork be further disguised by either direct painting or a physical screen. After a brief discussion on the motion, Commissioner Hetherington moved to amend his motion to include that the color of the paint or physical screen be the same or similar to that of the exterior walls. The motion to amend 2 was seconded by Commissioner Burns, and unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners present. A roll call vote was then taken for the main motion as amended, and the motion carried with six ayes (Hetherington, Burns, Akina, Au Hoy, Broderson and Kitchens) and two absent and excused (Andreae and Stanbro). 3. Design review of a proposed three-story commercial-residential building. Applicant: Nicholson LLC. Landowner: Ohia Lani, LLC. TMK: 7-5-018:097. Address: 75-5915 Walua Road. Fronting both Kuakini Highway and Walua Road, approximately 900 feet north of the intersection of Lunapule and Walua Roads. Mr. Childs oriented the Commissioners of the subject and surrounding properties with the Tax Map Key map, as well as some aerial and street-view photographs. He described the proposed three-story mixed-use building, and noted that he was not able to identify any architectural elements that were consistent with the Design Guidelines of the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona (“Design Guidelines”). He also handed out copies of a revised site plan to the Commissioners. Chair Bleck asked the applicant’s representative, Winton Nicholson of Nicholson LLC, as to what elements of the architecture would represent “The Kona Way of Life” as set forth in the Master Plan; Mr. Nicholson said that the open gable roofline, similar to the Moku‘aikaua Church architecture, was representative of the Hawaiian style, and that the general design concept was inspired by the former World Square Theater in the Kailua Town. He also explained that the flat roofline of the three-story portion of the building was due to the zoning height restrictions and the narrow shape of the lot, and that the reason for the moderate use of windows was to alleviate traffic noise from Kuakini Highway. In response to Commissioner Kitchens’ question, he answered that he had reviewed the Design Guidelines. The Commissioners were in agreement that the proposed architecture was not in keeping with the Master Plan, including the following areas:  The roofline needs to be improved. In Chair Bleck’s and Commissioner Hetherington’s experience, even a three-story building on this parcel can have a roofline that is consistent with the Design Guidelines. All other buildings in the immediate neighborhood have a hip roof. Commissioner Broderson pointed out the roofline of the Kaloko Honokōhau National Historical Park Visitor Center as an example of what could be done to create a historical feel.  The monotonous façade planes need more opening and articulation. Commissioner Kitchens observed that besides the design aspect, blank walls on commercial buildings seem to end up being used for unpermitted signs and banners, which is always the Commission’s concern.  The boxy appearance of the southern portion of the building does not meet the Design Guidelines; the architecture itself is actually interesting and may fit well in a big city but not in the Kailua Village.  The site plan lacks pedestrian-friendly elements. Mr. Nicholson asked if he could add a ridge all the way around to make the building acceptable, rather than redesign the entire building. He reiterated that he was working with certain limitations, such as the square footage and shape of the parcel. Commissioner Kitchens said that the concept of combining two different styles was not the problem, but that the architectural features still had to be consistent with the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Hetherington also responded that those factors 3 of the parcel should not limit the architect’s ability to bring the exterior design to compliance. He further commented that there were some fairly new projects, such as the American Savings Bank building and the Hawaii Radiologic Associates building, where the respective developer had incorporated specific recommendations made by the Commission, and as a result they constructed buildings more appropriate to the Kailua Village. He said, however, that because the divergence from the Design Guidelines was so fundamental in this case that he wanted to see the Commission recommend denial rather than endorse it with a long list of specific recommendations. It was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Kitchens that the Commission recommend the Planning Director’s denial of the proposed design, and that the applicant submit a revised building design more compatible with the Design Guidelines, with special consideration given to:  a roof design consistent with descriptions in the Master Plan;  exterior railings in a traditional design existing in the Kailua Village;  exterior walls with dimensional relief;  elimination of the box-like appearance of the southern portion of the building; and  inclusion of more pedestrian-friendly design elements, such as an entry sidewalk. A roll call vote was taken, and the motion carried with six ayes (Hetherington, Kitchens, Akina, Au Hoy, Broderson and Burns) and two absent and excused (Andreae and Stanbro). ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Mr. Mark advised that the next meeting scheduled for August 5, 2014, was cancelled for lack of applications. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Mark introduced Messrs. Peter Dahlberg and Zon Sullenberger in the audience, whose nominations to the Commission were being forwarded to the County Council for confirmation, with its Planning Committee’s favorable recommendation. A West Hawai‘i Today article of July 18, 2014, regarding a sign variance application by the Holiday Inn owner, was distributed to the Commissioners. The Commission had reviewed the subject signs on May 6, 2014, and recommended specific modifications, including reduction of their square footage. The article reported that the signs, which had apparently been submitted to the County Council without those modifications, had been rejected by the Committee on Public Works & Parks and Recreation, and that the applicant had been advised to consult with this Commission and submit plans for smaller signs. Mr. Mark expressed his appreciation for the Commissioners’ influential work. Mr. Mark informed the Commissioners that the Planning Director had initiated a bill to amend the Zoning Code, which would require the Planning Director to review Plan Approval and Planned Unit Development applications within a special district, against its adopted design guidelines and/or standards. He clarified that this particular bill had essentially been drafted for a special design district in Pāhoa that was in the process of being established, as well as any future special districts with 4 design guidelines, and therefore would exclude existing special districts where design guidelines had been adopted prior to this amendment, such as the Kailua Village Special District. He said he was informing them of this proposed bill, however, because of its potential effect on this Commission in case consistency in the review process was sought in the future. He added that this bill was being forwarded to the County Council, with favorable recommendations from both the Leeward Planning Commission and the Windward Planning Commission. The Commissioners requested a copy of the proposed bill. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at 7:40 p.m., it was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Broderson 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: Paul Bleck, Chairman Kailua Village Design Commission 5