Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
July 17, 2014 reduced
MEETING OF THE KAUAI COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION THURSDAY, JULY 179 2014 3: 00 p.m. Lihu'e Civic Center, Moikeha Building Meeting Room 2A/2B 4444 Rice Street, Lihu'e, Kaua'i AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 5 , 2014 MEETING MINUTES A. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS B . COMMUNICATIONS C . UNFINISHED BUSINESS D . NEW BUSINESS I . Kiahuna Plantation Resort TMK: 2-8-017-009, Koloa, Kauai New Resort Swinuning Pool and Maintenance Buildings. 2 , Waihohonu Development TMK: 2-8-004 : 001 ; 53 , Koloa, Kauai Proposal to Relocate Five (5) Homes and Demolish Two (2) Homes that Were Deemed Not Suitable for Relocation. July 17, 2014 K. H. P. R.C. Agenda Page 2 E. COMMISSION EDUCATION 1 . 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. F. SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS (August 7, 2014) G. ADJOURNMENT EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Commission may go into an exeeutive session on an agenda item for one of the permitted purposes listed in Seetion 92-5(a) Hawaii Revised Statutes ("H.R.S."), without noticing the executive session on the agenda where the executive session was not anticipated in advance. HRS Section 92-7(a). The executive session may only be held, however, upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members present, which must also be the majority of the members to which the board is entitled. HRS Section 92-4. The reason for holding the executive session shall be publicly announced. Note: Special accommodations and sign language interpreters are available upon request five (5) days prior to the meeting date, to the County Planning Department, 4444 Rice Street, Suite 473, Lihue, Hawaii 96766. Telephone: 241 4050. KAUAI COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION Lihue Civic Center, Mo' ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B MINUTES A regular meeting of the Kauai County Historic Preservation Commission (KHPRC) was held on June 5, 2014 in the Lihu` e Civic Center, Mo' ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B . The following Commissioners were present: Vice Chairperson Pat Griffin, Althea Arinaga, Danita Aiu, Kuuleialoha Santos, Anne Schneider The following staff members were present: Planning Department Myles Hironaka, Ka' aina Hull, Shanlee Jimenez; Office of Boards and Commissions — Cherisse Zaima; Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3 : 03 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA With no objections, Vice Chair Pat Griffin amended the agenda to move Items A, B , and C to the end of the meeting, and take up Unfinished Business first. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Anne Schneider moved to approve the April 3, 2014 meeting minutes, Althea Arinaga seconded the motion. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Waimea Foreign Church (Waimea United Church of Christ) TMK: 1 -6- 10 : 06, Waimea, Kauai, Proposed addition and renovation of the existing Baird' s Hall . Architect Palmer Hafdahl, who is working on the additions to Baird' s Hall, stated the project will double the existing space, which will be used as a community gathering space with larger facilities as is necessary for receptions, and other activities. A pastor' s office will also be added to the space. Mr. Hafdahl recognized Mike Faye and the long heritage of what has been done to create a strong historic district in Waimea. Not much is being done to the existing items except for the addition of a new entrance from the adjacent street where a large number of church members park; presently, they have to climb a wall to get up to the church level. A small breach in that wall will be made, and steps added . They have entered into a design-build June 5, 2024 KH.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 2 agreement with Kikiaola Construction; Mike Faye will build the property and take care of the design details. Additionally, Mr. Faye has collected a historic bell that was removed from the first bell tower of the church as well as a large number of the original rafters . Mike Faye of Kikiaola Construction explained that the church is in possession of one of the original bells from the bell tower, which they would like to include in the additions. The ohia wood they have are miscellaneous timbers of assorted sizes from the original construction of the church that was damaged during Hurricane Iniki. During restoration they were intentionally kept together with the intent of reusing them somewhere. Mr. Faye noted that the timbers show the original adz marks, and have old bolts still attached, which he feels tells a story of the history of the church. The intent is to incorporate as much of these original elements as they can into the decorative parts of the structure. Ms . Griffin asked to clarify whether there is a bell currently in the church, and that the bell mentioned earlier is an additional bell . Pastor Olaf of the Waimea Foreign Churcb/Waimea United Church explained the bell they have stored is from the Christian Church on Ola Road, which was removed during its reconstruction after Hurricane Iniki and is an additional bell. He provided a brief explanation of how the Waimea United Church came to be. He noted that the bell they have is not the original bell that was forged in Boston in 1839. Pastor Olaf explained the addition of offices would allow for a weekday presence at the church, which they currently do not have the space to provide, and will provide an opportunity for visitors to the church to have an on-site guide to point out notable historic features making it more open to the public. Ms . Schneider commented that knowing Mr. Faye will be doing the work gives her confidence that it will be historically accurate. Ms . Aiu stated she viewed the site from different angles to see if the new building would interrupt any vista, which it did not. Ms . Griffin pointed out that Baird Hall is not historic as it was built in the 1980s, and does not interrupt any cultural view plains . Anne Schneider moved to accept the plans as drawn. Kuuleialoha Santos seconded the motion. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Dr. Michael and Valerie Murray TMK: 2-8-006 : 025, K61oa, Kauai, Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-2014- 17 and Use Permit U-2014- 16 to establish operations involving food truck vendors on parcel. Dr. Michael Murray explained his proposal to have two food trucks available on the property, noting no construction will be needed to be done to the site. All historical artifacts will remain untouched, and will become snore readily available to the public. June 5, 2014 KH.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 3 Ms. Schneider asked whether this was an after-the-fact permit, noting there are pictures of food trucks already on the property. Staff Planner Ka' aina Hull explained the truck is there but it is not operating. Because it is a use permit the Planning Commission is entertaining, not the truck itself, the truck is allowed to be parked there. Mr. Hull explained the applicant has applied for a Class IV Zoning Permit to request allowance of a commercial operation in an area zoned Open/STC. This permit is ultimately entertained by the Planning Commission for action. The reason it has come before this Commission is because there is a structure on the property that is on the National Historic register. He reiterated while the food truck itself is not a structure, and will not alter the historical smokestack from the old Koloa Mill, they felt it prudent to obtain comments/concerns on this application from this body before it is brought to the Planning Commission. Any comments by this body will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review and consideration. Ms. Santos asked whether the food truck is located on the historical site to which Mr. Hull replied it is proposed to be on the same property. Dr. Murray provided a brief historical background of the property, noting there are various historical artifacts such as walls, dams, sugar factory items, etc . , that are spread out over several acres, which the trucks are nowhere near. Ms. Santos asked who owns/maintains the property to which Dr. Murray replied he and his wife do, and have owned it for the past 12 — 15 years during which time they have done a lot of work to preserve what is there. The food trucks will have no direct impact on any of the historical artifacts. Ms . Griffin asked if this permit would allow only two trucks. She noted that when she visited the site, there were two trucks on the property along with a sign in front of the smokestack on the Maluhia Road side along with chairs . Could this permit allow six trucks there? Mr. Hull replied the applicant has specifically applied for two trucks and a seating area. If approved, anything beyond that would require the applicant to return to the Planning Commission for public hearing and approval. Ms. Griffin asked for clarification on the nature of the dining space to which Dr. Murray explained it will be open sky dining. Ms. Schneider asked whether there was running water and bathroom facilities to which Dr. Murray stated Kdloa Town has public bathrooms right across the street. Mr. Hull added it is an odd application to come before this body as it is only the use that is being reviewed; there are no permanent structures being proposed. The Department felt it prudent to have this body review the application for any concerns as far as the use is concerned, including where the use is located, or the type of use as it affects the historical property. Ms. Griffin stated this property is not just on the National Register of Historic Places, it is a national historic landmark of which only four exist on this island. She commented that if someone wanted to put a food truck and signage in the middle of Malae Heiau, the Commission June 5, 2014 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 4 would have a very strong response. It' s not just the smokestack, but the whole cultural environment around it that is affected. Ms. Aiu asked if it were an after-the-fact permit, noting that there are two trucks on the property, and she witnessed a woman coming by at 10: 00 to open the gate and set up a generator. Dr. Murray explained the woman takes her truck to the Koloa ball park. He explained the truck was in operation there for a period of time until they received a cease and desist from the Planning Department about a year ago . It has not been running there since then, and the truck is taken over to the ball park. The other truck is not operational. Ms. Aiu commented that she viewed the property from across Maluhia Road, and her first reaction was very negative in seeing a bright orange truck with a surfboard on the roof; it looked really awful. She commented that she was disappointed that the signage was near the white, circular statue, which Dr. Murray pointed out is encroaching on his property. Ms. Aiu thanked Dr. Murray for all he has done to preserve the property, and stated her recollection that upon the Murray's acquiring the property, it was spelled out that they would promise to take care of it. She asked if the food trucks could possibly be moved over, and suggested an area she saw that could be cleared of trees where the trucks could go . Dr. Murray stated the entire property is private, though the smokestack is listed in all the guidebooks, and people are always on the property which increases his liability insurance. He has allowed the public to enter, and has made it more accessible to view the historic artifacts, which were not accessible prior to his ownership due to excessive overgrowth. In response to Ms. Aiu, Dr. Murray stated he does have an appreciation for Koloa, noting that he has been approached by no less than 20 vendors wanting to put their food trucks there, some of which were large, modern, high tech vehicles. He has denied those types of trucks based on what he feels is his obligation to preserve the gateway to the south side of the island. His desire is to have old-style trucks. He understands the concern with the bright color, and stated he could talk to the food truck owner to see if she wants to change the color. Ms. Griffin stated the property stretches up Maluhia Road, and based on Ms. Aiu' s previous suggestion asked whether trees and brush could be cleared to move the trucks to another area that is not in the middle of a national historic landmark. Dr. Murray stated no matter where they go it will be on a national landmark. The trucks are currently pushed back as far from the road as they can get them without clearing additional areas of the property. He noted there is a train repair pit and charcoal dump, which would be in the way. Ms . Aiu clarified the specific area she was thinking of, which is along Maluhia moving away from the smokestack. Dr. Murray stated by doing that people will have to walk across the road to get`to the wagon. He feels is it much safer to keep the trucks closer to the grassy area; the further from Koloa Town will require crossing a parking area where vehicles may be driving. While he is open to moving things around, Dr. Murray stated he would not want to start knocking more trees down. He noted in that area is an old wooden fence that is attached to some trees, which he would like to keep in-tact. He would like to avoid doing any more site work, and commented that the current location is back far enough that you really have to look good to see it. June 5, ?014 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 5 Ms. Schneider commented this project does not improve the space, and she foresees the amount of trucks increasing over time. Mr. Hull reminded the Commission that should the applicant get approval for the two trucks he is requesting, if any more trucks show up, it would be in direct violation of the use permit; this permit application is only for two at this point. Ms. Santos commented that she is totally against the whole food truck proposal, but noted that it is the applicant' s property, and as long as he is preserving it, he should be allowed to put two food trucks there. She reiterated that she is against it. Ms. Arinaga agreed that it is his property with which he can do whatever he wants; however, she feels it is an eyesore that takes away from what is there. Ms. Griffin clarified that even though it is private property, they should still work on ways to preserve cultural, historic heritage, which is why these types of proposals come before this Commission. Ms. Santos pointed out that he is not damaging the site or historic structures. Mr. Hull stated it seems the Commission ' s concerns are with the appearance of the food trucks, noting that although it is really the use that will be reviewed by the Planning Commission, the appearance of the trucks, and how it interacts with the historical structures on the site can be considered. Ms. Griffin stated the bigger issue is whether or not this type of commercial activity should be placed in the muddle of a national historic landmark; is this an appropriate use for this landmark. Deputy County Attorney Ian Jung explained the intent of the historic preservation review process is to look at how to mitigate impacts of proposed projects on certain historic sites . In this case, they' re not really affecting actual historic structures, but they are affecting a historic area with a commercial use. The Commission only provides a recommendation to the Planning Commission on the use issue; however, they must have a rational basis for those recommendations by looking at how they can mitigate the impacts of the use. Ms. Griffin stated this is a national historic landmark, and there is still an integrity of setting, location, and association to consider. She noted that Ms . Aiu made a suggestion for mitigation by moving the location of the trucks to create a delineation between the food trucks and the historic landmark area; however, that would also affect the preservation of another area of the property. Still, there must be an effort to move the trucks out of close proximity to the smokestack, especially if there is a possibility of that project being permanent. Ms. Griffin commented that in reviewing this zoning and use permit, they need to keep in mind that it is not just the smokestack they are discussing. Danita Aiu moved to recommend the applicant lessen the negative visual impact by moving the truck to create a better degree of separation between the trucks and the historic landmark, changing the colors of the truck, and ensure signage is in compliance with County ordinance. Anne Schneider seconded the motion. The motion failed by roll call vote. 4 Ayes (Aiu, Schneider, Arinaga, Griffin) ; 1 Nay (Santos) June 5, 2014 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 6 Mr. Jung pointed out that because this is a 9 member Commission, 5 votes are necessary for valid action; with only 4 ayes and 1 nay the motion does not carry. In response to Dr. Murray, Ms. Griffin explained the failure of the motion means that KHPRC will not be submitting any recommendations to the Planning Commission for the permit application. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR)Vpdate of CLG Program and Staffing The following SHPD staff members were present: • Alan Downer — Administrator • Anna Broverman — Architectural Historian • Mary Jane Naone — Archaeologist (Kaua`i Office) • Kauanoe Hoomanawanui — Burial Site Specialist (Kaua` i Office) Ms. Griffin asked Mr. Downer what his expectations would be from the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission, and requested an update on the inventory they were expecting at the end of September of last year. Mr. Downer stated he spent the first six months working on the Corrective Action Plan from the National Parks Service, and dealing with things that came up during the Legislative session. He acknowledged that the Division has spent the last 4 years working on priorities established by the National Parks Service, but now they have to look at what the State' s priorities are for this program, and ensure they are working on those priorities. Much of the work has been essentially reviewing projects and providing recommendations on means or adjustment to those projects to avoid adversely affecting historic properties . He feels the Division needs to do more proactive things to promote preservation, sell the notion of preservation, and convince people that this is a positive value. He feels it is about community, about how people view their communities, how they want it to look, how they want it to feel, and what they value about their community. Referencing the inventory, Ms. Broverman explained that it was due in September, but there were things that SHPD was not satisfied with, and felt could be improved; that is currently being worked on. The way it was presented would not have been usable for SHPDs or KHPRCs needs. Ms. Griffin stated the existing inventory is not only incomplete, but it is 15 years old, and a good portion of Kaua` i ' s historic properties are not on it. She noted because there were two district development plans just starting, it was decided that there would be more intensive inventory of those two regions to help the planners and community working group to recognize that. She is very happy they are working to get it up to speed, but the last meeting of the Lihu ` e Development Plan was held and there is very little historical awareness in that document. Ms. June 5, 2014 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 7 Broverman stated they know it is very important, and they are trying to get it done as quickly as possible. Ms. Aiu asked whether the use permit proposal for the food trucks went to SHPD to which Ms . Broverman replied she has not seen anything. Ms. Griffin stated that application will be before the Planning Commission on June 22. Ms. Broverman stated she would check if it is in their intake system, and if so they will try to get it out as soon as possible. Ms. Griffin stated there were several legislative bills about various preservation issues, and requested an overview of what bills passed and where they are now. Mr. Downer stated the only . . bill that passed related to preservation was a bill that would convert SHPD staff to civil service positions. No bills related to the substance of historic preservation passed; they all died. One got as far as Conference Commission, but it died there. Ms. Griffin requested a briefing of the Federal process. Mr. Downer replied the report was hand-delivered to Washington two weeks early, and the park service representatives there seemed very pleased that it was turned in. It is an extensive document, about 1 ,200 pages, so he doubts they will receive a response very quickly. However, he is cautiously optimistic they will accept everything in it. The only thing that still needs to be done is the Division audit, which should have been done in 2010, but was not completed for that year as well as 2011 , 2012, and 2013 . The draft letter of engagement has just been received from the audit firm, and they anticipate having something for the Chair to sign by next week, and will likely take four to six months to complete. Ms. Santos expressed her frustration that there is not support or help from SHPD with the National Preservation list, and she feels it is a waste of a good list. She questioned the point of being on the list, or even registering as no help, or protection is given. In addition to that, she stated it seems that there is no way to contact anyone in SHPD by telephone to discuss any concerns, and there is no way that SHPD would ever step up to protect a site at all, except maybe to write a letter, which does not have much of an impact. Mr. Downer expressed his appreciation for the comment, and stated he feels everyone there today has the same thought. He explained they only have authority to comment on a State project if they get a permit application, and when their comments are forwarded, it is ultimately the decision of the agency or division; SHPD cannot force a decision. Ms. Santos stated she understands that, but it is disheartening and upsetting that the decisions they make hold no weight. She used the Lihu ` e Bridge as an example where this Commission made suggestions on what they wanted, yet the design has been totally changed, and when the bridge is unveiled, it will have no historical value whatsoever. Ms. Griffin stated what she thinks has been difficult is staffing, and having many vacancies. She asked what the Division' s needs are in addition to the new hires that they have. Mr. Downer stated there are a total of 29 positions in the Division, of which seven are currently vacant and have been advertised. When those are filled, it will be the first time in living memory that all SHPDs positions will be filled. Referencing Ms. Santos' concerns, Mr. Downer feels staffing contributes to that and as they get more staff on board, they will be in a position to be more proactive. They will be able to have more effective communication with the Planning Department as to why preservation is important, and its economic and social value. June 5, 2014 KCH.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 8 Ms . Griffin asked how KHPRC can help SHPD to which Mr. Downer replied they can start by convincing legislature that they need another 10 people. Additionally, he feels improved communication between the Commission and SHPD will help a lot. Ms. Aiu asked if Ms. Naone lives on Kauai and is dedicated to the island to which Ms. Naone replied yes, she just moved here a month ago and is currently looking for office space, which has proved challenging. Ms. Griffin asked once they obtain office space will all of the archaeological studies and EIS documents be back on Kauai to which Ms. Naone replied yes; they would like to have a reading library where research can be done by the public. Ms. Griffin invited Ms . Naone to sit in on future meetings. Ms. Naone asked for clarification on how the Commission gets its projects, what they are reviewing, and what they are interested in getting involved in. Ms. Griffin stated the Commission reviews all aspects. Parks Planner Nancy McMahon of the County of Kauai Parks and Recreation Department sat in on the meeting. Ms . Griffin asked what kind of training possibilities are they looking into that would bring the Commission up to speed. Ms. Hoomanawanui stated one of the questions she is frequently asked is what is the general collaborative 10 year projection plan for the island; there is none. Ms. Griffin asked if she felt it would help to have a joint workshop with the burial council, and working archaeologists on the island to which Ms. Hoomanawanui replied yes, adding that each entity should look into developing workshops inclusive of what they specialize in, and how they work together in the common preservation goal. Ms. Griffin asked if the Planning Department staff could follow up with that to which Mr. Jung stated it can be done as long as per Sunshine Law joint postings are done with the Burial Council. Ms . McMahon provided background and history on the Murray parcel which had come up earlier in the meeting under a Zoning and Use permit. She shared some of her past experiences and accomplishments with various agencies. She stated Stella tried to hold some workshops with Burial Council people, and tried to involve them in curatorship workshops which was very helpful. There was further discussion on possible future collaborative workshops . Ms. Griffin asked how the Commission can help SHPD and how they see the CLG relationship working within the larger sphere of SHPD, and what is on the horizon with the other two counties. Ms. Broverman stated they have received Big Island 's application, which is most likely going to be approved. Mr. Downer stated it has been his experience that CLGs don't want to involve the State, and want to be left to do their own thing in their communities . Ms . Naone asked for clarification on how the Commission is getting projects , and what they are interested in reviewing. Staff Planner Myles Hironaka explained the bulk of projects that come before this Commission are based on permits received by the Planning Department. Because June 5, 2014 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 9 of past CLG funding, they have created inventories of historic structures and buildings, some of which are also archaeological sites. When permits are received that may touch upon those properties, they are brought before this Commission for review. In addition, they receive requests for reviews pursuant to Section 106 . Ms. McMahon shared a history of SHPDs staff in the 1990 ' s, and the importance of having adequate staff and office space. COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications. SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS Ms. Griffin noted the next meeting is scheduled for July 3 , 2014, but asked if Mr. Hironaka could follow up and possibly reschedule as members will be on vacation during that time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:36 p .m. Respectfully Submitted, Cherisse Zaima Commission Support Clerk Date: E f Island Architecture & Interiors Description of the Proposed Pro' ect Our project is located within The Kiahuna Plantation Resort on the south shore of Kauai in the Poipu resort area. It lies on 35 acres of oceanfront property and is bounded to the north by Poipu Road . The Resort is a condominium community comprising 333 units in 42 buildings with meandering sidewalks and vistas through lush vegetation and fresh water lagoons . The project takes place in the southeast corner of the community on approximately 1 . 5 acres and is made up of two elements . The first being the development of a community swimming pool and Fitness Center. The second being the re-development of their existing Maintenance Baseyard Facility. Both of these elements occur within the 500 ' shoreline setback area, and are immediately adjacent to each other. Regarding the Swimming Pool and Fitness Center, we have designed a 2, 750 square foot swimming pool with separate Spa, both equipped with Accessible Chair lifts. The pool deck level will be elevated 30" above the existing grade, so at to minimize the excavation as well as give the pool a nice presence Most of the pool area will be bordered by a 30" high Lava Rock wall with a bronze anodized aluminum fence for pool security. Controlled access to the Pool and Fitness Center will be provided by self-closing and locking gates with a Card Reader security system . There will be a stone Lanai surrounding the pool and a grassy lawn area with tables , chairs and chaise lounges . The thoughtful use of stone , landscaping and the pool's undulating form will present an organic character. Bordering the Pool Lanai , to the east, is a Lava Rock wall of Historic Significance . The community is currently working with the State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division to determine the specific requirements for the restoration of this Lava Rock wall as a focal point for the pool activity. We have also planned for Accessible Guest Bathrooms with showers and changing areas as well as a second floor Fitness Center and Sunning Lanai . Another nice amenity, immediately adjacent to the pool , is a recently completed concrete sidewalk for direct access to the Poipu Beach . Regarding the existing Maintenance Baseyard Facility, the Community Homeowner's Association wishes to upgrade this area by removing the existing, unpermitted structures and construct four new Maintenance and Grounds Buildings . Most of this area is within the AE Flood Zone and will require attention to their flood requirements . The first building, labeled as M- 1 in the attached drawings is an Administrative Building that will have five offices, a Meeting/Lunch Room and Accessible Restrooms. It will be on a Post Architecture Construction Management Box 1260 Koloa, Hawaii 96756 ph.808.742.9955 fx.808.742.9977 and Beam foundation with a finished floor level at the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and be of wood-frame construction. The second building , labeled as M-2 in the attached drawings is a Maintenance Building that will have a Maintenance Shop and various storage rooms . It will be on a concrete slab-on- grade foundation with a finished floor level below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and be of wood-frame construction. We have employed a wet-flood proofing design for this building with flood venting along the exterior walls. The third building , labeled as G -1 in the attached drawings is a Grounds Building that will have a Grounds Shop and various storage rooms. it will be on a concrete slab-on-grade foundation with a finished floor level below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and be of wood-frame construction . We have also employed a wet-flood proofing design for this building with flood venting along the exterior walls. The fourth building, labeled as G-2 in the attached drawings addresses two functions. Almost half of the building will be on a concrete slab-on-grade foundation with a finished floor level below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) , be of wood-frame construction and employ wet-flood venting along the exterior walls. This area will have two Grounds Storage Rooms. The remaining area of the building will be on a Post and Beam foundation with a finished floor level at the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and be of wood-frame construction . This area will have Accessible employee Restrooms, a Pool Equipment Room , and the Accessible Restrooms and Fitness Center for the Pool Guests. We have also provided for an outdoor employee Break Area and new asphalt paving with the required parking for the Administrative staff. Parking is provided for the remaining Maintenance and Grounds employees in another area on the property. File:c:\data\projectslkiahuna p1antat1onlcorresp\sma-01 .docx NCOUNTY OF KAUAI ,ii' 1 ,` DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING '14 mi "'' '" SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA SMA ;'1!ii v ,6 ' ;4�`"=i"=�''am, . PERMIT_ ASSESSMENT I . Part A APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant: John Underwood , AIA Address : Island Architecture and Interiors Phone: 808 .742.9955 Box 1260 Koloa, Hawaii 96756 Applicant' s Status : Check one Owner of the Property (Holder of at least 75% of the equitable and legal title) [, Lessee of the Property Lessee must have an unexpired and recorded lease of five (5) years or more from the date of filing of this application . If not, Owner(s) must provide a Letter of Authorization . X Authorized Agent Attach Letter of Authorization Contact Person : John Underwood , AIA Address: Box 1260 Phone : 808 . 