Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-07 KVDC Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I MINUTES Meeting Date: June 7, 2016 Time: 5:15 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: Peter Dahlberg, Shaun Roth, Theresa Andreae, Adam Broderson, Ann Kern and Zon Sullenberger Absent and Excused: Alvin Akina, Jr., Fanny Au Hoy and Chuck Cartwright Planning Department: Bennett Mark, Terry Dunlap and Noriko Sauer Applicant/Representative: Mattson Davis, Michael Riehm and Stacey Aguilar Public: Mark Van Pernis and John Bertsch A quorum was present. Chair Dahlberg called the meeting to order and the Commissioners introduced themselves. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of the Meetings of May 3, 2016, and May 17, 2016 It was moved by Commissioner Kern and seconded by Commissioner Roth that the minutes of the meeting of May 3, 2016, be approved as submitted. The motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote. It was moved by Commissioner Andreae and seconded by Commissioner Sullenberger that the minutes of the meeting of May 17, 2016, be approved as submitted. The motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS – None. NEW BUSINESS 1.Phase I of the Kona Brewery project: exterior renovation of two (2) existing buildings, addition of two (2) shade roof canopies, revisions to both the parking lot and landscaping. Applicant: Riehm Owensby Planners Architects LLC. Landowner: Liliuokalani Trust Estate/Manini Holdings LLC. TMK: (3) 7-4-010: 018. The address is 74-5599 Pawai Place, located adjacent to the Kona Brewery on the mauka side of Pawai Place. 1 Mr. Dunlap familiarized the Commissioners with the location of the subject property on maps. He displayed some photographs of the site and surrounding area, and pointed out the unsightly existing condition with a lot of debris and graffiti on a building wall. He concluded his presentation by saying that he was excited about this application, which was the first phase of a larger plan to renovate the area on Pawai Place. Mr. Mattson Davis introduced himself as a managing partner of Manini Holdings, formerly President and CEO of Kona Brewing Company, which is a tenant of Manini Holdings. He presented additional background information regarding the subject property, Kona Brewing Company’s successful business, and a planned state-of-the-art brewery. He said that their proposal was to maximize the zoning entitlement for the property, first focusing on providing ample parking to support the Kona Brewing Company restaurant and future tenants, which would mostly be food and beverage businesses, and bring the area to life. Mr. Michael Riehm representing the applicant described the proposal in more detail by going over their drawings. He introduced the master project as “Brew,” and said that the basic concept was redevelopment of the area to create a people place, with more pedestrian-oriented sidewalks, trees, sitting places and outdoor dining areas. He said that the owner \[lessee, Manini Holdings\] had three lots, of which this application covered one as the first phase, and that the Planning Department allowed the proposed parking lot to serve all those three parcels. He explained that the different colors on the site plan signified their plan to use different color pavement to give an identity to each section. With respect to the proposed renovation of two existing buildings, he said that the buildings would be developed as shells, preserving the concrete base but upgrading the rest, for tenants to come in and finish the interior. He also said it was important to maintain the industrial look rather than transform it to a commercial look. He concluded by saying that this phase would set the theme for the other two lots. In response to questions from the Commissioners, further information provided by Messrs. Davis and Riehm included: (1) that they had no plan to take down the overhead electric lines, (2) that the selection of street trees had not been made, although Hong Kong Orchid was a possibility, (3) that they were in the process of drafting a parking agreement, and (4) that the roll-up garage doors were made of glass panels for visibility. Chair Dahlberg allowed questions from the audience. Mr. Van Pernis, introducing himself as a nominee to the Commission, asked if the applicant was committed to the multi-color paving and landscaping for the parking lot as depicted on the drawing. Messrs. Riehm and Davis responded that they could not commit themselves to it at this moment since the project depended on their budget, but that this proposal was their desire. Commissioner Roth commended the applicant for incorporating the street improvements in their plan, which made the project complete. He added that streets were often abandoned by projects. Mr. Riehm commented that while the benefit of having street trees was undisputed, the County street standards did not allow any trees due to lack of maintenance funds and apparatus, which was a challenge to them as the Kona Community Development Plan actually called for street trees. Mr. Mark confirmed that the Kona Community Development Plan and the Planning Department were both supportive of having street trees. He talked about the Smart Growth concept, which was 2 encouraged by the KCDP, and said that the proposed project contained various elements of Smart Growth, such as shade trees, compact mixed uses and walkability. In response to Commissioner Andreae’s question about alternate access for pedestrians, Mr. Davis said that they were working with the landowner Queen Lili‘uokalani Trust whose idea was to possibly provide a pathway from the corner of Pawai Place to Kuakini Highway, mentioning, however, that a 1969 subdivision requirement that there be no pedestrian access to Kuakini Highway was still in effect. He also mentioned that there was currently a ramp between their property and the adjacent ‘Ilima Court property. Mr. Van Pernis pointed out the cross-hatch pattern on the end of cul-de-sac \[Pawai Place\], as well as the entrance areas of the parking lot, and asked if the applicant was committed to the pattern if not the different colors of the pavement. Mr. Riehm clarified that the Pawai Place improvements were not part of this application, and said that the applicant was committed to this plan so long as the budget allowed, and that it was possible that the cross-hatch might be replaced with another design, which they would be happy to resubmit to the Commission for its approval. Commissioner Roth commented that this was a fantastic project regardless of the color or the design of the pavement, and that the Commission should notmake an issue out of those features. Commissioner Sullenberger noted also that the Commission should focus on the application that was currently before the Commission, which was for the renovation of the existing buildings and revisions to the parking lot and landscaping. Mr. Riehm stated that they would come back to the Commission with changes to this application, if any, and also with plans for the other lots. He explained that the reason why they showed more than just the subject lot on their drawings here was so that the Commission could see the applicant’s vision for the entire Brew project. Commissioner Broderson, who is a landscaping professional, endorsed the proposed landscape plan. It was moved by Commissioner Broderson and seconded by Commissioner Roth that the Commission recommend the Planning Director’s approval of the proposed project as submitted. During discussion on the motion Commissioner Andreae encouraged the applicant to plant shady street trees. Mr. Riehm reiterated that the County right-of-way \[Pawai Place\] improvements shown on the plan were only conceptual and not part of this application, and that they would be happy to present their proposal to the Commission when they made their selection of street trees. He explained that they preferred street trees to other types of landscaping in order to take full advantage of the sidewalk width, create a mercantile look as opposed to a residential look, and minimize the need for water and maintenance. He then asked whether they would have to resubmit the entire street design to the Commission as a separate application, even if the current conceptual plan did not change, or they would be able to present their tree selection only. He said that their street improvement plan included certain elements that were not consistent with the County street standards, such as extra wide sidewalk with trees, but that they had already discussed the matter with Mr. Kiran Emler of the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, and received his okay. He added that their vision for the wide sidewalk was also to accommodate golf carts that would transport patrons, and that they still had to work out the idea with the Police Department. Commissioner Roth expressed his support for the wide pedestrian-friendly sidewalk, and suggested that the Commission should expedite the process by also approving the right-of-way design, if possible, to help this project move forward. In response to Chair Dahlberg’s question about the Commission’s duties and procedure, Mr. Mark said that while the Commission usually reviewed projects requiring Plan Approval and made recommendations to the Planning Director, the powers 3 and duties of the Commission according to the Zoning Code included “an architectural and design review of all planned public improvements such as street widening, street lights, and so forth, as well as all private improvements such as landscaping ….”; therefore, it was within the purview and duties of the Commission to review public right-of-way improvements and forward recommendations to the Public Works Director in certain cases via the Planning Director. With their understanding that the Commissioners could only act on the application before them, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with five ayes (Broderson, Roth, Andreae, Kern and Sullenberger) and three absent and excused (Akina, Au Hoy and Cartwright). ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS None. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Mark announced that the Council Committee of Planning had unanimously voted to support Mr. Mark Van Pernis’ nomination to the Commission, which was now being forwarded to the County Council for its confirmation. He said that with the Council confirmation Mr. Van Pernis would succeed Commissioner Broderson. He thanked Commissioner Broderson for his many years of service and dedication beyond his official term. Mr. Dunlap announced that the next meeting was scheduled for June 21, 2016, with tentatively two items on the agenda, including a multi-family residential project using bamboo for exterior material. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, at 6:20 p.m., it was moved by Commissioner Roth and seconded by Commissioner Sullenberger that the meeting be adjourned. The motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary A T T E S T: Peter Dahlberg, Chairman Kailua Village Design Commission 4