Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutjul172014 KAUAI COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION Lihue Civic Center, VIo' ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B MINUTES A regular meeting of the Kauai County Historic Preservation Commission (KHPRC) was held on July 17, 2014 in the Llhu`e Civic Center, Mo ' ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B. The following Commissioners were present: Chairperson Stephen Long, Vice Chairperson Pat Griffin, Althea Arinaga, Jane Gray, Anne Schneider, Patsy Sheehan The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Myles Hironaka, Shanlee Jimenez; Office of Boards and Conan fissions — Cherisse Zaima CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3 :01 p.m. APPRO'V'AL OF THE AGENDA Pat Griffin moved to approve the agenda, Patsy Sheehan seconded the motion. The motion carried by unammous voice vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Anne Schneider moved to approve the June 5, 2014 meeting minutes, Althea Armaga seconded the motion. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS (None) COMMUNICATIONS (Nome) UNF OSAED BUSINESS Kiahuna Plantation Resort TMK: 2-8-017-009, Koloa, Kaua`i;,_New Resort Swimming Pool and Maintenance Buildings Chris Gampon, General Manager of Kiahuna Plantation, and John Underwood, Architect, were present to discuss their plans, specifically addressing the archaeological remnant wall that is located in the area where a maintenance facility and pool are being proposed. Mr. Gampon July 17, 2014 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Mbau tes Page 2 explained there has been a plan in place for some years now, noting that in 1997 plans had been submitted by Hal Hammett with the assistance of Nancy McMahon to restore the wall, and install signage to indicate the significance of the wall. The applicant still intends to rebuild the wail, which is a remnant piece that currently measures about 100 feet total with scattered stones around the area that have been centralized into one location. Restacking the wall in its original form will result in a much shorter remnant, but will be a complete formed wall consisting of the original stones. Mr. Long asked if the applicant's presentation will only be in reference to the wall to which Mr. Gampon replied they have drawings and information available on the wall itself as well as the buildings that will surround the area to show what the finished area will look like. Mr. Gampon noted the initial interest in appearing before the Committee is to address the archaeological wall, and reassure them of the intent to keep the wall, rebuild it, and highlight its historical significance. Ms. Schneider requested to hear from the State archaeologist. Mary Jane Naone, archaeologist with the State Historic Preservation Division stated how impressed she is with the applicant' s willingness to incorporate the wall into the plans and utilize traditional methods; SHPD will be supporting that. Ms. Naone noted there is a preservation plan in place for the wall that was approved in 1992, which calls for repair of the wall using concrete mortar; a stabilization method they no longer use. Mr. Gampon and Mr. Underwood have agreed to have some cultural masons repair the wall. Ms. Naone provided some history on the wall, explaining that previous documentation by Bill Kikuchi states the wall was possibly a remnant of salt pans in the area, which is of significance. Mr. Underwood explained he was hired by the community to help develop the entire area, which totals an acre and a half. Within that area is a maintenance base yard to take care of 300 condos with an adjacent open 'area that is currently not in use. hi the center of this parcel is the rock wall in question. Through research they discovered the archaeological survey done in 1990 as well as the follow-up preservation plan from 1992. Those have been submitted to the State for review. Mr. Underwood explained how the process was triggered by requirements of the SMA permit The applicants provided colored design plans for the entire parcel, and explained its location in relation to surrounding properties. The proposal is for four new structures that will become the new maintenance base yard buildings. Pointing out. the current rock wall, Mr. Underwood explained their intent was to restore the wall and use it a backdrop for the swimming pool area. Referencing another drawing showing a view of the rock wall area, Mr. Underwood pointed out the area where the loose pieces of rock are scattered, and explained what they hope to do with the scattered rocks in rebuilding the remaining section of wall. He feels they will end up with approximately 50 percent of the original wall. The existing pool will be raised about 30 inches above the existing grade, and a new moss rock wall will be` placed around its perimeter, holding the lanai off the historic rock wall, which will protrude up beyond that as a backdrop. July 17, 2014 K-H.P.R-C. Meeting Minutes Page 3 Additionally, they are planning to utilize a lot of landscaping to shield the back of the utility building. Mr. Underwood pointed out the various areas of the parcel that he just explained. Ms. Schneider asked whether they would be building up against the rock wall to which Mr. Underwood stated no, they would stay away from it to some degree, and suggested that the distance be determined in the preservation plan. Ms. Sheehan stated her concern is that the wall be protected from pedestrians to ensure it does not become usable to the swimming pool patrons. Mr. Underwood shared some of the ideas for the wall that came out of an earlier discussion, which resulted in the idea that the edge of the pool lanai should have a barrier. He noted that closer detail of the drawing shows that the 30 inch wall around the perimeter of the pool has an additional 18 -inch high aluminum fence on top of it, which is a building code requirement for safety. They would continue with the same type of fencing to prevent the pool patrons from walking on the grass area, 'or climbing on the rock wall . Ms. Sheehan asked whether they would put up signage to educate the public that it is not just a rock wall, and that it has historic significance. Mr.: Underwood stated he feels it would be appropriate to have a plaque there explaining its historic significance. That along with proper barricading of the structure from pedestrian misuse will adequately indicate what they are Iooking at. Mr. Underwood explained that discussion on rebuilding the entire length of the wall determined that it would have required them to obtain rocks from other areas, which would take away from the historic significance of the wall. Mr. Gampon added they would prefer to use the rocks that are at the site now, and not introduce foreign rocks that were not part of the original structure. Though it would end up being shorter, they would rather use those original rocks that made up the actual wall: Ms. Arinaga asked whether the applicant possesses any documentation that explains the significance or history of the rock wall. Mr. Gampon stated there is more of a speculation of the wall's use, noting that different archaeologists have differing opinions, one being that it was a barrier for salt pans, the other that it was a barrier for cows along Hapa Road. Additionally, photographic evidence as far back as 1928 shows there was a house there, and it was also speculated the wall may have been to keep animals away from the home. However, there is no concrete evidence on what the wall was originally used for. Ms. Arinaga stated the reason she asks is that looking at some of the documents presented, it states a metal plaque will be placed on the rock. Being that there is diverse interpretation of its history, she questioned what will the plaque state. Mr. Gampon replied he is unsure what the wording will be, but they will work with Ms. Naone to determine the best way to describe the wall' s significance; they are fine with using the best case theory. Ms. Arinaga asked if they have spoken to any kupuna in the area to which Mr. Gampon stated he has spoken to several long-time residents of the area, but everyone has different theories related to the homestead and salt beds that existed in that area at the time. July 172 2014 KAP.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 4 Ms. Griffin referenced the preservation plan that was done in 1994, and asked why nothing had been done then. Mr. Gampon explained that he thinks that after the significant damage from Hurricane Iniki, there was an intent to build a base yard and pool. However financing, as well as the reconstructive process to get the property back up and running, diverted the necessary funds and effort to do the job properly. The. intent has not changed, and they still wish to restore the wall. Ms. Griffin stated she does; not have a good sense of where the rock wail will actually be as the design shows: the entire configuration of the site. However, her concern is that it appears that it will be landscaping aesthetics rather, than a cultural historic structure. She expressed her concern with the moss rock wall they are planning to utilize as part of their landscaping, and asked how that will be distinguished from the historic rock wall. Mr. Gampon replied the intent is to highlight the historic wall and its significance with an educational plaque explaining the purpose of the structure, and possibly an explanation of the history of the area and what was there before. The intent of the moss rock wall is to maintain the aesthetics of the area. He shared that he used to manage the Point at Po`ipu where there were iwi in the middle of the property. Signage was placed. to give an idea of the area' s significance, but did not provide clear details. This would prompt people to ask the employees who offered their knowledge, which Mr. Gampon feels goes much farther. Ms. Griffin agreed that they don't know for sure what the wall functioned as, but noted that the preservation plan made it clear the desire and intent to create an identifiable; historic structure. She noted that plaques are good, but it' s not the same as presenting it as an important structure, and not simply a backdrop to the pool. She questioned how Kiahuna will make that stand out on its own terms as something that is.part of the history of the area, and not just a landscaping element. Mr. Gampon stated he does not have a clear answer to that at this point, noting that rebuilding the wall is critical to establish its presence. How it will be displayed to separate it from everything else that is there is outside the realm of his expertise, but they do have people that do have that knowledge. He provided examples of what they have done on other properties, noting they have a history of not spoiling what they have; one of their core values is to care for the place.. Ms. Naone