742.9955 Koloa, Hawaii 96756 Email : john @islandarchitect. net PROJEC71. "FORMATION attach :additional sheets.. if necessa Site Address ; 2253 Poipu Road Tax Map Key: (4) -2-8-017-009 Koloa, Hawaii 96756 Lot Area: 14. 142 Acres State Land Use District: Urban County Zoning : R-20 General Plan Designation : Nature of Development: Please see the attached Description of the Proposed Project ,Y * NOTE : An Environmental Assessment in accordance with HRS Chapter 343 is required for actions requiring a Shoreline Setback Variance (SSV) . Please contact the Planning Department for further information . Valuation of Development: $3 ,621 ,075 . 00 (Estimate Attached) Date of Application : June 2 , 2014 COUNTY OF E{AUA` I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT II . Part B The petitioner shall be responsible for filing the following required information with the department before an application is considered complete : 1 . A written description of the proposed project, location and a statement of reasons/justification for project. 2 . If property abuts a shoreline, a certified shoreline survey conducted by a registered land surveyor within 6 months of an application shall be submitted , when required by the Planning Agency. 3 . A plot plan of the property, drawn to scale, with all proposed and existing structures and other pertinent information . Also , preliminary building sketch plans are to be submitted . 4 . Any other plans or information requirements by the Director. Note : An Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement that has been declared adequate under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or under Chapter 343 , HRS , may constitute a valid filing under this section . 5 . Project Assessment: a . Description of the area and environment involved including flora and fauna, and other features; The site is generally flat, though there is a two foot rise in topography from one end of the area to the other. There is also a Historic Lava Rock wall structure that bisects the area that is approximately 100' long by 4' wide. It is the owner's intent to restore the rockwall, in place, and allow it to become a natural feature with a landscaping backdrop for the pool area. The existing flora and fauna within the proposed project limits include Plumeria, Ironwood , Bestill and Lauhala trees , Palm species to include Fan Palms, Areca Palms and Coconut Palms . Plant species include Oleander and Beef Steak. Ground covers include Mondo Grass, and Wedelia. b . Description of the existing land uses of the project site and surrounding areas ; The existing land for the proposed project is currently being used as follows: 1 . The proposed Maintenance Baseyard area is currently being used as a Maintenance Baseyard area. 2. The proposed area for the swimming pool is currently undeveloped and not being used. The surrounding areas are currently resort hotel properties to the east and south and the Kiahuna Plantation Resort condominium community to the west and north . . 2 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 COUNTY OF KAUAI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT C, Description of how the proposed project will affect the area involved and surrounding areas . Specifically the assessment should evaluate if the proposal : YES NO i . Involves an irrevocable commitment to loss or destruction ❑ X of any natural or cultural resources, including but not limited to, historic sites , Special Treatment Districts as established by the County of Kauai Comprehensive Zoning ordinance , view planes or scenic corridors as outlined in the Community Development Plans , and recreation areas and resources; Discussion : YES NO ii . Curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment; ❑ X Discussion : ..._....._... __ ...._._....._._............................................-............................-................................. ....................._.....-........_......................................_............_........._._.._.......MINI_.......................W YES NO His Conflicts with the County's or the State' s long-term ❑ X environmental policies or goals ; Discussion : ....................................,....'If,..,..,..,...............................,.........,.....,............_................,....�.._.. '.._,.,...�.......,...............................,�_..................._..................._..._...._.._......,......-_...�...._.........................,..................,.._...._...� i YES NO iv. Curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment; ❑ X Discussion : ...........IN..................................................................................................._.........._........_...._......_....__........................................ ........................._........._._....................._......_..............._, YES NO v. Substantially affects the economics or social welfare and X ❑ activities or the community, County or State , ................ Discussion - The addition of a swimming pool and Fitness Center... .. .. .. ... .. ...... ......._ ... ..... ........ r wif! have a beneficial community. e......eCt on t .._e....._........._.... ._............ ..................................__.........._. YES NO vi . In itself has no significant adverse effect but cumulatively ❑ X has considerable effect upon the environment or involves a commitment for larger actions ; Discussion : ..._, .._......._.................._...__._...................................................................................................................: � e i i.........._.,........�............................................._.............,...................._.................................................MINIM......._..................._....,.._..__._...MINIM....._ YES NO SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 COUNTY OF KAUAI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA SMA PERMIT ASSESSMENT vii . Substantially affect a rare threatened, or endangered ❑ X species of animal or plant, or its habitat; Discussion : .......................... ...................................................................__..._................-.......-................................................................._................-................._............................................ ..............................._........, YES NO viii . Detrimentally affects air or water quality or ambient noise ❑ X levels ; or Discussion : i............................................._................................ __......._......................................................................................-.....................__.__...........................,.. ......................-....-.-...... -........................................._..,.. YES NO ix, Affects an environmentally sensitive area , such as flood X ❑ plain , shoreline, tsunami zone , erosion- prone area, geologically hazardous land , estuary, fresh water or coastal water; Discussion : .............. . _... ..........,....._.............................. .......-- . _ .-.....-....._. ...._._..._.............-........... ........._......_.._......_................................_._......._........................-............................... ............... .......__...........; The project takes place within the designated Flood Plain, "AE". YES NO X, May have a major effect on the quality of the environment X ❑ or affect the economic or social welfare of the area; and Discussion : The ._project will ........ a beneficial....-.effect.....to.....-the....... ........-.............................._-...........--............_. ............_, p 1 social welfare of the community. ....-_....__......._....- ........... ..... ................................................4..................-...... ......_._.............._..........._. ....... ._.._............_.........................__........_....................... ....................,.,........6.....6........._.._.., YES NO A Would possibly be contrary to the policies and guidelines ❑ X of the Rules and Regulations , the County's General Plan , Development Plans , and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Discussion : i d . Evaluation of the proposed development relative to the objective and policies as contained in Chapter 205A, HRS ; and Section 3 .0 of the Special Management Area (SMA) Rules and Regulations : (complete following questionnaire) . 4 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 COUNTY OF KAUAI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMN PERMIT ASSESSMENT 14E0R6ATIONAL Objective RESQUFCES > Provide coastal recreation opportunities accessible to the public. Check either "Yes" or " No" for each of the following questions. If your answer below is "Yes" or "No" it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the " Discussion" section below the question . YES NO 1 . Will the proposed development adversely affect coastal resources ❑ X uniquely .suited for recreational activities that cannot be provided in other areas? Discussion : --........_......... ...._._I........ .... 1 .................11 .........................................._............_.............._..................._........_........__.._... ................._............................_........_.__.........._..........._._................._._._.._..__........__..... Our project will not adversely affect coastal resources uniquely suited for recreational ..._ac_ i es. tiviti.............. ..........._................................................,....._.........,................................,_.....................-.....................................__.............._............_....III................_.._.................................._......................_...................................... ._. YES NO 2. Will the project require replacement of coastal resources having ❑ X significant recreational value , including but not limited to surfing sites , sandy beaches and fishing areas , when such resources will be unavoidably damaged by the proposed development; or requiring reasonable monetary compensation to the State for recreation when replacement is not feasible or desirable? Discussion : Our project will not require replacement of coastal resources having significant recreational value . YES NO 3 . Is the project site near a State or County Park? X ❑ Discussion : ................._..............._......__ ._.... __..............__........_..._......._.__...._................................................................... ..._.......__.............................-..... _.................14.11..... Poipu Beach Park. The proposed site is approximately 1 OOO feet from .._.........-. .................... . ......._.-.............. YES NO 48 Will the proposed development affect an existing public access to or ❑ X along the shoreline? Discussion : ..................._........_........_......_........._........................................................................................................................_.........................................._...........-...._......................_...............................-.........................................I......"I........_._I.. ... ... to or along the shoreline .I.:.... .....urProie.ct will not existi.n..9....Public occess................... .. YES NO 5 . Will the proposed development provide public access to and/or along ❑ X the shoreline? Discussion : _........,....,......-......................................._.................._...............................................,................................_.............__....._.............._._._........_....._..............................._..............................._._.-.............-.-......................_............ The proposed development is on private property and will not have public access . Further, the site is not immediately adjacent to the shoreline and will not prohibit public access to the shoreline.61 - 5 - ti SMA Assessment Application U P D. 10/2013 COUNTY OF KAUAI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT YES NO 6. Will the proposed development encourage expanded recreational use X ❑ of County, State, or federally owned or controlled shoreline lands and waters having recreational value? Discussion : Project_....._...._.. ..__........ ..........._................................................_........_.................................................................._......_........._...._.........._.......--.................................................................._............._......................__.................. ..., I Our wit encourage expanded recreational use of County, State , or federally owned or controlled sh,oreline.,l.ands...and waters having ,recreational value . i YES NO 7. Will the development generate point or non-point sources of pollution ❑ X that will affect recreation value of coastal area? D.._..isc...ussi.o.....n... : ..__.... ......... .. _.._.__.......- _.t .... . ................. . ....... . ..... ... _ ......... . ...... .. . ..................... Our Project will no t generate p oint or non-point sources of pollution that will affect recreation value of coastal area. HfSTQRIGALY Objective RES{3UR Protect preserve , and where desirable, restore those natural and man- made historic and pre-historic resources in the Special Management Area that are significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture . Check either "Yes" or " No" for each of the following questions. If your answer below is "Yes" or " No" it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the " Discussion" section below the question . YES NO 1 . Is the project site within a Federal , State and/or County designated ❑ X historical/cultural district? Discussion : _. . .. ................_......_.......................... ................._.........................._.. ...................._.........................................................................................._....................,_................ ................._............................................................., Our project is not within a Federal , State and/or County designated historical/cultural district. YES NO 2 . Is the project site listed on or nominated to the Hawaii or National ❑ X Register of Historic Places? Discussion : ...................................._.._..................__....._... ....__.... ........._.._._......._.._....._..._... ........................ ...-........................ ..........4.... ................................ . ........... ... ....__............ ._.. . . .......... I Our Project is not listed on or nominated to the Hawaii or National Register of Historic Places. ..............................................,......_.._......._._..._...__....._.._.._...... ......._.................._....._.........._. YES NO 3 . Does the project site include land (s) which have not been previously ❑ X surveyed by an archaeologist? - 6 - SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 COUNTY OF KAUAI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT Discussion: .................... ..................................................... ........... ...............;...... ................ ....... .................................................... .......... ....... ............... .......... ............... ............ ....... The site includes land that has been surveyed by an Archaeologist. There is a dilapidated Lava Rock wall structure that bisects the area that is approximately 100' long by 4 wide, The Homeowners Association is current working with the State of Hawaii to restore the rockwall, in place, and allow it to become a natural feature with a landscaping backdrop for the pool area. ..........t.-t........................................... . ................................................W.......... .............................�..o...... ......4..4......4...... ....... ........................ ...... ................ YES NO 4 , If an archeological survey has been conducted for the project site , has X ❑ the survey been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office for review and recommendations? Discussion : ............M.................I............ ........... ...... .......... ................... .............I.......... ............M......... ........ ....... We have submitted documentation to the State Historic Preservation Office for review and recommendations . ...................W...... ......... .......M.............M....... ................4..............I..................4..........4.......11......... .......... ....... ............. ............ .........W......... YES NO 5 , Has any site survey revealed any information on historic or X ❑ archaeological resources ? (Please provide a copy or reference of survey) Discussion : .......... ......... ....... ............. .................... ................................................. ................ ............................... ...... ........ .......W.t'.4.......4_....... ............. ............ ........... Survey attached, ..................... IF.............I......I........... ...... ............ ........ ....... ........... ............... ................ ............. ............. .......... ................ .............4............. YES NO 6, Is the project site within or near a Hawaiian fishpond? X ❑ Discussion : ........................ ............M...... ...... .................................................................P......... ............... ........ ....... ...... ........................................... ............................... The site is approximatelv 1 200 feet from an Ancient Hawaiian Fishpond , ............... ..................M................ ...........4............4........ ........... ....... ......44...... .................. YES NO 7, Is the project located within or near a historic settlement area? X ❑ (Cemeteries, burials, heiaus, etc.) Discussion : ............. ..I............ ...........4................. ....... ...... ...... ......... ............ ....... .......d..6................. ............ ............................ ...... .......... P 0 1 The site is a telv 1 ,200 feet from an Ancient Hawaiian Fishpond settlement. ,proxima ............... .............. ........... .................................................. ...... .................. ...................... 7 SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 COUNTY OF KAUAI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA ( SMA PERMIT ASSESSMENT SGEN & 0P; N Objective SP Protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore or improve the quality of coastal RES�I� FCSi ? , scenic and open space resources. Check either "Yes" or " No" for each of the following questions. If your answer below is "Yes" or "No" it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the " Discussion" section below the question . YES NO 1 . Does the project site abut or affect a valued scenic resources or ❑ X . landmark within the SMA? Discussion : O.u. ..p ..................................................................................._........_........._...._...._._._....._..__._..._.._...__..._..._.. ... ._.._...._.......---...__..................................I...III..I................_.._ ._....._....................._................_._....................... oject does not abut or affect a valued scenic resources or landmark within the SMA. YES NO 2 . Does the proposed development affect existing shoreline open space ❑ X and scenic resources? Discussion : _......_. . . . . _............................._.......................... ...._............._,........... ,..............................................................................._..........................................._......._._..........._..__._.._....._......_........_................... .............................. ......: Our project does not affect .existing shoreline open space and scenic resources . . ... .__._.. . ..... .. ... ..... . ..... .. .. ... ._.I...... . . .. .... , ...... .. .... ..... .... ......... .. YES NO 3 . Does the proposed development involve alteration to natural landforms ❑ X and existing public views to and along the shoreline? Discussion : ;_ .__.._._....._........................... -.....................It.................._................................. . ...............,.............._......................................... ....._.........................................................._.............._......_..._..............I...... .........: Our project does not involve alteration to natural landforms and existing public views to ±....and along the shoreline , ................ ..... ... . . ...................................................... ................................................................................. ..........................__......_._............................................... .. _.._....._... ...... YES NO 46 Is the project compatible with the visual environment? X ❑ Discussion : .......................................... .......................................,......._...._..,._._..__....._....._.........._..........-..............................................._..-_.................. ...........................................................................-_.__......-........._.........._._.....................................................-......, The proposed Architecture of the structures and the Landscaping of the pool area will be visually compatible with. t....h.....e.. c.....u.....r. ..r...e......n.... t character of the existin condominium communi g.. . . ..... _.._..._... ............... Y. ..........._..... . ...., YES NO 5 . Does the proposed action involve the construction of structures visible ❑ X between the nearest coastal roadway and the shoreline? Discussion: ............_.. ...........................:........................................._......_.,.......tot............... .................................__......_......._.._...............................................,......._......__........... .........._......................................................_.__._.._......................... ......., Our project does not involve the construction of structures visible between the nearest coastal .. roadwaY .and the shoreline . _ ..........................................................................................................................................._,.............._._........_..................................._...._............ ... YES NO 6. Is the project site within the Shoreline Setback Area (20 or 40 feet ❑ X inland from the shoreline) ? - 8 - SMA Assessment Application U PD. 10/2013 COUNTY OF KAUAI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA), PERMIT ASSESSMENT Discussion : ' Our project is not within the Shoreline Setback Area 20 or 40 feet inland from the shoreline) . CQA TAB Objective EC( ls,SI I. I y Protect valuable coastal ecosystems from disruption and minimize adverse impacts on all coastal ecosystems. Check either "Yes" or " No" for each of the following questions . If your answer below is "Yes" or "No" it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the "Discussion" section below the question . YES NO 1 . Is the project site a habitat for endangered species of flora and fauna? ❑ X Discussion : Our Protect site is not a habitat for endan ered species of flora and fauna, .. ......................_.........1.........._................................ .............,..._......_....._....................__.........................9........................._...I?...._..........................................__.................._..._..._.................._. i YES NO 2 . Will the proposed development adversely affect valuable coastal ❑ X ecosystems of significant biological or economic importance? Discussion : ................. ...._....._._..............._.........._._... _............................................................................................................................................................................................................. ............._._................................................................ ......_......._......_........... Our Project will not adversely affect valuable coastal ecosystems of significant biological or economic importance ; YES NO 3 . Will the proposed involve disruption or degradation of coastal water ❑ X ecosystems through stream diversions , channelization , and similar land and water uses ? Discussion : :................. . ...._..._._....._..............._..,........ .........................__.................................._......,. ........._..........................._........_...... ................... ._..... _....... ......_............_._._........_..._................._................._......._...................._..............................: Our Project will not involve disruption or degradation of coastal water ecosystems through stream diversions, channelization, and similar land and water uses. YES NO 4 . Will the proposed development include the construction of special ❑ X waste treatment facilities , such as injection wells, discharge pipes , septic tank systems or cesspools? Discussion : ..... ...... .........._............----......................................................................................................_......._.................................................................. ......................._...._..._. ._ .... ............_............_............................ Our Project will not include the construction of special waste treatment facilities, such as injection wells , discharge pipes, septic tank systems„or cesspools_ ... ....._ . . _. ..4. ..4.......A..i YES NO 5 . Is there a wetland on the project site? ❑ X Discussion : i_._.,......_............._..__................_................,......_......_.............._....,......._............_..................................._..............................._.....,......................................................,..,._......._......_.__.........................__...................,.....,......................._......................., he ro ect site There ....!s...r? o...wetland on t ._.........p..........1....__......_..... .............. ........... .._........._ _... ........_......._........_._...__................ .............._.........._....................................._..._....._...,..,_._......._....1................._.41.1_, g _ SMA Assessment Application UPD. 1012013 COUNTY OF KAUAI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (SMA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT YES NO 6 . Is the project site situated in or abutting a Natural Area Reserve or ❑ X Wildlife Refuge or Sanctuary? Discussion : ....................._ ___...............:...................to_....................................._........... 1.4... _ . __.__...._.....__................,................_.._............._...._...._........_.._._.._._..._........_..............._........._......._......_._.................:......__ ..................__........_._...._................. Our Project site is not situated in or abutting a Natural Area Reserve or Wildlife Refuge or Sanctuary. ENOiVl1G to I Objective LIES Provide public or private facilities and improvements important to the State's econom in suitable locations . Check either "Yes" or "No" for each of the following questions. If your answer below is "Yes" or " No" it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the " Discussion" section below the question. YES NO 1 . Does the project involve a harbor or port? ❑ X Discussion : -._0ur.._Pro:..ec.. will._n.ot...fI..... ..,.._............................._............................................._....................__......_................_._.._......_....._..............................................................._.............._.._.................._.._..._........... .....................................1.......,........,.._..........................._.vo.Ive._a...._harbor or._port. ...._..._............._ .... ._..............._...................................................._.............................................._....._...........----- ...._o................., YES NO 2 . Is the proposed development related to or near to an existing major X ❑ hotel , multi-family, or condominium project? Discussion : ............................................... ._..........._.__....._.._......_....................................................._......................._.._................................................._........................._......................................_..................._._._..__.................._..................................................................i The proposed development takes place on the property of the Kiahuna Plantation Resort Condominium community. YES NO 3 . Does the project site include agricultural lands designated for such use? ;: ❑ X Discussion : r.0..I.,ot,to............I...III...........to...toot'"'-4-6...o""oW...It.............L-L........to-I.....L-to' to.....I....L... M.III.......I...........I......I..............4-4..........................to I.-L.....t..o....It...It Our Project site will not include a rlcultural lands desi nated for such use III' j_..._-..... _ __..... ._... ._. g.._ .......................Lot ..... .. . ... ._....... ...._...... �_._...,._..._... ._............_..._...... .................................�.._.............._...................................................1 YES NO 4 . Does the proposed development relate to commercial fishing or ❑ X seafood production ? Discussion : ............_....................___.._...__.......,_....................................... ................ . . ......................:........................................................_........_...._.................._._........._...._.......__.........._..............._....................................._..............._.........__........... ........_........: Our Project will not relate .t...oo commercial fishing or seafood production . i ......... . .. . . . .. . . . ...... ,too - 10 - SMA Assessment Application U P D. 10/2013 COUNTY OF KAUAI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA (,MA) PERMIT ASSESSMENT coasrr_ Objective HA4RDS, ; Reduce hazard to life and property from tsunami , storm waves , stream flooding , ' erosion , and subsidence . Check either "Yes" or " No" for each of the following questions. If your answer below is "Yes" or " No" it is necessary to elaborate by providing comments in the " Discussion" section below the question . YES NO 1 . Is the project site within a potential tsunami inundated area as depicted X ❑ on the National Flood Insurance Rate maps (FIRM) ? Discussion : . .....................................................__..... ._.._.._..................................._....__._..................................................._...._.........................._........................................__.................................................. ............_..........................,__....,.._........................... : The proposed development takes place within a potential Tsunami inundation area as depicted on the National Flood Insurance Rate Ma . s.. . FIRM . p p YES NO 2 . Is the project site within a potential flood inundation area according to a X ❑ FIRM? Discussion : The........r............._....._......_..._..........__......................._._......._....._....._._. 0 osed develo ment takes...... lace within....a....,..ote.....-....................._.......................... _.............._...................._..__ __._.................... ......._......... ._ ...... p p p p potential Flood inundation area as depicted National Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as Zone AE. i on the. ._. ...._. ..................__...._..............,_.............._.................................... _ ..................__....... .... ...__ .............._.........._._.__.._...._._...._.__................._............._......_...................... ..: YES NO 3 , Does the project comply with the requirements of the Federal Flood X ❑ Insurance Program ? _._. Discussion : cussion : ._ . .. ................ ................................................... .. ..................................................._....._._.................-...._........_._......__................._....-.................. ...__......................_..... ......................_..._._.............._ ... _................ .......... Our project complies with the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Pro ram . p.......J......, . ....,................_P..............................._...._..__._................q....... ......................_..... . ....... ._.._......4............... ._ 9......................I........_._.......... . YES NO 4. Has the project site or nearby shoreline areas experienced shoreline ❑ X erosion? Discussion : ... ..... _,........._................... ................................................................ The project site or nearby shoreline areas have not experienced shoreline erosion . YES NO 5 . Have any seawalls/revetments/etc, been constructed or exist in the ❑ X immediate vicinity? Discussion : . .. ............................_......--- ._.............._...................................................... ........................-_............_.__._.._....................................... ......................_......................._......It......................................-.........................._..._......._........_.................... . No seawalls/revetments/etc. been constructed or exist in the immediate vicinit . _... . _ _................. _. . ,.. ._...... . .......... ..... ..._... .. . . . _ ..4............ ........... . y._. ....... . ......... ..._. . . - 11 - SMA Assessment Applicalion UPD. 10/2013 COUNTY OF KAUAI DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA SMA PERMIT ASSESSMENT FIRM 'I` ASSESSMENT, e. Evaluation of the impacts which cannot be avoided and mitigating measures proposed to minimize that impact: Discussion_ : There will be..no ..additional impact to..the..site................... ...... .....1._........._...._.....p........_p.. ._._ _._......_........... ......... -.._................., or to adjacent ro erties, other than the construction activit itself,-II f. Evaluation of the proposed development relative to Section 4, 0 of the SMA Rules and Regulations in accordance with the following aspects : i . Substantial adverse environmental or ecological effects ; Discussion : ....................................- ............. ..................................._.......,._......_...._-............_.. .....__......... ..._ . . . . .... .......... .._._... ............_............_................... There will be no adverse environmental or ecological effects to the site i I or to adjacent properties . ii . Consistency or compliance of the proposed development relative to the goals and objectives of Chapter 205A, HRS ; and Section 3 . 0 of the SMA Rules and Regulations ; and Discussion : .proposed....... . ... ..... .... .. . . .. .. ..... ........p.... ..... ... ist e.._.._...................._......_..............._......._...._............. ................. .....-.........._..................._.. __ ....... The development _.....,...... nt is consistent and in compliance with the goals and objectives of Chapter 205A, HRS and Section 3 . 0 of the SMA RRules and Regulations . i . .. 4.. .. ...... ......I............. ....................... . .............................................................. ............... .__-__.... ......._._.. ........ iii . Consistency or compliance of the proposed development relative to the County General Plan , Development Plan , and Zoning Ordinances . Discussion : ` The proposed development is consistent and in compliance with the County of Kauai General Plan, Development Plan and Zoning Ordinances. � ►L June 2 2014 John Underwood , AIA Date Architect 12 SMA Assessment Application UPD. 10/2013 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY FOR A PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL KIA1UNA PLANTATION , KOLOA , KAUAI TMK 4 - 2 - 6 - 17 : 26 By Hallett H . Ha=att , Ph . D . Prepared for Kiahuna Plantations by Cultural Seys Hawaii. Rdbz ary 1. 9-9"0 I . Introduction On September 25 , 1989 the author conducted an archaeological reconnaissance of a small parcel within the existing Kiahuna Plantation Resort . , This parcel is the site of a proposed swim- , ming pool and is located at the northwest corner of the inter- section of the Waichai and Poipu Beach Hotel access roads mauka of the Poipu Beach Hotel Parking Lot ( Figs 1 - 3 ) . The area is about 5 feet above sea level and is presently vacant except for an existing laundry shed . It is heavily vegetated with secondary growth of salt - tolerant acacia trees with large ironwood and kiawe trees on the mauai side ( Fig . 4 ) . At the west end of the parcel is a north/ south oriented stone wall traceable for ap - proximately loo feet and is broken down at the north end . This wall stands 3 feet high in the intact portion and is constructed of stacked lava boulders . This wall is a former boundary or cattle wall which probably predates the development of the surrounding resort hotels ( Fig . 5 ) 0 History of the Parcel According to local informants ( hotel employees , etc . ) this parcel was always a drainage collection area which collected standing water during heavy rains and in former times was used for salt production during the summer months . More recently , in conjunction with hotel construction , the parcel was used as a construction baseyard and was partially filled with dumped construction debris to reduce periodic flooding . There are a 1 r few debris piles remaining from this former use ( Fig . 6 ) . Kikuchi described the general area in his 1963 survey of the Kona DistrLct of Kauai as follows : " Site 89 Structures , Kane -milo � hai The area is a little west of Moir�, s Cactus Garden and on the seaward side of the road was surveyed by the crew . On a Pahoehoe ridge several walls were found , most of doubtful antiquity . However , these walls could have been expanded from the original native walls in this area . Two brackish ponds on both sides of the ridge were found to have had walls within them . The probable use of these ponds as salt ponds are very likely . A bulldozer had cleared much of the beach area and had uncovered much midden , thus destroying sites here ( Kikuchi , 1963 : - 66 ) . Close to the project area Kikuchi described a salt pan ( Site 93 ) as follows : Another pond east of Pa ' u- a Laka has low stone walls and divisions once used as salt pans . These markings are clearly visible ( Ibid . , 1963 : 67 ) The immediate project area may be the same area referred to by Kikuchi as Site 93 salt pan . However , since the 1960s exten- sive resort development has removed all traces of former salt basins and only one wall remnant survives . On the makai side of the Waiohai Hotel stands a remnant of the former Kiha-lfauna Heiau which has been extensively modified since it was first described by Thrum in the early part of this century , Today , the parcel is a heavily vegetated area standing . be- tween the Waiohai and Poipu Beach Hotels and Kiahuna Plantation 7 and a temporary maintenance building stands on the northwest corner of the property . A drainage ditch approximately 5 ' wide and 1 . 5 ' deep crosses the property westwards from the Waiohai Hotel access road . Soils Engineering Report A soils engineering report for the proposed swimming pool was prepared by Fewell Geotechnical Engineering Co . This inves - tigation involved excavation of 3 exploratory test pits in the area of the proposed swimming pool and bar/ storage building . Within these pits the construction fill material varied from 4 . 5 to 1 . 5 feet in thickness and was underlain by coral sand and gravel extending to 8 feet depth or more . Depth to water level ranged from 4 , 5 to 5 feet ( Fewell Geotechnical Engineering , 1989 ) . Reconnaissance and Subsurface Testing Results A surface inspection of the parcel showed no indication of archaeological materials or structures with the exception of the stone wall traversing the west side of the parcel . Two test trenches were excavated within the area for the Purpose of characterizing subsurface deposits and evaluating the Potential for buried archaeological materials . The locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 3 . Brief profile descriptions of each trench are presented below : 4 i Test Trench 1 - located in the north portion of property in drainage ditch ( Fig . 7 ) 0 -- 15 c* Stratum I coral gravel fill mechanically Construction fill compacted with discontinuous lenses of reddish brown sandy loam . 15 - 55 C= 4 Stratum II reddish brown sandy loam mixed Construction fill with cobble- sized coral , basalt and asphalt chunks , very abrupt wavy boundary . 55 - 70 + cm . Stratum ITT white sandy loam , coralline natural marine deposit sand with 50 % cemented coral pebbles , weak iron staining , no organic material , cementa- tion increases downwards . Test Trench 2 - located 25 feet west of stone wall at west side of property . 0 - 40 cm . Stratum I light greyish brown sandy loam Disturbed horizon A-horizon with modern organic debris . 40 - 80 + cm . stratum d white sandy loam coralline natural marine deposit sand grading downwards to cemented sand , weak iron staining , no organic material , conclusions and Recommendations The profiles of the two test trenches , as well as the re- sults of the soil engineering tests , show imported construction fill to nearly sea level in all areas to be impacted by construc - tion of the swimming pool . These fill deposits naturally have no archaeological potential and extend to depths up to 5 feet . Below this fill are natural marine sands which were deposited underwater and probably predate Hawaiian occupation . The origi- nal ground surface of terrestrial sands , etc , which may once have contained cultural material , has been modified beyond recognition and/ or removed in modern times . An additional consideration is that the swimming pool as proposed is to be primarily above present ground level and will involve filling rather than cutting ( Fewell Geotechnical Engineering 1989 ) . The stone wall , the only possible archaeological feature on the property is to be retained and incorporated into the project landscaping . In summary , subsurface testing shows little or no possibility of buried cultural material . The immediate area as well as all adjacent areas have been extensively modified for resort development . For this reason no further archaeological investigation is recom- mended and archaeological monitoring during construction is not I ustified . 10 L REFERENCES CITED rewell Geotechnical Engineering , Ltd 1989 Subsurface Investigat .Lon Report Proposed Kiahuna Swimming Pool , Kiahuna Plantation , Koloa , Kauai , Kiku-chi , William 1973 Archaeological Survey and Excavations on the Island of Kauai , Kona District , Hawaiian Islands . 11 ID ; 8087427329 NOV 08 ' 01 17012 Ma . 002 P . 01 , SiS9/Qd 09 : 42 Q LTLRAL `.,t' I&EY5 WWI i LTD. f 002 i • i Lomw Torm .Preaervati®n Plan for State Site 80%Mj()-747; Stone Wall at Mabuno Plantation Resort , I I , by Hallett H, HammRtt, Ph.D. j I , I for i Tionald M, Knoll Consulting Croup I 1 1 1 I II , , Cultural Burreyie I33+wait ' 11��y 19Bd , ID *08087427329 NOV 08 ' 01 17 = 12 No a002 P . 02 mvm/i 04 09 : 42 CULTURAL SMUEY5 HQ6AII LTD. 003 TANI.S OF COMZNTB Background �{� 6`y� �•y.�- .rpa� . ♦ Yp• • • • • • • . • w . • . . • 1 • • . • • . • • • ♦ • a w • • a • t a i . r • 1 • s a � 1 •!••�/ •m . • MI�®Y Y ratio/. Y . ♦ . . . . . . . . ■ . . . . . . Y . , a . . . ♦ a . . . . Y . ♦ . Y a a e . a . • . Ho LON••��yY[�\.��1a��J�►��i►UUe r�/lY�.�l/��/�■ RVA ■O PJ.JA • r a . a • a ■ 1 • . l 1 • • • • . Y ■ • a ■ ■ • . • • • ► a • Q •f+a.=etru�a n o W&U • s Y • • • ■ ! • Y • a a • ■ Y • . • a • • a a • a Y P ! • • • • ■ a a s W • ■ • • • S I IIIy per, ��a . RFF` IRIy h l C r s•S F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . • . . . . . . . . . . . a . • . a . . . . . . . . E r . S ! i ! i t I 1 1 E� f r s E I 1 E i i ID : 8087427329 NOV 08 ' 01 17 : 13 No . 002 P . 03 CLLTl1RAL SAYS ~ I 1 LTD. 004 s P ' t I Cr T i ODUC . iVN =. i Background s This plan is being submitted its response to a letter of March 22, 1904 to e Array Rice, Prgject Engineer for Ronald M. KzioU Consulting {group him Dr. Don Mbba,e+d of the State Historic Preservation Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources, I Ais letter approves the previously Prepared interim preservation plan for a wall segment, preserved within the Kishoue Plantation R8B01$. The tatter iltrther requests, that to fuiflU ` e Condition 44, of the SMA permit, a long-term preservation plan should be submitted for review axed approval; The suggested eslemt;nts of ibis plan ere repair, ]aadwapina , I maintenance and wterpmtation. Native "clot are eacaurwd an plamtings in the vicinity of the wail. � This wall, designated Site 60-90.10.747, is actuary a wall remnant, which was initdally documented in 1980 in Fin archaeological mccanaissaiwe survey for a prod swimining pool for YJahuna Plantation q (Harumatt 1690)4 no woo is appr=imatelp 120 P ft. long, is oriented N/J, and was observed In the vicinity of the KiAU= Laundry faclUty i In 3980. Barbara Pendragon of the County of Kauai Planning Department has ldndly P shared a report by Mr. S Neal Crozier in 1971. We Omxier provides a ' xndp with rlebOws of walls and other stone featUftif in the area. It appear ftm hie sketch, map, as welt as a i P review of older tax maps, that this wall, Site 747 , may be a remnant of c (MUnumm walb P that once bounded either side of Hapa Road. liapa Road connected to what wu then , Po`ipu Beach Road in this immediate vicir tty. Hape Road was the original roasts $4om Holoa to the Beach and was used to drive cattle av well as for pedostrimi purposes. A major portion of Napa Road still exists mauku of Pofipu Rued on the eastern side of Klahuna Golf Course. i t s i ID = 8087427329 NOV 08 ' 01 17 13 NoaO02 P404 rW krjz I$4 169 143 CLL TLAL s,-RL)Ers CAI I LTD. ee5 , Y�4or`m Pr+e�ervatlezi Im De®ember 1893 Cultural Su ver Huweti ,prrpared An interim pmew vation .plsU which detailed proservatiun m®asurse during cvnetruction of a nearoby service facili" I building and improvements (Hammett 1998). Thep prrscsvatiom measures included { 1) itemoval of thick and tangled veptation on and an=d the wall. This removal will be mooed bir 8a archaaelogist; 3) A pmt>ecUve fence around the well to be in place before cotie ruction stertai i 3) Briefing of construction personnel on the purpose of the fence and the e1suifi&nce of the won; d) per Sodic inspeotlan of the fe um and the er4v z 5) Aemovsl of the Jbnoa following the end of emotraction. i This �Lmg Term preservation plan mile the recommended procedures for petmanout prowtion of the site following the interim messunes mentioned above. I 1 1 I ' t i I i i 1 1 1 , I i s i I t 4 I I t i I ID : 8087427329 NOV 08 , 01 17 13 No . 002 P . 05 db/09ry4 09 : 43 CLL7URAL SURVEYS ~ 11 LTD. 006 A 116 LONGvTRRM PRESSRVAInOM PLAN Remnstrutrdon of Wadi Because of the preservation statu® of this waU a.nd because it will became a lon term feature of the resort, it is appropriate to perform a repair and/or reonotrucuon, The 0 e purpme of this work would be to return the wall to its condition before its coUapaa. a Because of its probable a moOatiozi with Haps Road, the model for the typo o( reconstruction, the stone work, and height and width of the flnisbed wall, will be the ;. existing walls deigning the boundary of Haps Road above Po1pu Road. in order to cetablish it stable condition of the wall, it is muggesLed that hidden rnorttr method be x used. Thero and a number of stone masons on )Uus`3, known by Cultural SurvWa Hawaii, i that are available for this idnd of work and their owta am rye able. Ae for archaeological documentation, because of the xmtwv Of the site, this vaQWA ' probably be a minimal element, however, Cultural 8urveZa Hawall's archeealo600 would monitor the reconstruction of the wall, to recover and record wq artifacts or Other aarchaeologlud rnsterlals that MaY be recovtred. ; i i It is understood that a landeeeping plan ham already been rubmitted to the Kauai i Planning Department. In discussions with Nancy McMahon of Department, of land and ; Natural Reaovrces, the expressed ooncmrno aboot tlm prarlmity of the proposed hau bushes 'Do the wall sits, it is recommended that, if Itou bushes are to be planted, tLey be kept 10 ft. or more away horn the wall, In this way, the wall fbun4vtion can be protected from the thick root system and the heavy growth pattern of the hats vegetAtion. Am mentioned in the March 22, DLNR letter, native p1ma3tiuge are encouraired. It is a E TD : 8087427329 NOV 08 , 01 17 : 14 No ° 002 P ° 06 rya eJ�� ' = acl: CULTURAL SLWEYS HALlAI1 LTD. 807 t i recommended that the area between the ymposed hou bushes and the parking lU4 pat be Planted with wedalla, Ra proposed in the landficaping plan, but be planted with one of three available native Hawaiian ground covers. These include nMe, Mau o 7111 efko, and 'Ilinw papa . All three of these aee low maintenance plants, eepocially the last two, rrldah . grow well in the lowlands and do net react adversely to 'ehai, or salt spray from the oases. j If three Plants arm not Available from nursdriea an the Island of Kaua7, they c" be ; obtained from The Hawaiian Collection owned by Mr. Charles R. Lindsey in Kul®, Maud, This ground cover can be planted right up to the base of the wall, but should not be allowed to cover the Vall itaeX i 3 Interpretakilon , i i A metal plaque will be set on a lie rmk. next to the south end of the wit)], Tids a plaque wlll 'lisve a few phrase® of erplanatlon of the slzu fieante and Mstwy of the rr"o , These phi ies Iwill '8 escrlbe the probable retatiowWV of the wall to Hapa Road and the connection to cattle ranching and the Mudsen Ranch in Mort, 71m exact wording of " plaque wily be' determined in consultation with knowledgeable karwWpia, such as Mr° • a Eric °'W" Moir, VLNR State Historic PmeervatJorn Division, and the KHPRC. j 1 Maintenance Since the reconstruction of the wall will involve (lie use of hMdde» ward W, nlninterianvi a$' the tivall itBelf should be minimal , Also the metal plaque, probably braes, 1 aet in stone, will also be virtually maintenance—. Because of these eonfuderatiouo, maintenance will be- conflned to routine grounde-keeping within the area of fie wall and ; it need not be any different than that required f w other areas of the resort, if recUms of die � i IDw8087427329 NOV 08 ' 01 17 " 14 No . 002 P107 • � �a �� : aa cw su +a" II LTD, me wall should collapse these should be repaired by the owner in way that as t6nv ft:A$ with the style of the reconstruction. 8 1 3 e i ' t i ! f I I 1 f I • I ' f . f f ( I I I ! I f t e i ' 1 1 4 3 i f t • 1 1 j ID : 8087427329 NOV 08 ' 01 17 : 15 Na . 002 P . 08 w� rrsiy4 09: 45 - � - ClJL R110� RJRLEY5 �n AI t LTD. 809 d iL III. REFE$aNCX@ Croxier, S. Deal 1971 , Letkr to Brit CWJIuje & Assoctotts, Diehop Maeem, Honolulu, Hawaii. Hammatt, Halle# H, i IRS Interim Preservation Plan for Stine Wall w x"Una Plantation 1�eep� During Construction of Aaeocjoeton Fasillydcs (Stabs site N®. 6p,.9-tQ-yd7,, � Cultural Su voya Hawaii, I{ailun, HL k I-lammatt, HFAIett H. 1890 Anclu3e®4gicat Recvntsatsaancr Survey far a SwIOM1 8 Poo$, Mahuna ! Plantation, Rbloa, xauai, TMK d-l-s-17:26), Cultural Suuveyf Row&% Kallua, NI. . 1 k I I i f i I i I t 1 1 1 F F 1 f i 1 i 1 1 1 i t i t i S f t Lot Coverage Data 5/20/2014 Kiahuna Plantation Resort TM (4)-2-8-017-009 Zoning " R-20, Residential Total Area = 14 . 142 Acres 616 , 026 SF Allowable Lot Coverage @ 50 % 308 , 013 SF Exisitin Lot- Coverage SF 1595411 'See attached sheet T-1 , dated January 31 , 1994 Proposed Additional Lot Covera e SF Asphalt Parking 12 , 699 (4) New Structures 69842 Existing Structure and Hardscape 55101 Existing Strora e Containers 322 Pool and Spa 21703 Pool Lanai 23950 Beach Sidewalk 13248 New Rockwall 551 Historic Rockwall ; 639 SF @ 50% Impervious 320 Uncovered Wood Lanai ; 468 SF @ 50 % Impervious 234 Total Proposed Additional Lot Coverage (SF) 32 , 970 Total Proposed Lot Coverage (SF) 1925381 LOT COVERAGE- MAY-20 -2014 .xlsx6/3/2014 nvwa . ._ ., n- ,. (y. L 11 - K 'irw.:. yy . _ : , .. .. . , , pt #C14•NF.%r !V'lP ' .. tone- ti:^ . � '. . M,e;:,:.:.. I•.:o. L. . c:• '' . . .: �: . . :' alra.. , ;#:;t:e', �IF . . - ° ;,•�> x �`.�,>.... (I -. - ' . • I)•RAWIN '' , DESCRIPTION .. .). . r: ' . ',',��ii �•IN. - ET; SLTE,•PLAN, DRAWING INDEX, ABBREVIATSONS, CODE INFORMATION "3 f T 1 TITLE .. �?.. :,•' . ILIA U-NA. ' LAI + 'ORT 4 . NINE It CIVIL • • 4 C-L NOTES' 4 1 S C. IA ,T' C C.2 E%ISTiNO CONDITIONS; DEMOLITION) AEI(OYrtL k RELOCARiON -ALAN •.1 ' . .:.. ::>: . "'F ':: : 'a"• -LITI S C-3 SITE LAYOUT, GRADING) AND D1tAiNAGB A: UTILITY Plrw ' " '�y�j'yaSo : ; - •, • 1 1 1 1 1 C-4 DETAILS ! A6•}.ak . : f - u KIAHUNA KOLOA HAWAII �rz . n f f ARCMITECTURAL z P . ap A-1 GROUND FLOOR PLAIT oF $. 'a'€ ..uy . A-2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN' :y8a°§b. A-3 MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN ' ARCHITECT :RICHARD MATSUNAGA & ASSOCIATES*, . ARCHITECTS INC . A-4 HOOP I)iAN ' 4k-9 GROUND FLOOR REFLECTED CEILING PLAN ' • A-5 SECOND AND MEZZANINN'FLOOR REFLECTED CEILING PLAN CIVIL ENGINEER : IMATA i' & ASSOCIATES , INC . A-T . ETI OR ELL PLAN' , MI DETAILS; AND DETAILED TOILET PLAN yefy.. A-0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS, M15CELIANEOUS D6TAfLR - . I �g ..: ! A-9 TYPICAL BUILDING SECTIONS- - I A-10 DOOR SCHEDULE, DOOR TYPES Sc DETAILS $ 23.f � . drll WINDOW SCHEDULE, WINDOW TYPES k DETAILS $g 1 . . . . - At MISCELLANEOUS •DETAILE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER .MICHAEL L . K. KASAMOTO 1STRUCTURAL E 7jrl, :z a I. I. S: MECHANICAL ENGINEER : RANDOLPH -H. MURAYAMA. I& ASSOCIATES , ' INC . S-2• SECONDTFLOOR PRA ING PLAN, DETAILS �. :. - .. ` 9-3 ROOF FRAMING PION, MEZZANINE FRAMING PLAN, DETAILS• ' 5-4 DETAILS 3-5 DETAILS ELECTRICAL ENGINEER e.NAKAMURA OYAMA & ASSOCIATES , INC .: 3-6 DETARS MECHANICAL . ABBREVIATIONS . CODE ' INFORMATION M-1 . GROUND FLOOR 'MECHANICAL' PLAN,MECRANICAL 'LEGEND, N, I� H ,. • NECILANICAL EQUIPIIENT' 9CHEIIULE , :'•:3x•.:r'•'• -•yi „- . . ro . . M-2 SECOND:'AND MEZZANINE FLOOR MECHANICAL PLAN: , .eaaFa.: . ,: ' '•'.: E• ' . r•. . '° ADJ - ADJUSTABLE' ALAS - PLASTER TMK 2-8-17:9 TOILET AREA PLUMBING PLAN; WATER NOTES AFF - AT FINSH FLOOR PLAS LAN •• PLASTIC LAMINATE ADDRESS KIAHUNA PLANTATION RESORT ' • ' �' - ° ,m• ALUM ' = ALUMINUM �• PLYWD. - PLYWOOD M^3 ROOF YENTI[ATION PLAN, .DETAtIS •' APPROX - APPROMMATE PREFAB PREFABRICATION ' ASSOCIATION FACILITIES M-4 COLD WATER P.IT'1P(G ,DIAGRAM) SANITARY•PlPING;DtAGRAM, GAB P1PtNG ' OIACIIAM, ` xw ' Ac - ASPHALTIC CONCRETE KIAHUNA, KOLOA, HAWAII: o BiI BEAN REFRIGERANT PIPING DIAGRAM - ' .•. . ;4 BETWN - BETWEEN ?AD - RAORts LOT - AREA 14. 142 ACRE - BIYG - BLOC91NG. REENF REINFORCED ,K, . -. �. • : SD -. BOARD Ato - REQUIRED IiLECTRICAi ' . • , Iii ' ' ROT - BOARD R� - REVERSRD ZONING R: 20 RESIDENTIAL'LUC ” URBAN 1IANALEI R ^ RLSSR T ' GENERAL PLAN RESORT . ..9-1 ONE LINE DIAGRAM, ELECTRICAL*SYMBOLS, LIGHT PIXTURR SCHEDULE ELEVATION ` .. "*' ., , .. • .. " CCU CEILING SCRED -- SCHEDULE EXIS`PING USE RESORT CONDO3IINIAAI E-2 SITE ELECRTICAL PLAN COLD - cOLUYNDN By - SHEET I (°T01-TRANSIENT VACATION RENTAL) E-3 GROUND FLOOR LIGHTING PLAN; GROUND FLOOR POWER AND SIGNAL PLAN - _ �,1 ••', �, ' { Sim - SHEATHING E-4 SECOND FLOOR LIGHTING PLAN; SECOND FLOOR POM. AND SIGNAL PLAN CLR - CLE.IR - '' '+I . CONC = CONCRETE S11I ^ SIMILAR e • . :. CNU - CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS STL' - TESL • ' ' . E-5 MEZZANINE LIGHTING PLAN; MEZZANINR 'FLOOR POWER AND SIGNAL PLAN ,_ . .0 .. ' ''� • ' CONT • - CONTINUOUS STRUCT - STRUCTURAL � � FLOOD - .X-SHADED (ASEA OF 500 YR FLOOD) E-s PANEL SCHEDULES � , . . 'CT - CERAMIC TILE '<F- } •. THE ' ". TRICK TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION. !L•N KAPAA . "); DEMO DEMOLITION - TREE OCCUPANCY *TYPE GROUND LEVEL ' B=1 ISLAND OF KAUAI : , DST DETAIL VER - VERIFY ! 2ND LEVEL B-2 WAILUA tt PERT - VERTICAL U• . ' o• 'i1 ELEC •-' ELECTRICAL - - .. • . ) : " .. t . :, . -EA - EACH AREAS. �`• t SLEY - £fEYATION WC • - WATER CLOSET ,O �. : Om4 :5 . E%sxc • - 'r RSTING WNDW - WINDOW ENCLOSED BUILD-LNG AREA p�p��' EXT - EXTERIOR WR - WATER RESISTANT ILEICABA PG + � C/� , .W s . EXP - EXPANSION 2ND FLOOR 5,080 SF WAIMEA x F 3 `< LCHUE FIN - FINISH 2ND FLOOR MEZZANINE '1,512 SF KOLO ri ; ' FE - FIRW• sxrtxcins»ER. - AND LANAI (OPEN) 1,695 SF - , IIANAPEPE P".. �, .. W >. : ? • .-r: ® . . - AT TOE RATE OF GROUND LEVEL 8 855 SF . ��••++ ' FLSHC - FLASHING - NUMBER• OR POUND - ' - �": :', )�'' . %,,1 f : " " ` '' '. FLR/PL '- FLOOR t •- PLUS OR MINUS (NOT ENCLOSED) C> :'.r,"Id ' NN w Wy.�1• • -: 1 ' . ; FTG FOOTING p — DIAMETER RAMP 1;040 SF GENERAL NOTEa �' ':•: ' M+ f;:,: bl I ?Iv GYP GYPSUM - 'CENTER LINE EXT STAIRS 218 SF POIPU o.. p : sy :, ? � CL '• GYPS A� - WITH 0: ..: . �_ .�c,� •;:fir, r . . CRND - GROUND CONTROL POINT cWe - GYPSUM WALL BOARD 1 . VERIFY AND 'CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS ON ',..; ' ` ` " f REQ D NO ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL, ' ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR _ kouoW cons. PARKING- TA UULATICI Of ST L�5 DESCREPANCY, ANY DESCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT b� ; )IT HORt2 - BoRLEOrIrAL TO THE ATTENTION OF THE 'ARCHITECT. Wit.` OFFICE 'AREA (589 SF -. 200=2, 9) 3 STALLS " '•'M' :r'• 4 • INCL INCLUDED GENERAL & - 2. WORK INCIDENTAL TO THE CONTRACT *AND NECESSARY TO t§'r`;; rwc - ° < �, � INFO - INFORMATION TTDTARLAGE AREA (5.88$ SF 506=11.88) COMPLETE THE PROJECT, 'ALTHOUGH NOT SPECIFICALLY . a• ' ` ; • 15 STALLS 7 / ��t REFERRED' TO ON THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, SHALL BE JS7 _ - '- JOIST PROPOSED PRO E �,+ !' SITE ,•. - - FURNISHED' AND ' PERFORMED AT,- THE .CGNTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. ' ' �' a' � ; � -'�^�•�f ro • STALLS PROVIDED 15 '. JAV LAVATORY KIAI1UNA PLANTATION RESORT 3. IN PERFORMING ALL WORK, •THE ,CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE ::' '; �• ',,; . DUE CARE AND CAUTION NECESSARY TO AVOID ANY DAMAGE TO AtAX MAXIMUM - AND IMPAIRMENT IN THE USE OF. ANY EXIST UTILITY LINE. - F _sNEEr tmu50 I¢cjr MECHANICAL THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE . IMMEDIATELY REPAIRED ' MET/MTL : - ',METAL ,LOI COVERAGE ' �' . � � . � OR RESTORED AS DIRECTED, BY THE ARCHITECT AT THE '�=�� ' " '' • "' MEZZ - MEZZANINE : _.... ' Lm+ - MINIMUM LOT AREA 14.142 ACRES = 616,026 SF „ CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. ;?;; li r' 4. CONTRACTOR 'SHALt. NOTIFY THE BUILDING • MANAGEMENT TWO - q . NORTS ALLOWABLE LOT 'COVERAGE' = 819,028 •:• 2 = 308,013 SF I (2} DAYS , PROW TO COMMENCEMENT OF " CONSTRUCTtON. °' ` T t` uftn _ Nn•I• .N I•nNTCAi!'1• . . .. .. . . : O July 9, 2014 Mr. Michael Dahilig , Planning Director Kaua'i County Planning Department 4444 Rice Street, Ste A473 Uhu'e, Hi 96766 Dear Mr. Dahilig: Attention: Shanlee Jiminez SUBJECT: Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) Waihohonu Development TMK: (4) 2=8-004:001 ; 053 K61oa, Kauai We are the owners of former plantation camp homes on the site commonly referred to as K61oa Camp. We wish to develop Waihohonu, a housing project that would replace and increase the number of homes. We retained Tonia Moy of Fung Associates to commission an Architectural Assessment Survey of the existing homes and consulted with Mike Faye of Kikiaola Construction. At this time we wish to be placed on the July 17, 2013 KHPRC meeting agenda to request approval to relocate 5 of the homes and demolish 2 of the homes that were deemed not suitable for relocation. In support of our request, we offer the following information : I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Organization : Grove Farm Properties, Inc. Be Address : 3= 1850 Kaumuali'i Highway Lihue, HI 96766 C. Contact: David Hinazumi, Vice President Phone: (808) 245-3678, Email : dhinazumiaQrovefarm.com D. Additional Contacts: Mike Faye, President, Kikiaola Construction Co Phone: (808) 338-0021 , Email : mike ,kikiaolaconstruction .corn E. Project Name: Waihohonu F. Project Street Address: Wailani Road , Koloa, HI 96756 G . TMK: (4) 2-8-04:001 ; 053 3.1850 Kaumualii Highway Mhue, HI 96766-8609 JUL 17 2014 0 808.245.3678 0 808.246.9470 H. Area of Potential Effect: The project site contains the remaining plantation camp homes from a site that historically housed plantation workers although many of the structures are not believed to be the original homes and/or have been altered . See enclosed map. I. Project Description : Waihohonu will provide up to 50 new, residential homes for sale. Housing opportunities will be provided for residents and the workforce and former tenants will have the first priority to purchase. Several former residents and their extended families have indicated an interest to purchase the new homes at Waihohonu and will be included in the first phase of construction. Affordable housing will be provided in accordance with the County's Workforce Housing requirements. J. Project Alternatives: I . Preserving the homes In place. Some of the existing homes are located in a special flood hazard area (Zone AE) according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), and the proposed finished floor elevations of the future homes will be built above the. base flood elevation levels. ' 'Past flooding at the side used to enter the homes because the finished floor of the homes were not built above base flood, elevations. 6 "1 order to.mitigate, the situation, the finished floor elevations ,of the .proposed .homes : will be raised above base .. o6d elevationk This will be. . .. accomplished by .raising the grade of 1h6 house pads and building the homes ;on post :and. -pier foundations to. locate the finished floors above the base flood elevations This will: require that the existing 'homes be .removed .from.the site,.`:.°.'. ' 2. -; Relocation,or demolition of the .homes. The feasibility of relocating the homes has been studied .. Of the 7 total homes,. 5 of the homes are suitable, for .relocation.' The remaining 2 -homes both .lack historical integrity architecturally ;and are ' . . proposed to be demolished due to .their poor condition, 'Relocation of the homes,wouId be done with the intent to re use. them .for their original purpa$e as farm wo rker dwellings. . There. has also been an ;inquiry by the Koloa Rum, Co. to reuse ` 2 of the relocated homes in their new development. in Historic Koloa.T. n. This will provide an opportunity for the structure to be showcased and , reused jus! 500f to the east of the former camp site. R 3-1850 Kaumualii H[ghway : :Lihue, #1196766-6609 0 808.245.3678 .808.246.9470... ' K. Consulting Parties: 1 . Community meetings on December 15, 2011 and December 27, 2011 2. K61oa Community Association — January 19, 2012 meeting 3. Mike Faye, President, Kikiaola Construction Co/Structure Movers Hawaii 4. VerlieAnn Kapule Malina�Wright, President, The Wright Consultants, Inc. 50 Bob Gunter, President & CEO, Koloa Rum Co. II. IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC PLACES A. Although K61oa Camp is one of the oldest sugar plantation camps, as a camp or historic district, the grouping does not retain enough integrity to continue the association with the old K61oa Camp as many of the houses were moved in later or were severely altered after the two hurricanes that struck Kauai. The area has shrunk considerably and is now bordered by numerous houses built in the 1970s. See enclosed Architectural Assessment Survey, B. Grove Farm offers the following mitigation measures: 1 . Reuse of the homes. for a .charterschool was explored but this option did not pan out. We also explored renovation of a home to include :as_ a for-sale, home wthin_:the Waihohonu project but #here was no immediate interest.as a new home was. preferred.since :it .could l�e::purchasea for: approximately the same .price. We- propose o .re (i .. . locate .the 5 suitable homes (identified as : Houses x#27.33, 2707, '2713 , 2721 , and 2723 in the Architectu> al `Assessment Survey) to the K61oa, mill yard for reuse, as .farm worker dwellings: Also, as noted, the K61oa Rum Corporation has expressed a considerable ,interest in : :reusing 2 of hese,homes In their Koloa f pro ject to commemorate the history of the area ° We .Will continue our : .discussions. with Koloa Rum and hope.:they: returriao request the. relocation of the homes into, their project We propose to demolish 2 homes (identified as House #2725 and Inouye. House in the Architectural Assessment Survey) that were deemed unsuitable,for:relocation. due. -to -their . condition or:lack of historical into gritya. Id 3-1850 Kaumualil Highway : lihue, Hi 96766-8609 i 808145.3678 : Q. .$0$.246.9470 ,•. .;; : : : '. ' . ! Although the relocation or demolition of the existing homes has an adverse impact on historic resources, we believe it is the best solution to reuse what we can of the existing homes and provide new housing opportunities for the community. We respectfully request your concurrence with our mitigation measures and welcome your recommendations. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me at 245-3678 should you or your staff have any questions. Sincerely, David Hinazumi Vice President Grove Farm Properties, Inc. Enclosure: Architectural Assessment Survey 3-1850 Kaumuaiii Highway Lihue, Hi 96766-8609 0 8082453678 Q 808146.9470 ti � • e e ■ I � I FLING ASSOCIATES INC . architecture ■ preservation ■ planning ■ interiors June 22, 2012 David Hinazumi Grove Farm Company Inc. PO Box 662069 Lihue, HI 96766-7069 SUBJECT: Architectural Assessment Survey Grove Farm, Koloa, Kauai DATE OF VISIT: November 3, 2011 TIME: 9:30 am to 11 :00 am WEATHER: Overcast, some rain Done through reconnaissance survey method, no structure was entered . This assessment is to evaluate the historic integrity of the structures only, intensive research was not conducted. However, existing maps were examined and Allan Smith, who was the Vice President and Operations Manager from 1987 , becoming Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer at the time of Hurricane ' Iniki and eventually Senior Vice President of Grove Farm was interviewed to gain some overview of the property. Attached are inventory forms for each of the eight structures assessed . The summary below highlights the overall assessment of these structures. HOUSE BEHIND JAPANESE SCHOOL: Observations • Appears to be early 1900s in form however, has gone through numerous alterations , • Windows have been altered • Addition to front • Currently inhabited , though in poor condition Historic Integrity • Lacks structural and historic integrity • Additions to the front of the house partially block the public view of the house. Addition not in keeping with the historic character of the house • Though old maps indicate a house in that location, per Allan Smith , the existing house was assembled from other houses after Hurricane ` Iniki in 1992 . KOLOA CAMP: Observations • Seven houses remain in the old Koloa Camp, though old 1918 and 1923 maps indicate many more houses were in the area at one time (see attached). 1833 Kalakaua Avenue, Suite 1008 ■ Honolulu, Hawaii 96815 USA ■ Tel: (808) 941-3000 ■ Fax: (808) 941-0900 ■ Email: louisfung @funghawaii.com I WW.A 101 Y UN G ASSOCIATES INC . architecture a preservation a planning a Interiors a The area with the remaining houses appears to have had a railroad track through part of it and was a part of Japanese Camp, on the outskirts of Filipino Camp. The Inouye house resembles a typical bachelor's quarters often used in Filipino Camps and may have been moved from the Filipino Camp as current location is not within the 1923 Filipino Camp. • Buildings appear to range in age from 1950s to 1920s and one may be early 1910s though it has been altered significantly. Integrity a In the 1970s, the neighboring subdivision was developed and several houses from the old Koloa Camp were moved into the area. a Hurricane ' Iniki destroyed or severely damaged many homes, and some of the current houses were put together from the remaining houses. a When McBryde Sugar closed in 1996, there were approximately 15 to 20 houses in the area. There are currently 8 houses. a Although Koloa Camp is one of the oldest sugar plantation camps, as a camp or historic district, the grouping does not retain enough integrity to continue the association with the old Koloa Camp. The area has shrunk considerably and is now bordered by numerous houses built in the 1970s, a 1923 map (see attached) indicates that only the house at 3623B Wailani Road and the house behind the Japanese school existed in the current location. Both houses have gone through numerous renovations and non-compatible additions. The house behind the Japanese School is known to be a house re-built using other houses after Hurricane ' Iniki per Allan Smith a However, some of the houses retain their historic integrity architecturally. The houses at 3621C and 3621 F Wailani Road reflect the architecture of the plantation camps in the 1920s and 30s and retain enough integrity to reflect the architecture of the period. Though it appears that all the windows and doors have been replaced at the 3621 G Wailani Road house, there is enough historic integrity to reflect a typical plantation house from the 1950s. While these houses are not exceptional examples of plantation architecture as there are numerous better examples in other camps such as ' Ewa Plantations Historic District, these homes have some preservation value and thus acceptable to be moved should they prove to be structurally stable enough. It is believed through initial consultation with Mike Faye that six of the houses are sound enough to be moved which include the three houses mentioned above. Any further questions, please feel free to call at (808)941 -3000. v Tonia S. Moy, AIA Senior Associate Fung Associates, Inc. c: Kim! Yuen, PBR 1833 Kalakaua Avenue, Suite 1008 ■ Honolulu, Hawaii 96815 USA 0 Tel: (808) 941-3000 ■ Fax (808) 941-0900 a Email: louisfung @funghawail.00m Hawaii Historic Properties Report Inventory Form or M�N TMK: YEAR BUILT: 2-8-004-001 c19205 N o K N 7z STREETADDRESS: 3621 F Wailani Rd. COUNTY Kauai nc Qnn o D b w o CITY STATE ZIP CODE N o Koloa Hawaii 96756 N O T 0 PROPERTY NAME: � House #2713 OWNER: ARCHITECT: a Grove Farm Unknown ' OWNER TYPE: 0 PRIVATE ❑ PUBLIC PROPERTYSIZE: FRONTAGE DEPTH ACREAGE BUILDING INFORMATION o z DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: c19205 DATE MOVED: DATE OF DESTRUCTION: DATE OF RECONSTRUCTION: ALTERED: AYES [3 NO (IF YES) DATE(S) OFALTERATION(S): Unknown (IF YES) TYPE OF ALTERATION(S) MADE: Window AC units and jalousies at front window. 0 BUILDING TYPE: DENSITY: ❑ OPEN LAND r p SCATTERED BUILDINGS Cl COMMERCIAL p RESIDENTIAL m0 [3 OFFICE [3 INDUSTRIAL [3 DENSELY BUILT-UP O ❑ RETAIL ❑ OTHER: z ❑ PUBLIC SETTING TYPE: M 0 STATE AL C3 RURAL O SUBURBAN ❑ URBAN ,� z ❑ ❑ COUNTY ❑ INDUSTRIAL ❑ OTHER: m Z = D ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: ❑ CONTRIBUTING ❑ NON-CONTRIBUTING # OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: : M TYPE OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: ❑ BARN ❑ GARAGE/CAR PORT ❑ OUTHOUSE ❑ FORMAL GARDEN(S) ❑ _ < o m c ❑ WATERTOWER/TANKHOUSE ❑ CARRIAGE HOUSE ❑ SERVANTS' OR GUEST HOUSE ❑ SHED(S) ❑ OTHER m O N v HISTORIC ASSOCIATION z n w HISTORIC FUNCTION: CURRENT FUNCTION : a Residential Residential Q0 T � ELIGIBILITY: 0 ELIGIBLE ❑ NON-ELIGIBLE AREA(S) OF SIGNIFICANCE: { Ln Architecture O1 z SIGNIFICANTPERSON(S): SIGNIFICANT PERIOD/DATE(S) : c1920s Ln m a ORIGINAL OWNER: CRITERION : ❑ A. EVENT ❑ B. PERSON I] C. DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION ❑ D. INFORMATION POTENTIAL CRITERION SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Similar to Pajela House and Ewa plantation houses and is a good example of the type and method of construction of a sugar plantation worker house. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Hawaii Plantation House STORIES: One PRIMARY EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL: ❑ STONE ❑ STUCCO ❑ ADOBE 0 WOOD ❑ OTHER ❑ CONCRETE BLOCK ❑ CONCRETE ❑ SINGLE WALL (IF WOOD) TYPE: ❑ CLAPBOARD ❑ SHIPLAP p VERTICAL BOARD ❑ BOARD & BATTEN ❑ SHINGLE ❑ OTHER FOUNDATION: Post and beam on isolated foundation (tofu block) ROOF TYPE: ❑ GABLE ❑ HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ LOW SLOPE/FLAT ❑ OTHER: SPECIAL FEATURES: Corrugated metal roof (Totan roof) ROOF TRIM: ❑ CLOSED EAVES 0 OVERHANGING EAVES ❑ BRACKETS p EXPOSED RAFTERS DORMERS: O NONE ❑ GABLED ❑ HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ EYELID ❑ OTHER: PORCH : ❑ NONE p INSET ❑ OUTSET ❑ OPEN ❑ ENCLOSED ❑ FACADE LENGTH ❑ WRAPAROUND ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET ❑ OTHER: DOOR: M INSET ❑ TRANSOM ❑ HUNG ❑ SIDE PANELS ❑ WINDOW ❑ SIDELIGHTS ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET p OTHER: aluminum screen door with unknown front door type WINDOWS: ❑ SLIDING EI DOUBLE-HUNG ❑ CASEMENT ❑ AWNING El JALOUSIES ❑ PLATE GLASS NUMBER OF PANES: 6 over 6 (double-hung) INTERIOR FEATURES: OTHER FEATURES: Original concrete steps with lava rock wall to the porch LANDSCAPING: CREDITS DATE FORM PREPARED: BY (NAME): 5/18/2012 Michelle Cheang, Tonia Moy ADDRESS: 1833 Kalakaua Ave. CITY, Honolulu STATE: Hawaii ZIP. 96815 ORGANIZATION: Fung Associates, Inc. PHONE: 808-941-3000 SHPD RESPONSE ❑ ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) RECOMMENDATIONS: ❑ NEED MORE INFORMATION RELATED TO: ❑ HISTORIC CONTEXT ❑ INTEGRITY ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ❑ PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNATURE: DATE: Hawaii Historic Properties Report Inventory Form TMK: YEAR BUILT. 2-8-004-001 1920s N o -a N o STREETADDRESS: COUNTY p M N 3621 C Wailani Rd. Kauai C Ln o, D ° D CITY STATE ZIP CODE O 1' Koloa Hawaii 96756 ° n ° PROPERTY NAME: House #2707 v iv OWNER: ARCHITECT: Q Grove Farm Unknown OWNER TYPE: 0 PRIVATE ❑ PUBLIC PROPERTY SIZE: FRONTAGE DEPTH ACREAGE BUILDING INFORMATION o Z DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 19205 DATE MOVED: 6) DATE OF DESTRUCTION: DATE OF RECONSTRUCTION : ALTERED: AYES ONO (IF YES) DATE(S) OFALTERATION(S): Unknown (IF YES) TYPE OFALTERATION(S) MADE: Ramp replaced front stairs to porch 0 BUILDING TYPE: DENSITY: ❑ OPEN LAND r o° ❑ COMMERCIAL ❑Q RESIDENTIAL ❑" SCATTERED BUILDINGS m ❑ OFFICE ❑ INDUSTRIAL ❑ DENSELY BUILT-UP O [3 RETAIL 0 E3 OTHER: Z ° [3 PUBLIC m SETTING TYPE: O ❑ FEDERAL G) m [3 STATE [3 RURAL 0 SUBURBAN [3 URBAN z ❑ COUNTY ❑ INDUSTRIAL ❑ OTHER: m z Z = D ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: ❑ CONTRIBUTING ❑ NON-CONTRIBUTING # OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: : v M TYPE OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: [3 BARN [3 GARAGE/CAR PORT E3 OUTHOUSE [3 FORMAL GARDEN(S) 13 _ < o ❑ WATERTOWER/TANKHOUSE ❑ CARRIAGE HOUSE ❑ SERVANTS' OR GUEST HOUSE ❑ SHED(S) ❑ OTHER o J x 0 N HISTORIC ASSOCIATION z � o HISTORIC FUNCTION : CURRENT FUNCTION : o o V Residential Residential ELIGIBILITY: p ELIGIBLE ❑ NON-ELIGIBLE AREA(S) OF SIGNIFICANCE: < V Ln Architecture O1 A SIGNIFICANTPERSON(S): SIGNIFICANT PERIOD/DATE(S) : c1920-1950 m z ORIGINAL OWNER: CRITERION : ❑ A. EVENT ❑ B. PERSON p C. DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION ❑ D. INFORMATION POTENTIAL CRITERION SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Resembles Ewa plantation houses and is a good example of the type and method of construction of a sugar plantation worker house. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Hawaii Plantation House STORIES: one PRIMARY EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL: ❑ STONE ❑ STUCCO ❑ ADOBE M WOOD ❑ OTHER ❑ CONCRETE BLOCK ❑ CONCRETE ❑ SINGLE WALL (IF WOOD) TYPE: ❑ CLAPBOARD ❑ SHIPLAP O VERTICAL BOARD ❑ BOARD & BATTEN ❑ SHINGLE ❑ OTHER FOUNDATION : Post and beam on isolated foundation (tofu block) ROOF TYPE: ❑ GABLE EI HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ LOW SLOPE/FLAT ❑ OTHER: SPECIAL FEATURES: Corrugated metal roof (Totan roof) ROOF TRIM: ❑ CLOSED EAVES I] OVERHANGING EAVES ❑ BRACKETS p EXPOSED RAFTERS DORMERS: p NONE ❑ GABLED ❑ HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ EYELID ❑ OTHER: PORCH : ❑ NONE ❑x INSET ❑ OUTSET ❑ OPEN ❑ ENCLOSED ❑ FACADE LENGTH E3 WRAPAROUND ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET ❑ OTHER: DOOR: O INSET ❑ TRANSOM ❑ HUNG ❑ SIDE PANELS ❑ WINDOW ❑ SIDELIGHTS ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET ❑ OTHER: aluminum screen d WINDOWS: ❑ SLIDING EI DOUBLE-HUNG ❑ CASEMENT ❑ AWNING ❑ JALOUSIES ❑ PLATE GLASS NUMBER OF PANES: 6 over 6 (double-hung) INTERIOR FEATURES: OTHER FEATURES: LANDSCAPING: CREDITS DATE FORM PREPARED: 5/18/2012 BY (NAME): Michelle Cheang, Tonia Moy ADDRESS: 1833 Kalakaua Ave. CITY' Honolulu STATE: Hawaii ZIP: 96815 ORGANIZATION: Fung Associates, Inc. PHONE: 808-941-3000 SHPD RESPONSE ❑ ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) RECOMMENDATIONS: ❑ NEED MORE INFORMATION RELATED TO: ❑ HISTORIC CONTEXT ❑ INTEGRITY ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ❑ PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNATURE: DATE: Hawaii Historic Properties Report Inventory Form TMK: YEAR BUILT: 2-8-004-001 c1950s G) o STREETADDRESS: COUNTY A m N 3621 G Wailani Rd. Kauai c Ln 00 D o CITY STATE ZIP CODE O1 p Koloa Hawaii 96756 N ° 0 G) PROPERTY NAME: S House #2721 — o, OWNER: ARCHITECT: a Grove Farm Unknown OWNER TYPE: B PRIVATE ❑ PUBLIC PROPERTY SIZE: FRONTAGE DEPTH ACREAGE BUILDING INFORMATION o z DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: c1950s DATE MOVED: DATE OF DESTRUCTION: DATE OF RECONSTRUCTION: ALTERED: BYES ❑ NO (IF YES) DATE(S) OF ALTERATION(S): Unknown (IF YES) TYPE OFALTERATION(S) MADE: shingle on one side of the house; windows and doors replaced 0 BUILDING TYPE: DENSITY: ❑ OPEN LAND r v B SCATTERED BUILDINGS ❑ COMMERCIAL B RESIDENTIAL m0 ❑ OFFICE [3 INDUSTRIAL ❑ DENSELY BUILT-UP O ❑ RETAIL z n ❑ PUBLIC ❑ OTHER: SETTING TYPE: m O r7 ❑ STATE FEDERAL ❑ RURAL B SUBURBAN ❑ URBAN z ❑ COUNTY ❑ INDUSTRIAL ❑ OTHER: m z = D ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: ❑ CONTRIBUTING ❑ NON-CONTRIBUTING # OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: : TYPE OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: ❑ BARN ❑ GARAGE/CAR PORT ❑ OUTHOUSE ❑ FORMAL GARDEN(S) 0 0 ❑ WATERTOWER/TANKHOUSE ❑ CARRIAGE HOUSE ❑ SERVANTS' OR GUEST HOUSE ❑ SHED(S) ❑ OTHER m x� N HISTORIC ASSOCIATION z N HISTORIC FUNCTION : CURRENT FUNCTION : o Residential Residential ° T � ELIGIBILITY: B ELIGIBLE ❑ NON-ELIGIBLE AREA(S) OF SIGNIFICANCE: Architecture M m M SIGNIFICANTPERSON(S): SIGNIFICANT PERIOD/DATE(S) : c1950s -�+ M ORIGINAL OWNER: CRITERION: ❑ A. EVENT ❑ B. PERSON ❑ C. DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION ❑ D. INFORMATION POTENTIAL CRITERION SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Though windows and doors have been replaced, it is a good example of c1950s plantation style architecture. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ARCHIT ECTURAL STYLE: Hawaii Plantation House STORIES: one PRIMARY EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL: ❑ STONE ❑ STUCCO ❑ ADOBE Q WOOD ❑ OTHER ❑ CONCRETE BLOCK ❑ CONCRETE ❑ SINGLE WALL (IF WOOD) TYPE: ❑ CLAPBOARD ❑ SHIPLAP O VERTICAL BOARD ❑ BOARD & BATTEN EI SHINGLE ❑ OTHER FOUNDATION : Post and beam on isolated foundation (tofu block) ROOF TYPE: ❑ GABLE 0 HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ LOW SLOPE/FLAT ❑ OTHER: SPECIAL FEATURES: Corrugated metal roof (Totan roof); extended roof over entrance ROOFTRIM: ❑ CLOSED EAVES El OVERHANGING EAVES ❑ BRACKETS ❑ EXPOSED RAFTERS DORMERS: M NONE ❑ GABLED Cl HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ EYELID ❑ OTHER: PORCH : ❑ NONE ❑ INSET p OUTSET ❑ OPEN ❑ ENCLOSED ❑ FACADE LENGTH ❑ WRAPAROUND ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET ❑ OTHER: DOOR: ❑ INSET ❑ TRANSOM ❑ HUNG ❑ SIDE PANELS ❑ WINDOW ❑ SIDELIGHTS ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET El OTHER: Flat panel WINDOWS: ❑ SLIDING ❑ DOUBLE-HUNG ❑ CASEMENT ❑ AWNING M JALOUSIES ❑ PLATE GLASS NUMBER OF PANES: INTERIOR FEATURES: Interior not entered OTHER FEATURES: Style, window framing, and decorative entry screen indicate built in 1950s LANDSCAPING: CREDITS DATE FORM PREPARED: BY (NAME): 5/18/Z012 Michelle Cheang, Tonia Moy ADDRESS: 1833 Kalakaua Ave. CITY: Honolulu STATE: Hawaii ZIP. 96815 ORGANIZATION: Fung Associates, Inc. PHONE: 808-941-3000 SHPD RESPONSE ❑ ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) RECOMMENDATIONS: ❑ NEED MORE INFORMATION RELATED TO: ❑ HISTORIC CONTEXT ❑ INTEGRITY ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION E3 PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNATURE: DATE: Hawaii Historic Properties Report Inventory Form TMK: YEAR BUILT, 2-8-004-001 c1900s-1920s N o N o STREETADDRESS: COUNTY p m N 3623 B Wailani Rd. Kauai cD N 00 o CITY STATE ZIP CODE °i Koloa Hawaii 96756 w w PROPERTY NAME: House #2733 a iv OWNER: ARCHITECT: a Grove Farm Unknown OWNER TYPE: O PRIVATE ❑ PUBLIC PROPERTY SIZE: FRONTAGE DEPTH ACREAGE BUILDING INFORMATION o Z DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: DATE MOVED: c1900s-19205 DATE OF DESTRUCTION: DATE OF RECONSTRUCTION: ALTERED: O YES ❑ NO (IFYES) DATE(S) OF ALTERATION(S): Unknown (IF YES) TYPE OF ALTERATIONS) MADE: Composite; shingles added to one side of the house; jalousies at most windows 0 BUILDING TYPE: DENSITY: ❑ OPEN LAND ❑ COMMERCIAL © RESIDENTIAL O SCATTERED BUILDINGS rn ❑ OFFICE ❑ INDUSTRIAL ❑ DENSELY BUILT-UP 0 [3 RETAIL Z z OTHER: [3 ❑ PUBLIC SETTING TYPE: m O ❑ FEDERAL 6) m [3 STATE [3 RURAL p SUBURBAN [3 URBAN z ❑ COUNTY ❑ INDUSTRIAL ❑ OTHER: m • z x D ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: ❑ CONTRIBUTING p NON-CONTRIBUTING # OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: 1 g M TYPE OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: ❑ BARN ❑ GARAGE/CAR PORT ❑ OUTHOUSE ❑ FORMAL GARDEN(S) o ❑ WATERTOWER/TANKHOUSE ❑ CARRIAGE HOUSE ❑ SERVANTS' OR GUEST HOUSE p SHED(S) ❑ OTHER o N v HISTORIC ASSOCIATION z W HISTORIC FUNCTION: CURRENT FUNCTION : o Residential Residential rn ELIGIBILITY: ❑ ELIGIBLE M NON-ELIGIBLE AREA(S) OF SIGNIFICANCE: rn M SIGNIFICANTPERSON(S): SIGNIFICANT PERIOD/DATE(S): c19005-1920s W1 M ORIGINAL OWNER: CRITERION: ❑ A. EVENT ❑ B. PERSON ❑ C. DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION E3 D. INFORMATION POTENTIAL CRITERION SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Possible 1900s house from shallow eaves, small window size, and on location notes in 1923 map. The building has been significantly altered and highly likely to have been put together after Hurricane Iniki. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Hawaii Plantation House STORIES: One PRIMARY EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL: ❑ STONE ❑ STUCCO ❑ ADOBE O WOOD ❑ OTHER ❑ CONCRETE BLOCK ❑ CONCRETE ❑ SINGLE WALL (IF WOOD) TYPE: ❑ CLAPBOARD ❑ SHIPLAP ❑ VERTICAL BOARD ❑ BOARD & BATTEN p SHINGLE ❑ OTHER FOUNDATION: Post and beam on isolated foundation (tofu block) ROOF TYPE: IS GABLE ❑ HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ LOW SLOPE/FLAT ❑ OTHER: SPECIAL FEATURES: Corrugated metal roof (Totan roof) ROOFTRIM: ❑ CLOSED EAVES p OVERHANGING EAVES ❑ BRACKETS 19 EXPOSED RAFTERS DORMERS: p NONE ❑ GABLED ❑ HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ EYELID ❑ OTHER: PORCH : ❑ NONE Cl INSET M OUTSET ❑ OPEN ❑ ENCLOSED ❑ FACADE LENGTH ❑ WRAPAROUND ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET ❑ OTHER: DOOR: Q INSET ❑ TRANSOM ❑ HUNG ❑ SIDE PANELS ❑ WINDOW ❑ SIDELIGHTS [] CENTERED ❑ OFFSET ❑ OTHER: WINDOWS: ❑ SLIDING ❑ DOUBLE-HUNG ❑ CASEMENT 0 AWNING El JALOUSIES ❑ PLATE GLASS NUMBER OF PANES: INTERIOR FEATURES: OTHER FEATURES: LANDSCAPING: CREDITS DATE FORM PREPARED: 5/18/2012 BY (NAME): Michelle Cheang, Tonia Moy ADDRESS: 1833 I(alakaua Ave. CITY. Honolulu STATE: Hawaii ZIP. 96815 ORGANIZATION: Fung Associates, Inc. PHONE: 808-941-3000 SHPD RESPONSE or ❑ ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) RECOMMENDATIONS: ❑ NEED MORE INFORMATION RELATED TO: ❑ HISTORIC CONTEXT ❑ INTEGRITY ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ❑ PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNATURE: DATE: Hawaii Historic Properties Report Inventory Form TMK: YEAR BUILT: 2-8-004-053 c1900S c D Ln N 0 7z z STREET ADDRESS: COUNTY p Wailani Rd. Kauai cD N 00 o ° 0 CITY STATE ZIP CODE 0 z' Koloa Hawaii 96756 ° � w PROPERTY NAME: House Behind Old Japanese School CL OWNER: ARCHITECT: Grove Farm Unknown OWNER TYPE: O PRIVATE ❑ PUBLIC PROPERTY SIZE: FRONTAGE DEPTH ACREAGE BUILDING INFORMATION o z DATE OF CONSTRUCTION : c1900s DATE MOVED: m DATE OF DESTRUCTION: DATE OF RECONSTRUCTION: ALTERED: AYES [3 NO (IF YES) DATE(S) OFALTERATION(S): Unknown (IF YES) TYPE OF ALTERATION(S) MADE: Addition to one side of the house 0 0 BUILDING TYPE: DENSITY: [3 OPEN LAND r n° ❑ COMMERCIAL Q RESIDENTIAL El SCATTERED BUILDINGS m ❑ OFFICE ❑ INDUSTRIAL ❑ DENSELY BUILT-UP 0 C3 RETAIL O ❑ OTHER: z ❑ PUBLIC SETTING TYPE: m O ❑ STATE FEDERAL [3 RURAL Q SUBURBAN [3 URBAN can �, M E3 COUNTY ❑ INDUSTRIAL [3 OTHER: ? m z ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: [3 CONTRIBUTING [3 NON-CONTRIBUTING # OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: TYPE OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: ❑ BARN ❑ GARAGE/CAR PORT ❑ OUTHOUSE ❑ FORMAL GARDEN(S) 0 0 ❑ WATERTOWER/TANKHOUSE ❑ CARRIAGE HOUSE ❑ SERVANTS' OR GUEST HOUSE ❑ SHED(S) ❑ OTHER m w HISTORIC ASSOCIATION O N z C CL HISTORIC FUNCTION : CURRENT FUNCTION : 0 0 0 Residential Residential m Q ELIGIBILITY: ❑ ELIGIBLE EI NON-ELIGIBLE AREA(S) OF SIGNIFICANCE: { U Architecture N 61 rD N m N SIGNIFICANTPERSON(S): SIGNIFICANT PERIOD/DATE(S): c1900s o it z 4 ORIGINAL OWNER: CRITERION : ❑ A. EVENT ❑ B. PERSON ❑ C. DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION ❑ D. INFORMATION POTENTIAL CRITERION SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Appears to be 1900s by its form, but has gone through multiple renovations such that it barely remains historically or structurally intact. Reassembled after Hurricane Iniki. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Hawaii Plantation House STORIES: One PRIMARY EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL: ❑ STONE ❑ STUCCO ❑ ADOBE 0 WOOD ❑ OTHER ❑ CONCRETE BLOCK ❑ CONCRETE ❑ SINGLE WALL (IF WOOD) TYPE: ❑ CLAPBOARD ❑ SHIPLAP ❑ VERTICAL BOARD M BOARD & BATTEN ❑ SHINGLE ❑ OTHER FOUNDATION : Post and beam on isolated foundation (tofu block) ROOF TYPE: p GABLE ❑ HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ LOW SLOPE/FLAT ❑ OTHER: SPECIAL FEATURES: Corrugated metal roof (Totan roof); extended roof over outset porch ROOF TRIM: ❑ CLOSED EAVES p OVERHANGING EAVES 0 BRACKETS ❑ EXPOSED RAFTERS DORMERS: ❑ NONE EI GABLED ❑ HIPPED [3 SHED ❑ EYELID ❑ OTHER: PORCH: ❑ NONE ❑ INSET p OUTSET ❑ OPEN ❑ ENCLOSED ❑ FACADE LENGTH ❑ WRAPAROUND ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET ❑ OTHER: DOOR: ❑ INSET ❑ TRANSOM ❑ HUNG ❑ SIDE PANELS ❑ WINDOW ❑ SIDELIGHTS ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET p OTHER: Unknown WINDOWS: ❑ SLIDING ❑ DOUBLE-HUNG ❑ CASEMENT ❑ AWNING 0 JALOUSIES ❑ PLATE GLASS NUMBER OF PANES: INTERIOR FEATURES: OTHER FEATURES: Has an extension structure to one side of the house LANDSCAPING: CREDITS DATE FORM PREPARED: 5/18/2012 BY (NAME): Michelle Cheang, Tonia May ADDRESS: 1833 Kalakaua Ave. CITY. Honolulu STATE: Hawaii ZIP. 96815 ORGANIZATION: Fung Associates, Inc. PHONE: 808-941-3000 SHPD RESPONSE or ❑ ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) RECOMMENDATIONS: ❑ NEED MORE INFORMATION RELATED TO: ❑ HISTORIC CONTEXT ❑ INTEGRITY ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ❑ PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNATURE: DATE: Hawaii Historic Properties Report Inventory Form TMK: YEAR BUILT: 2-8-004-001 c1920s c D N °o 7z STREETADDRESS: COUNTY A N N Wailani Rd. Kauai c cn I D o CITY STATE ZIP CODE j' Koloa Hawaii 96756 ° E O PROPERTY NAME: Inouye House ° OWNER: ARCHITECT: Grove Farm Unknown OWNER TYPE: O PRIVATE ❑ PUBLIC PROPERTY SIZE: FRONTAGE DEPTH ACREAGE BUILDING INFORMATION o z DATE OF CONSTRUCTION : c1920s DATE MOVED: G) DATE OF DESTRUCTION: DATE OF RECONSTRUCTION: ALTERED: AYES ONO (IF YES) DATE(5) OFALTERATION(S): Unknown (IF YES) TYPE OF ALTERATION(5) MADE: Jalousie and sliding windows; shingle side has corrugated metal awning over window 0 BUILDING TYPE: DENSITY: ❑ OPEN LAND r o° ❑ COMMERCIAL p RESIDENTIAL D SCATTERED BUILDINGS m ❑ OFFICE ❑ INDUSTRIAL ❑ DENSELY BUILT-UP 0 ❑ RETAIL z D ❑ PUBLIC C3 OTHER: SETTING TYPE: m O Gl -o ❑ STATE AL [3 RURAL p SUBURBAN ❑ URBAN ❑ COUNTY ❑ INDUSTRIAL ❑ OTHER: = D ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: ❑ CONTRIBUTING ❑ NON-CONTRIBUTING # OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: : v m_ TYPE OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: ❑ BARN ❑ GARAGE/CAR PORT ❑ OUTHOUSE ❑ FORMAL GARDEN(S) 1 o ❑ WATERTOWER/TANKHOUSE ❑ CARRIAGE HOUSE ❑ SERVANTS' OR GUEST HOUSE ❑ SHED(5) ❑ OTHER p N o HISTORIC ASSOCIATION z y n m HISTORIC FUNCTION : CURRENT FUNCTION : o Residential Residential ELIGIBILITY: ❑ ELIGIBLE ❑p NON-ELIGIBLE AREA(S) OF SIGNIFICANCE: Architecture M rn M SIGNIFICANT PERSON(S): SIGNIFICANT PERIOD/DATE(S): c1920s ui M z ORIGINAL OWNER: CRITERION : ❑ A. EVENT ❑ B. PERSON ❑ C. DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION ❑ D. INFORMATION POTENTIAL CRITERION SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Resembles plantation bachelor's quarters c1920s however, maps indicate it was moved to current location. Extremely poor condition with the front porch modified. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Hawaii Plantation House STORIES: One PRIMARY EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL: ❑ STONE ❑ STUCCO ❑ ADOBE IS WOOD ❑ OTHER ❑ CONCRETE BLOCK ❑ CONCRETE ❑ SINGLE WALL (IF WOOD) TYPE: ❑ CLAPBOARD ❑ SHIPLAP ❑ VERTICAL BOARD p BOARD & BATTEN M SHINGLE ❑ OTHER FOUNDATION: Post and beam on isolated foundation (tofu block) ROOF TYPE: 0 GABLE ❑ HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ LOW SLOPE/FLAT ❑ OTHER: SPECIAL FEATURES: Corrugated metal roof (Totan roof) ROOFTRIM: ❑ CLOSED EAVES 0 OVERHANGING EAVES ❑ BRACKETS ❑ EXPOSED RAFTERS DORMERS: M NONE ❑ GABLED ❑ HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ EYELID ❑ OTHER: PORCH : ❑ NONE O INSET ❑ OUTSET ❑ OPEN ❑ ENCLOSED ❑ FACADE LENGTH ❑ WRAPAROUND ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET ❑ OTHER: DOOR: O INSET ❑ TRANSOM ❑ HUNG ❑ SIDE PANELS ❑ WINDOW ❑ SIDELIGHTS ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET ❑ OTHER: WINDOWS: M SLIDING p DOUBLE-HUNG ❑ CASEMENT ❑ AWNING ® JALOUSIES ❑ PLATE GLASS NUMBER OF PANES: 6 over 6 (double-hung) INTERIOR FEATURES: OTHER FEATURES: LANDSCAPING: CREDITS DATE FORM PREPARED: BY (NAME): 5/18/2012 Michelle Cheang, Tonia Moy ADDRESS: 1833 I(alakaua Ave. CITY. Honolulu STATE. Hawaii ZIP. 96815 ORGANIZATION: Fung Associates, Inc. PHONE: 808-941-3000 SHPD RESPONSE ❑ ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) RECOMMENDATIONS: ❑ NEED MORE INFORMATION RELATED TO: ❑ HISTORIC CONTEXT El INTEGRITY [3 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION [3 PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNATURE: DATE: Hawaii Historic Properties Report Inventory Form TMK: YEAR BUILT- 2-8-004-001 1920s-1930s N o STREETADDRESS: COUNTY p m N 36211 Wailani Rd. Kauai DC N 00 o LU ° CITY STATE ZIP CODE O1 A Koloa Hawaii 96756 N ° ` o PROPERTY NAME: House #2723 OWNER: Grove Farm ARCHITECT: Unknown OWNER TYPE: 0 PRIVATE ❑ PUBLIC PROPERTY SIZE: FRONTAGE DEPTH ACREAGE BUILDING INFORMATION o z DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: DATE MOVED: G) 19205-19305 DATE OF DESTRUCTION: DATE OF RECONSTRUCTION : ALTERED: AYES [3 NO (IF YES) DATE(S) OF ALTERATION(S): Unknown (IF YES) TYPE OF ALTERATION(S) MADE: Plywood addition with metal awning 0 0 BUILDING TYPE: DENSITY: ❑ OPEN LAND r v ❑ COMMERCIAL Q RESIDENTIAL 0 SCATTERED BUILDINGS m ❑ OFFICE ❑ INDUSTRIAL ❑ DENSELY BUILT-UP 0 ❑ RETAIL z ❑ PUBLIC ❑ OTHER: SETTING TYPE: m O [3 STATE E3 RURAL 0 SUBURBAN [3 URBAN s ❑ COUNTY ❑ INDUSTRIAL ❑ OTHER: m z = D ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: ❑ CONTRIBUTING ❑ NON-CONTRIBUTING # OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: n m TYPE OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: [3 BARN [3 GARAGE/CAR PORT [I OUTHOUSE [3 FORMAL GARDEN(S) ❑{ a [3 WATERTOWER/TANKHOUSE [3 CARRIAGE HOUSE [3 SERVANTS' OR GUEST HOUSE [3 SHEDS) ❑ OTHER N m HISTORIC ASSOCIATION 0 N HISTORIC FUNCTION : Residential CURRENT FUNCTION : Residential 0 0 w m T � ELIGIBILITY: ❑ ELIGIBLE ❑ NON-ELIGIBLE AREA(S) OF SIGNIFICANCE: { i Architecture L m M SIGNIFICANT PERSON(S): SIGNIFICANT PERIOD/DATE(S): c' c1920s-1950s rn A ORIGINAL OWNER: CRITERION : ❑ A. EVENT ❑ B. PERSON ❑ C. DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION ❑ D. INFORMATION POTENTIAL CRITERION SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Difficult to tell how much alteration as this house has been engulfed by brush. Windows remain, appears to have some additions. House was likely moved in during the 1970s as it does not appear to have same architectural features as Pajela and Medeiros. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ARCH ITECTU RAL STYLE: Hawaii Plantation House STORIES: One PRIMARY EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL: ❑ 5TONE ❑ STUCCO ❑ ADOBE p WOOD ❑ OTHER ❑ CONCRETE BLOCK ❑ CONCRETE ❑ SINGLE WALL (IF WOOD) TYPE: ❑ CLAPBOARD ❑ SHIPLAP ❑ VERTICAL BOARD EI BOARD & BATTEN ❑ SHINGLE ❑ OTHER FOUNDATION : Post and beam on isolated foundation (tofu block) ROOF TYPE: ❑ GABLE M HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ LOW SLOPE/FLAT ❑ OTHER: SPECIAL FEATURES: Corrugated metal roof (Totan roof) ROOF TRIM: ❑ CLOSED EAVES p OVERHANGING EAVES ❑ BRACKETS ❑ EXPOSED RAFTERS DORMERS: 19 NONE El GABLED ❑ HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ EYELID ❑ OTHER: PORCH: EI NONE ❑ INSET ❑ OUTSET ❑ OPEN ❑ ENCLOSED ❑ FACADE LENGTH ❑ WRAPAROUND ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET ❑ OTHER: DOOR: ❑ INSET ❑ TRANSOM ❑ HUNG ❑ SIDE PANELS ❑ WINDOW ❑ SIDELIGHTS ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET EI OTHER: Unknown WINDOWS: ❑ SLIDING MI DOUBLE-HUNG ❑ CASEMENT ❑ AWNING ❑ JALOUSIES ❑ PLATE GLASS NUMBER OF PANES: 6 over 6 (double-hung) INTERIOR FEATURES: OTHER FEATURES: LANDSCAPING: CREDITS DATE FORM PREPARED: 5/18/2012 BY (NAME): Michelle Cheang, Tonia Moy ADDRESS: 1833 Kalakaua Ave. CITY: Honolulu STATE: Hawaii ZIP: 96815 ORGANIZATION: Fu ng Associates, Inc. PHONE: 808-941-3000 SHPD RESPONSE ❑ ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) RECOMMENDATIONS: ❑ NEED MORE INFORMATION RELATED TO: ❑ HISTORIC CONTEXT ❑ INTEGRITY ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ❑ PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNATURE: DATE: Hawaii Historic Properties Report Inventory Form TMK: YEAR BUILT: 2-8-004-001 019205-1950s C D N o STREETADDRESS: COUNTY p m N 3623 A Wailani Rd. Kauai c (nn 00 0 CITY STATE ZIP CODE N o Koloa Hawaii 96756 w o PROPERTY NAME: House #2725 — a OWNER: ARCHITECT: a Grove Farm Unknown OWNER TYPE: EI PRIVATE ❑ PUBLIC PROPERTY SIZE: FRONTAGE DEPTH ACREAGE BUILDING INFORMATION o Z DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: DATE MOVED: c1900s-1950s DATE OF DESTRUCTION : DATE OF RECONSTRUCTION : ALTERED: AYES ONO (IF YES) DATE(S) OF ALTERATION(S): Unknown (IF YES) TYPE OFALTERATION(S) MADE: Jalousies at front door, shingle side with ^ window awnings, new awning windows, I wo d addition o BUILDING TYPE: DENSITY: ❑ OPEN LAND r ❑ COMMERCIAL p RESIDENTIAL 0 SCATTERED BUILDINGS m ❑ OFFICE ❑ INDUSTRIAL ❑ DENSELY BUILT-UP 0 E3 RETAIL Z Z ❑ OTHER: [3 PUBLIC SETTING TYPE: m O E3 FEDERAL ❑ RURAL EI SUBURBAN ❑ URBAN v+ v m ❑ STATE m a [3 COUNTY E3 INDUSTRIAL [3 OTHER: M m Z = D ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: ❑ CONTRIBUTING ❑ NON-CONTRIBUTING # OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: : v m TYPE OF ANCILLARY STRUCTURES: ❑ BARN ❑ GARAGE/CAR PORT ❑ OUTHOUSE ❑ FORMAL GARDENS) 0 a M c ❑ WATERTOWER/TANKHOUSE ❑ CARRIAGE HOUSE ❑ SERVANTS' OR GUEST HOUSE ❑ SHED(S) ❑ OTHER N m U N V HISTORIC ASSOCIATION z 0 ^ HISTORIC FUNCTION : CURRENT FUNCTION: o Residential Residential T � ELIGIBILITY: ❑ ELIGIBLE p NON-ELIGIBLE AREA(S) OF SIGNIFICANCE: Architecture Ul SIGNIFICANTPERSON(S): SIGNIFICANT PERIOD/DATE(S): C190OS-19505 z ORIGINAL OWNER: CRITERION: ❑ A. EVENT ❑ B. PERSON ❑ C. DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION ❑ D. INFORMATION POTENTIAL CRITERION SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The house has been significantly altered however, the size of the windows indicate possibility of an older house Siding has been added judging by the shallowness of the window frames. Likely to have been reassembled after Hurricane Iniki. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Hawaii Plantation House STORIES: One PRIMARY EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL: ❑ STONE ❑ STUCCO ❑ ADOBE El WOOD ❑ OTHER ❑ CONCRETE BLOCK ❑ CONCRETE ❑ SINGLE WALL (IF WOOD) TYPE: ❑ CLAPBOARD ❑ SHIPLAP EI VERTICAL BOARD ❑ BOARD & BATTEN p SHINGLE ❑ OTHER FOUNDATION : Post and beam on isolated foundation (tofu block) ROOF TYPE: IM GABLE ❑ HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ LOW SLOPE/FLAT ❑ OTHER: SPECIAL FEATURES: Corrugated metal roof (Totan roof) ROOF TRIM: ❑ CLOSED EAVES p OVERHANGING EAVES ❑ BRACKETS 0 EXPOSED RAFTERS DORMERS: p NONE ❑ GABLED ❑ HIPPED ❑ SHED ❑ EYELID ❑ OTHER: PORCH : ❑ NONE ❑ INSET p OUTSET ❑ OPEN ❑ ENCLOSED ❑ FACADE LENGTH ❑ WRAPAROUND ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET ❑ OTHER: DOOR: ❑ INSET ❑ TRANSOM ❑ HUNG O SIDE PANELS p WINDOW ❑ SIDELIGHTS ❑ CENTERED ❑ OFFSET El OTHER: Jalousie window door WINDOWS: ❑ SLIDING EI DOUBLE-HUNG ❑ CASEMENT ❑ AWNING ❑ JALOUSIES ❑ PLATE GLASS NUMBER OF PANES: 6 over 6 (double-hung) INTERIOR FEATURES: OTHER FEATURES: LANDSCAPING: CREDITS DATE FORM PREPARED: BY (NAME): 5/18/2012 Michelle Cheang, Tonia Moy ADDRESS: 1833 Kalakaua Ave. CITY: Honolulu STATE: Hawaii ZIP' 96815 ORGANIZATION: Fung Associates, Inc. PHONE: 808-941-3000 SHPD RESPONSE ❑ ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (CONCUR) ❑ NOT ELIGIBLE (DO NOT CONCUR) RECOMMENDATIONS: ❑ NEED MORE INFORMATION RELATED TO: ❑ HISTORIC CONTEXT ❑ INTEGRITY ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ❑ PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE SIGNATURE: DATE: