Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-01 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I MINUTES Meeting Date: November 1, 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, Theresa Andreae, Ann Kern, Shaun Roth, Zon Sullenberger and Mark Van Pernis Absent and Excused: Alvin Akina Jr. and Fanny Au Hoy Planning Department: Terry Dunlap (Planner) and Ellsworth Hulihee (Planner) Applicant/Representative: Michael J. Riehm (Riehm Owensby Planners Architects LLC) and Stacey E. Aguiar, Operations Development Manager (Manini Holdings) Public: None A quorum was present. Chair Dahlberg called the meeting to order at 5:15 pm and the Commissioners introduced themselves. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of the Meeting of October 4, 2016 Chair Dahlberg asked if there were any corrections to the minutes. No corrections were offered. The Chair assumed the motion to approve and the motion passed by unanimous consent. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS – None. NEW BUSINESS 1. BREW LOT 12: Phase I of the Kona Brewery project: revision of previous submittal; addition to square footage of buildings A and B, addition of restroom building, omission of shade structure at building A, relocation of gas tank, addition of loading space at building B, addition of electric charging station and omission of street trees along Pawai place in lieu of sidewalk improvements. *Note – The revised submittal site plan shows the southeast corner of Building B as being within the setback. The applicant will be providing a corrected site plan by moving building B approximately 4’-0” to avoid encroachment into the front yard setback. (COR-16-107964) Applicant: RIEHM OWENSBY PLANNERS ARCHITECTS LLC Landowner: Liliuokalani Trust Estate Lessee: Manini Holdings LLC TMK: (3) 7-4-010: 018 Location: 74-5599 Pawai Place, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 1 Mr. Dunlap familiarized the Commissioners with the property on a map, described the proposed changes and presented the renderings and floor plan. A corrected revised plan was submitted by the applicant to move Building B out of the setback. Mr. Dunlap indicated that the lessee holds leases to several parcels on Pawai Place and that this is part of the lessee’s master plan. Commissioner Van Pernis pointed out that the windows at the end of the building have reduced significantly. Commissioner Andreae asked if there was a change to the bracing under the eaves. Mr. Dunlap stated that it has changed due to the size of the building. Chair Dahlberg asked the applicant to come up and present. Michael J. Riehm (Riehm Owensby Planners Architects LLC) explained that an analysis was done in regards to cost for implementing the previous plan however their analysis indicated that it was cost prohibitive so they needed to revise their plan. He stated that the big vision is to eventually have these three lots have a high level of continuity to brand it as a place at a coherent legible area. He clarified that Pawai Place was never a part of this submittal. The reason we could not do the street trees was due to cost. Ms. Aguiar, Operations Development Manager with Manini Holdings, stated that although Pawai Place is not a part of this project we are still pursuing putting in sidewalks, curbs and gutters. The agreement with the County has been challenging regarding landscaping and irrigation so we have decided to do landscaping on our properties so that we have a better ability to do maintenance and irrigation rather than it being in the right-of-way and needing permits to do the work. Mr. Riehm stated that an electrical car charging stall has been added, the shade structure was removed because the food service tenant did not want it. A major change was adding the restroom facilities. He stated that they needed to provide future tenants options for different storefronts depending on their needs. He further stated that the buildings increased in size. Building A was 3,200 square feet and increased to 3,600 square feet. Building B was originally 3,154 square feet and is not 4,510 square feet. Mr. Riehm talked about the landscape plan and stated that they only needed to comply with Rule 17. For cost reasons they eliminated any landscaping that was not required by that Rule. The buffer area was removed because Mr. Riehm didn’t interpret that to be a requirement of Rule 17. He requested staff to show him that requirement of Rule 17 after the meeting. Commissioner Andreae asked whether the patrons will have to access the building from the roadway side and will be unable to access from the parking lot side. Mr. Riehm stated that the concept of this project was to get people on the street. Everyone that comes to this project would flow on to the outdoor plaza and open areas. We are intentionally using the rear of the buildings as a service entrance. 2 Commissioner Van Pernis expressed his offense of the revised proposal. He stated that he felt these changes cheapen the feel of the area and increases potential revenue by increasing the leasable area. Commissioner Roth expressed his disagreement of Commissioner Van Pernis’ assessment. He stated that the changes that were are proposing are relatively minor. He further stated this project exceeds anything else happening in the industrial area and the developer is doing their best to improve the area. Commissioner Van Pernis stated that he is not opposed to the project but he is opposed to the changes that have been submitted because the Commission already approved a plan for them that had public benefit. Commissioner Andreae stated that she was disappointed that the wainscoting was dropped from the plan. Commissioner Roth stated that he understands how two warehouse style buildings are not cost- effective to rehab and that building two new warehouse style buildings can be more economical. Mr. Riehm pointed out, in fairness to the developer, no one in the industrial area are doing any type of place making like this which includes plazas, berms, landscaping, sidewalks and shade structures. He stated he thinks the developer is making a good effort to redo this area and encourage more people to come and shop to make this a successful project and area. Commissioner Van Pernis state that this plan should have been presented originally. He also stated that just because the area has cheaper warehouse buildings doesn’t mean it has to continue that way. He also brought up the ulu trees which are indicated as the canopy trees on the landscape plan in the center of the parking lot and that it could be a liability if you have ulu’s falling on parked cars. He stated that this is not the appropriate canopy tree to be placed there. Mr. Riehm acknowledged that he wished that this was originally submitted but due to things beyond their control the plan had to be revised. He stated that the Landscape Plan was done by Scott Seymore who is a landscape architect and the ulu tree issue will be pointed out to him. Commissioner Andreae asked for clarification on why the shade canopy in front of Building A was being removed. Ms. Aguiar stated that the reason for the removal was that the anchor food service tenant, that would be leasing Building A, couldn’t fit an outside dining service area into their plan without a completely attached outdoor dining area. Commissioner Roth asked if the existing monkey pod trees would be kept. Mr. Riehm stated that the monkey pods trees would not be removed. Ms. Aguiar stated that these changes were aesthetic driven not budget driven. Their concept is to create a maker’s market to drive home grown industrial local makers to produce things in the area. The warehouse look is intentional to have a collaborative community similar to a development called Shed in Healdsburg, California. Ms. Aguiar stated that they wanted to be different than Target, the big box stores and Aliʻi Drive by creating something unique to the up and coming industry. 3 Commissioner Roth moved to recommend the plan as submitted with the following conditions: 1. Remove breadfruit trees from plan and replace with substitute canopy trees; 2. The façade must comply with the Design Guidelines of the Kailua-Kona Master Plan; and 3. The Landscaping Plan must comply with Rule 17 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Hawaiʻi County Planning Department. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kern. There was no additional discussion. The main motion was restated and a roll call vote was taken. The motion carried with five (5) ayes (Andreae, Kern, Roth, Sullenberger and Dahlberg), one (1) nay (Van Pernis) and two (2) absent and excused (Akina and Au Hoy). 2. SIGNS WITHIN THE KAILUA VILLAGE: General Discussion on the sign code, the Commission’s role and the enforcement of the sign code. Mr. Dunlap provided the Commissioners with two ordinances related to the Sign Code. He stated that there are a lot of signs in Kailua Village that do not comply with the Sign Code and that there are people that come to the Commission asking for review and recommendations on their signs while their neighbors just put out whichever sign they want that doesn’t meet guidelines for the Kailua Village. Commissioner Roth asked if a project’s sign does not comply with what the recommended approval by the Commission was whether Planning doesn’t sign off on the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Dunlap stated that the sign may not be up because it’s not a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. He further stated that if the sign was up that it may or may not be brought to the attention of the Building Division. Commissioner Andreae stated that the Commission would be a logical body to present our concerns to the County Council that the Commission is wasting their time reviewing sign applications if the Building Division is not going to enforce the Sign Code. Commissioner Kern state she agrees with Commissioner Andreae. She stated that the Commission recommend approval with conditions that they remove certain signs that don’t meet the Sign Code yet the Applicants have not, and the Building Division doesn’t enforce the removal of the signs. This is about asking why enforcement isn’t occurring. Commissioner Van Pernis stated that the Commission has three options: to do nothing, to pass a motion that the Sign Code be enforced or to say that the Commission doesn’t care about a Sign Code. Commissioner Van Pernis moved to direct and empower Chair Dahlberg and Commissioner Andreae to draft a letter to transmit to the Planning Director to disseminate to the County Council and the Department of Public Works regarding signs and sign enforcement within the Kailua Village that will be presented to the Commission for approval at its next meeting. 4 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sullenberger. There was no additional discussion. The main motion was restated and a roll call vote was taken. The motion carried with five (5) ayes (Andreae, Kern, Roth, Sullenberger and Van Pernis) and two (2) absent and excused (Akina and Au Hoy). ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 1. 2017 MEETING SCHEDULE OF THE KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION: Discussion and approval of the 2017 Kailua Village Design Commission meeting schedule. Two versions of proposals for the 2017 Calendar Year schedule of the Kailua Village Design Commission were distributed. Version A presents the schedule as outlined in the Rules of Procedure of the Kailua Village Design Commission. Version B shows a schedule which limits the meetings to two per month and moves the meetings in January to the second and fourth Tuesday to defer them to after holidays in that month. Commissioner Sullenberger moved to adopt Version B of the proposed meeting schedule for 2017. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Andreae. There was no additional discussion. The main motion was restated and a voice vote was taken. The motion carried with five (5) ayes (Andreae, Kern, Roth, Sullenberger and Van Pernis) and two (2) absent and excused (Akina and Au Hoy). ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Huliheʻe announced that the next meeting that was scheduled for November 15, 2016 had no applications submitted. Due to there not being any business for that meeting date, the meeting was cancelled and the next meeting is scheduled for December 6, 2016. ADJOURNMENT Chair Dahlberg asked if there was any further business. No further business was offered. The Chair assumed the motion to adjourn and the motion passed by unanimous consent. The meeting of the Kailua Village Design Commission was adjourned at 6:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /Ellsworth Hulihee/ Ellsworth Hulihee, Planner 5 A T T E S T: Peter Dahlberg, Chairman Kailua Village Design Commission 6