referenced Kaneiolouma Heiau,. and the distinction between its boundary wall and the structure, which was done to ensure the two would not be mistaken. She suggested doing the rest of the wall in a more modern style to distinguish the old from the new. Mr. . Gampon replied that there will certainly be a difference in style as the new wall will include concrete to solidify it, whereas the historic wall will.be dry-stacked. Mr. . Underwood explained. for, clarification that the graphics he presented were created as more of a schematic as they went through the permitting process, and at the time they were drawn up, there was not a definite idea of what the end result of preserving the wall would be. It was decided that the best way to restore the wall would be to utilize the original rock, though it would result in a shorter length. Because the wall is essentially in the center of the site, they feel not lengthening it would more easily delineate it as an archaeological feature. July 17, 2014 K.H.P.1LC. Meeting Minirtes Page 5 Ms. Schneider asked whether this area was underwater during Hurricane Iniki to which Mr. Gampon explained that most of the parking area for the Po`ipu Beach Hotel as well as the entire parking lot for the Waiohai was underwater. However, only the lower portion of the base yard area was flooded. Mr. Long stated he acknowledged the drawings are preliminary drawings that were done some time ago, but still wished to comment on them. He stated he, personally, would like to see the entire length of the wall replicated in some way using the same historic style. He suggested having a small section in the middle, which is the remaining historic wall, and as is typically done in restoration and replication, have a dividing line visible to distinguish between old and new. He reiterated that he would really like to see the entire length of the wall restored. He acknowledged the applicant's desire to utilize the original stones and not have to bring in foreign material, but stated there is a lot of local, lava moss rock in the area that is very similar, if not identical. That could be used on the two ends to restore and replicate the entire length of the wall. Mr. Long commented on the pool deck that goes up directly to the rock wall, and reiterated Ms. Sheehan' s comment that there really needs to be a barrier, a defined edge to make a clear separation between the pool and the historic rock wall to prevent children from climbing on it, or it being damaged by pool furniture. He noted the drawings show the landscaping edged with palms, and though he is unsure what type ofpahn will be used, he feels that the landscaping around the historic wall should be indigenous, and related to what the purpose of the wall was, which could assist in creating that separation. He also suggested lower landscaping to make the historic wall more visible, with a different type of landscaping behind it to screen the base yard. Mr. Long stated he thinks the plaque is an excellent idea, but commented that because there is such uncertainty as to how they will be handling or presenting that, he feels that it would be appropriate for the applicant to appear before the Commission again with their final plan for the plaque based on the Commission's comments and the public' s concerns. Mr. Underwood feels that would be appropriate, but pointed out the reason they are before the Commission at this particular time is to determine whether they will need to rebuild the entire wall to its original length. Once that particular issue is resolved, they can work on the other aspects. Ms. Griffin stated they do not want to hold up any projects, and asked to clarify the time element. In response to Mr. Hironaka, Mr. Underwood stated they are not yet scheduled for public hearing with the Planning Commission for the SMA permit, so they do have some time. Ms. Sheehan referenced the long term preservation plan made by Hal Hammett in 1994, and asked whether that can be amended, noting that some things in that plan are not pertinent anymore. Mr. Underwood replied he will try to address that, commenting he is unsure of the connection between the State body and the County body. However, it his initial understanding that the State would be reviewing the documents that were found to see if the preservation plan would still be applicable, and whether it can and/or should be amended. That would then be the plan they would work with along with KHPRC's additional comments. Ms. Naone stated she has consulted with her supervisor, and they are planning to amend the preservation plan. Ms. Sheehan July 17, 2414 KI-LP.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 6 stated if the applicant does come back before the Commission, it would be good for them to have that updated information. Ms. Griffin commented that the plan-was very specific, but there was nothing that put the wall in a larger context of the area, including the pool and additional moss rock. She feels enough has changed that they would essentially be creating a current plan, adding whatever is still appropriate, and including whatever is still relevant. Since this plan never happened 20 years ago, she asked whether this is something that can be included as a condition of permitting to which Mr. Hironaka nodded in affirmation. Ms. Griffin asked if would be feasible to ask for two sketches to show both the possibility of restoring the entire length, and the length using only existing stones. She noted it . is . their preservation expertise that guides, but determining when to restore or reconstruct is a very gray area. Mr. Underwood stated he is unsure of the overall process, but that it is his understanding that their appearance before this Commission was triggered by the SMA Use Permit application. Between then and now, more information and documentation was discovered, which they presented to the State for review. He suggested that when they appear before the Commission again, they take the State' s information as their revised preservation plan. The applicant is interested in preserving it in any way the State deems necessary, and feels they should see what the State has to say and work from there; the length of the wall can be addressed during that review. Pat Griffin moved that upon receiving a current preservation plan from SHPD, the applicant return to appear before XHPRC for review, recommendation, and comment. Anne Schneider seconded the motion. The motion earried by unanimous voice vote. Waihohonu Development TMK: 2-8-004 :001 ; 53, Kaloa, Kauai, Proposal to Relocate Five (5) Homes and Demolish Two (2) Homes that Were Deemed Not Suitable for Relocation David Hinazumi on behalf of Grove Farm Properties was present along with Mike Faye of Kikiaola Construction Structure Movers, Hawaii. Mr. Hinazumi provided an overview and background of the project, noting the former Koloa Camp Plantation is in the planning stages of being turned into a new development called Waih.ohonu, which would provide 46 new single-family homes._ There are seven existing homes in question that sit on the site of the planned new homes, and for which an architectural assessment survey was completed by Tanya Moy. Her assessment determined the camp as an overall site did not retain its historical integrity because of the surrounding Koloa areas that had been built out in the 1970' s. However, there were a few homes that retained historic integrity architecturally. Mr. Hinazumi stated they had come before this body about a year ago for a pre=consultation, and comments were made from which the applicant was able to consult with Mr. Faye who looked at the homes and provided an assessment of what would be feasible to relocate. Of the seven existing homes, they would like to relocate five; two homes are being requested for demolition as one is in poor condition, and the other is a compilation of different homes. Mr. Hinazumi noted that Bob Gunter of the Koloa Rum Corporation, who is planning to relocate the Koloa Rum distillery and Kukui brand facility to the nearby area, has serious interest in two of the five homes, one of which July 17, 2014 K H.P.R..C. Meeting Minutes Page 7 would serve as a museum, and the other as a caretaker's cottage. Mr. Gunter expressed his willingness to commemorate Kaloa Camp through pictures and written history, and has been very open to Grove Farm providing that information to incorporate into the museum piece. The applicant would like to move the three other homes to the Koloa Mill site where a prior camp once existed, commonly known as Mill Camp. There are numerous agricultural operations on that property and the homes could possibly serve as farm worker dwellings, but they are open to other interested parties on ideas to adaptively reuse the homes. Mr. Faye provided an assessment of the project, noting he had been called in about a year ago to look at the houses when people were still living in some of the homes. He had taken inquiries among the remaining families on various relocation possibilities to other areas outside of Grove Farm properties. Mr. Faye stated' he concurs with Tonya Moy' s assessment of the houses, noting that one of the two houses they are requesting to be demolished is too far gone; they may be able to salvage some windows for use in a shed. The other house is in such a state of disrepair with so much termite damage that it is not feasible to move as a unit. It would have to be disassembled, moved, and then reassembled; the other five houses are in good shape. The relocation of the houses should be relatively easy as there is direct access to the main road. He noted that even if the houses are parked at the Mill Camp site for a little while, they can be left in a manner under temporary foundations until they are ready for workforce housing or some other nearby project. Ms. Schneider asked if they will salvage whatever they can from the houses that are going to be demolished to which Mr. Faye replied yes, as much as they can. Ms. Sheehan commented she feels it is wonderful they are making this effort to recycle the houses, noting they still have some useful life. Ms. Griffin commented on the adverse effects of moving historic houses, and mentioned that one of the mitigation efforts available to them is photography. She stated that it would seem appropriate to get images of the houses as well as the process before, during, and after moving the houses to have a historical record for the future. She also requested a copy of that documentation be archived with the Kauai Museum and the Historical Society. Ms. Sheehan asked if the buildings are moved, and attempted to be renovated in their new spots, will they have to bring them to current code. She noted that had been done in Hanalei, which took away the historic aspects of the buildings. She asked if it is a concern that if they use the houses as dwellings they have to bring it up to code. Mr. Faye replied that is one of the challenges with house moves, and is something they discuss with people doing these types of moves, noting the health and safety aspects of meeting the codes. They have encountered those issues with every single house they have moved, and have been able to successfully address all those concerns with the assistance of architects they work with, drafters, carpenters, electricians and other tradespeople who know what to do. There was more discussion on ways they can ensure the houses are up to code while maintaining the historic characteristics. July 17, 2014 KH.P.RC. Meeting Minutes Page 8 Anne Schneider ]moved to approve the plans as presented -nth a photographic essay of the existing structures as well as completion of the move. Ms. Sheehan seconded the motion. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. COMMISSION EDUCATION Review of Article 14 of Chapter 8 of the Kauai County Code 1987, as amended, (Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance) regarding the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission and- its Interaction in the Historic Preservation Review Process Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 6E; Mr. Hironaka informed the Commission that Deputy County Attorney Jung, who was going to conduct this review with the Commission, was called away on an emergency. This item will be rescheduled to the next KHPRC meeting. Ms. Griffin commented that she really appreciates Mr. Hironaka providing the Commission with the memos that go out, noting that sometimes their motions are not always clear, and it is good to have a record of what actually went out to the public. She also noted that SHPD also responds to the projects KHPRC looks at, and she thinks it would be really interesting to see and hear what they say, and how it compares to KHPRC' s comments. Mr. Hironaka stated he will ensure all SHPD recommendations and communications are forwarded to the Department. He noted one thing that is asked of applicants is to be mindful that they have SHPD review the application prior to it being reviewed by the Planning Commission or. KHPRC. Ms. Sheehan asked when something is submitted to the State, do they get it back in a timely manner to which Mr. Hironaka stated they are governed by law to certain time restrictions on the permits the Department or Commissions review, and they advise the State to be mindful of that Sometimes they must proceed without the State' s comments if they do not receive them in time; however, with SUPD 's addition of some new staff, they have been responding more timely. Ms. Griffin asked if the Department could send the Commission SHPD' s response, if available, on the historical landmark on the K61oa Mill property. Mr. Hironaka replied that those comments have been received and will be provided to the Commission. Ms. Arinaga stated they have received several letters in response to Ms. Aiu which state they are for information only, but some of the information contained in the letters is partially incorrect. She specifically referenced the information on Kapa`a High School, which she stated is not completely correct. She asked what the Commission can do if it is presented for information only. Mr. Hironaka stated the applicant, by law, is . required to solicit comments from various agencies, the Department as well as KHPRC, and noted that these letters reflect things that are not on the historic list, but have been addressed to the Commission. He noted that if the Commission feels the need or desire to comment on any of the correspondences, they can be placed on the agenda for review and comment. Another avenue would be through the Planning Department, who is also being solicited for comments, and information can be relayed through them. If the Commission feels the item does not warrant review by the full Commission, but is something that July 173 2014 KH.P.RC. Meeting Minutes Page !) needs to be corrected, members can provide the information to the Department who will then comment to the applicant. In response to Mr. Long, Mr. Hironaka stated if the item is not officially on the agenda, he does not think it would be appropriate for this body to comment on or discuss it. He noted that some of the applications are time-sensitive, which is why he offered to take individual members' comments directly, which he can present to SHPD in the form of a letter through the Planning Director. Ms. Naone stated that any Section 106 consultation comments can be provided directly to her. Ms. Arinaga questioned whether the Commission needed to approve the letters submitted to them. Ms. Naone replied by explaining the Section 106 process. She stated that the Commission is absolutely being consulted for their comments, and any input they have on historic properties that have not been identified, or whether the area of potential effect should be expanded are all valid comments that SHPD does want to hear. Those comments are used by SHPD to help form their determination. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Hironaka will include the correspondence relating to Hauaala, Mailihune and Portion of Olohena Road on the next meeting's agenda. SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS Mr. Long noted the next meeting is scheduled for August 7, 2014, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:27 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Cherisse Zaima Commission Support Clerk Date: