Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 2, 2014 .......... ............................. .................................................................... ................................ ..................... ..................................MEETING...OF...THE .... .......... ........... ....... ................ .................. ......... ......... ......... .... .......... ..... .. ..... ............... ............... ................................. ... KAUAI COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2014 *14 SEP 26 A10 :45 3600 p.m. Llhu'e Civic Center, Moikeha Building Meeting Room 2A/2B 4444 Rice Street, Liihu'e, Kaua!i AGENDA CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 4, 2014 MEETING MINUTES A. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS B . COMMUNICATIONS C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) D . NEW BUSINESS 1 Letter (9/16/14) from Michael Hunnemaim, KAI Hawai'i, Inc. request to present an update of design of Kapal-i, Puuopae, and Opaekaa Bridges; request design variation to Opaekaa Bridge (steel girders in lieu of concrete); and an update on site visit to Opaekaa Bridge by consulting engineer, historic architect, and SHPD representative. E. COMMISSION EDUCATION 1 , Presentation to the Conunission Regarding Effective Meeting Management. October 2. 2014 K.H.P.R.C. Agenda Page 2 .............. ... ......... ..... ... . ..... .................... ..... .. ... ...... ...... ... ... ......... ............ .................. ...... ... ..... ........I....... ........ ... .. ... ....... ..... .................................. ..... ....... ...... ....... .. ......... .. . .. ........ ................ .. ....... .... ........................ ... ................. F. SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS (11 /6/2014) G. ADJOURNMENT EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Commission may go into an executive session on an agenda item for one of the permitted purposes listed in Section 92-5(a) Hawaii Revised Statutes "MR. 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. FIRS 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: 2414050, . .... ...... ...... ...... ..... .... . ................... ......... . ............. . ..I.. ......... .... ..... ........................................................................ .. ..... ............... ..... .... . .......... ...... ........... .. ...... ....... ..... ....... ........... .... .. .. .................. ... .... ... ...... ..... ...... ..... .... .....I... ...... . . .. ......... .......... .... ... .... ...... ... ........ KAUAI COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION L;j.bu' e Civic Center, Mo' ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B MINUTES A regular meeting of the Kaua' i County Historic Preservation Commission (KHPRC) was held on September 4, 2014 in the L-illu%e Civic Center, Mo'ikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B I The following Commissioners were present: Chairperson Stephen Long, Danita Aiu, Althea Arinaga, Anne Schneider, Patsy Sheehan The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Myles Hironaka, 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 :02 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Danita Ain moved to approve the agenda, Anne Schneider seconded the motion. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Pat Sheehan moved to approve the July 17, 2014 meeting minutes, Anne Schneider seconded the motion . No vote was taken on this item. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS (None) COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Long noted at the last meeting they determined that this portion of the meeting would be when they would comment on previous meetings' memos received. He asked the Commission if there were any comments on any memos received at the last meeting with regard to the high school , Ms. Arinaga stated yes, referencing the memo dated June 18, 2014 to Ms. Aiu. She commented on the summary of archaeological sites within the APE listed on the second page, specifically on Kapa'a High School. She explained the memo states that Kapa' a High School is listed on the National and State register of historic places, and was originally established in 1883 September 4, 2014 LH.P.R.C. Meethig Minutes Page 2 .............. ....... ...................... ... .................... ............... .......... ...................... .......... ......... .......... .. . .............................. ......... ................................. ...... .... ..... ............................. ...... ............ .................. ......... .. ... ...... ....... ... .... ......... .... ............. ........ ... ........... ....... ....................... ........... ............. ............................. near the sea below St. Catherine' s church cemetery, but was later moved up the hill to its current location, Deputy County Attorney Jung interjected to clarify that the item currently before the Commission is the review of the recommendation written by Staff Planner Hironaka on behalf of the Commission. He thinks Ms. Arinaga's discussion is related to the New Business Ttern D. I ., which they can discuss at point of the meeting. Chair Long explained someone had a comment at the last meeting about the memo they received, at which time it was determined it would be inappropriate to comment on it on the day of receipt, but that the Commission could do so at a subsequent meeting. Mr. Jung stated an item could be placed on future agendas wider Communications for memos to be reviewed by the Commission before it is sent out. Mr. Long clarified that what he is referencing is comments on memos received. Ms. Arinaga added to clarify that in the past, memos received had to be approved for acceptance, noting that the last meeting was the first time she had seen it, and she had some comments on it. Mr. Jung explained those memos the Commission receives are just the recommendation letters that come out of action taken by the body, and if the Commission would like to review and discuss those, they can do so. Ms. Arinaga asked if they come across discrepancies, are they not able to educate other members to which Mr. Jung stated they certainly could, but must be aware that there are obligations to get it out within 15 days after the meeting. He suggested setting up a process for email review, in which the Planner can email the memos to commissioners for review and response with any corrections or clarifications, if any; as long as they reply only to the Planner and not to other members so they are not in violation of the Sunshine Law. Additionally, they can request that it be placed back on the agenda for review and discussion. There was discussion to determine the specific memo Ms. Arinaga had comments on, which was received in June. Mr. Jung clarified that what the Chair is. specifically talking about are the review memos and recommendations from the Planner that are presented on• behalf of the Commission. What he thinks Ms. Arinaga is referring to is the actual agenda item that will be coining up later under New Business, at which time her issue can be taken up. What the Chair is asking to discuss is the actual recommendation letter that was sent out. Mr. Long stated Ms. Sheehan had comments or corrections on a memorandum dated May '1305 2014, Ms. Sheehan stated for clarification that the letter contains some misinformation by the Department of Land and Natural Resources. She pointed out that the alteration addition is to the Wai 'oli Hui` is Church meetinghouse, not the church itself. She also clarified that the owner name is Wai'.oli Hui' ia Church, not WaVoli Corporation, UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) September 4, 2014 K.H.P.R-C. Meeting Minutes Page ...... ................................................... ............................................................................................... .1........ ......... .. ..... ........... .......... .... ... ...................................... ... ..... . ... ............... ... .............. ............................. ......................... .................................................................... ......................................... ............. ... ......................... NEW BUSINESS National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 Consultation, Resurface Collector Roads at Various Locations: Hauaala, Mailihuna and Portion of Olohena Roads Eric Fujikawa and Wynne Ushigome of the Department of Public Works Engineering Division provided an overview of the project, noting it is a federally funded project, which requires them to do outreach among groups that provide input on things that have historical, archaeological, or cultural significance. Ms. Aiu stated she viewed the maps for those roads, and is quite familiar with them as she utilizes them frequently. She does not see any historical or archaeological damage that would result from this project, noting that area is so well-used . I Ms. Arinaga agreed, staling she has not heard of or read anything regarding historical sites on the roads. Mary Jane Naone of the State Historic Preservation Division stated they have no concerns about the project. Ms. Arinaga stated she did have additional comments about this project, specifically about the study that was done on the high school . Referencing the assertion in the letter that states Kapa' a High School was originally established in 1883 near the sea below St. Catherine ' s Church cemetery, Ms. Arinaga explained for clarification that the first Kapa'a school was located there, but was known as either the School by the Sea, or First English School that was established in 1883, and was never called Kapa'a High School . Ms. Arinaga pointed out the timeline provided in her handouts, noting that Kapa'a High School was not established or constructed until 1908, and is not the same as the School by the Sea; those are two different schools. Ms. Arinaga also expressed curiosity that Kapa' a High School is listed on the national registry of historic places, and asked what the procedures would be to make any necessary corrections to the date of its establishment. Mr. Jung stated that because this is a 106 consultation, they will take that information and incorporate into their commentary. COMMISSION EDUCATION Review of Article 14 of Chapter 8 of the Kaua' i County Code 1987, as amended, (Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance) regaTding the Kaua' i Historic Preservation Review Commission and its Interaction in the Historic Preservation Review Process Pursuant to Hawaii ..Revised Statutes.. .. Chapter. .. . 6.E0 Due to technical difficulties, the Powerpoint presentation could not be viewed ; however, Mr. Jung provided hard copies of the slides. (On file) September 4, 2014 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 4 ............................. ............ .................................... ............ ........ ........ ............................................................................... .. ................... .................................................................................................. ............. ....................................... ......... ......................................................................... .......... .......... ..... ........ .. ............... Mr. Jung explained the idea of holding these educational sessions is to go over some of the relevant laws, rules and regulations to reaffirm where the Commission is going and what they are doing, and keep things fresh. Mr. Jung stated he will go over the six-step historic preservation process at a later date as it is a very long, cumbersome process. This session began with an explanation of the Commission's role, highlighting four of the most pertinent provisions of purpose: 1 . Protecting, preserving, perpetuating, promoting, enhancing, and developing the historic resources of the County of Kaua' i, 2 . Providing for the development and maintenance of a countywide system to identify and inventory historic resources within the County of Kauai. . 3 . Encouraging and assisting the nomination of additional historic resources to the national and state registers. 4. Assuring the development of new structures and uses, and the alteration and improvement of old structures and uses within a historic district are compatible with existing character and style of a district, and create harmony in style, form, color, proportion, texture, and material between buildings of historic design and those with more modem design. Mr. Jung explained the five provisions of Article 14 of the CZO : L The purpose section which was just previously explained 2. The Kaua' i Historic Preservation Review Commission, which outlines the basic mechanisms of the Commission itself 3 . The powers and duties of KfIPRC 4. Meetings 5 Accounting and funding — he noted the Commission has the authority to obtain private funding, but any donations to the Commission must be approved through the County Council . Referencing the list of provisions of purpose, Ms. Sheehan asked whether there is any kind of prioritization to that list to which Mr. Jung stated no, and noted that there are five more provisions that are a bit more generic in nature, but the four lie highlighted are the most reasonable to identify. Ms. Sheehan asked whether the Commission could internally create a priority list to which Mr. Jung stated yes, but they need to recognize that as projects come through action needs to be taken on certain things, Mr. Jung provided an overview of the powers and duties of the Commission, highlighting the following for further discussion : • Adopting criteria, standards. , procedures for the identification of historic resources, and prepare a countywide inventory of such. • Maintain a system of survey and inventory. • Review and recommend to the State Historic Preservation officer those historic resources which should be submitted to the keeper of the national register. • To administer the local certified government program and the federal assistance for historic preservation within the County of Kaua' i, September 4, 2014 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting MhAlteS Page 5 .......................................................................................................................................... ................. ................................................................................................................................. ......................... ............................. --------------------------------------------- .............................. ........................ ............ To prepare and implement a comprehensive countywide historic preservation planning process consistent and coordinated with the State comprehensive historic preservation planning process. Mr. Jung explained he does not think they have ever come up with a preservation planning process other than what is in the General Plan; there isn 't a plan specific to this body. Though it is not required, it is something the Commission could contemplate creating. The plan he advised the Commission resort to is the County plan, along with the statewide plan, wider Chapter 226 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. As long as the Planning Department incorporates the Commission in the General Plan process, that fulfills the above mentioned mandate. Ms. Aiu stated as a member of the Committee, she wonders where to put that information; she wants to make sure it is mentioned. Mr. Jung asked to clarify that she is a General Plan Task Force Conunittee member to which Ms. Aiu stated no, she is a member of the Kapa' a Development Plan, which falls under the General Plan. Mr. Jung stated. the Commission as a body could ask for commenting authority on the draft General Plan update. Mr. Hironaka explained that the current 2000 General Plan does include heritage maps, which not only looks at some historic sites, but also some land forms of importance . It may not have been included in the total preservation component, but heritage maps are used as reference documents when developments corne through the Department. Mr. Jung added they could try to incorporate the current inventory lists into the General Plan so they are identified in a long range planning document as well . That will ensure that developers looking at the General Plan designations can see that their potential projects may be in a historic district. Ms. Sheehan commented if the maps are from 2000, it seems as though they are totally obsolete now corning into 2015 . She asked if they have been updated along the way. Ms. Aiu commented they are heritage maps, which would historically stay the same, such as heiau, etc. Ms. Sheehan stated in doing the inventory, they are finding that some things are no longer there. Mr. Hironaka clarified that the heritage maps were of some historic sites, but it dealt more with land forms such as the Haupu range, etc. He added that the General Plan itself is usually updated every 10 years, which is what they are in the process of doing now. Ms . Sheehan stated since 2000, so many trees have been planted and may have since altered view plains; anything from back in 2000 would seem to be somewhat obsolete. She asked if updating that would be the Commission's responsibility to which Mr. Jung stated it would not be their responsibility to update that, but to possibly have the ability to comment on that. Ms. Aiu commented that the Kapa'a development plan, which is the one she is working on, has been worked on for the past eight years, noting that anyone can make a comment on it, not just commission members. Comments can be submitted online to Marie Williams. Additionally, Ms. Aiu offered to take any comments which she would then forward to the Planning Department. Referencing the 2000 heritage maps, Ms. Sheehan asked if the Commission has ever viewed them to which Ms. Aiu replied they have not reviewed it as a body because it was not their kuleana, but she offered to take a look at it and request an item be placed on the agenda if there is anything she feels should be discussed. Ms. Aiu will take any comments back to the committee. September 4, 2014 K.H.P.R.C, Meeting Minutes Page 6 ............. .................... .................................... .......................... ............... ..............................I.. .......I................... ... . .. .......... ..................I. . ......... .... ... ........ .............. ....... .. ... ...........I......... ....... .... . ....... .......... ....... ......... ................................. ..... ................... .............. .............................. ................................. ...... Mr. Jung continued with the overview: • To advise and assist federal, state, and county government agencies in carrying out historic preservation responsibilities. • To provide public education relating to the national, state, and county historic preservation programs. • To assist the Planning Commission to develop standards and guidelines applicable to uses of historic resources and uses proposed within the historic districts and neighborhoods and to otherwise advise the Planning Commission on all matters affecting historic resources. • To obtain within limits of funds appropriated the services of qualified persons and organizations to direct, advise, and assist the Commission in obtaining equipment, supplies, and other materials necessary for effective operation. • To promulgate rules and regulations pursuant to Chapter 91 , which is the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act. Mr . Jung explained the Commission' s obligations as written: • You shall meet as necessary but at least once quarterly. • Within fifteen ( 15) days of such meetings the Commission shall forward any comments or recommendations it may have concerning matters referred to it by the Planning Commission to the body for its consideration. Ms. Aiu asked to clarify that this was the 15 days Mr. Jung earlier mentioned to Ms. Arinaga to which Mr. Jung replied yes. He explained for clarification how the Commission makes and votes on recommendations, which are articulated in writing via the assigned Planner, and then routed as comments to the Planning Commission. The concern raised at the last meeting was the Commission wanting to review the recommendation letter prior to it going out; however, due to the 1 -month lag between meetings, the Commission would not be able to make recommendations at one meeting, and then review the recommendation letter for comments or amendinents at the next meeting without going beyond the 15 -day deadline. A review process could be established for the recommendation letter drafted by the Planner to be emailed to commission members individually. Individual commission members can then reply to the planner directly with any comments; they must ensure Sunshine Law is not violated through serial communication among two or more Commission members. Mr. Jung noted if the changes are substantive, it may need to be brought back before the Commission; very minor or typographical errors can be addressed by the Planner. Another option would be to give a member of the Commission the authority to be the reviewer to make final comment on the recommendation letter. Ms. Sheehan asked to clarify that if that will be the new process, then the Commission will not wait to discuss the written letter under the Communications section of the agenda. Mr. Jung stated it is up to the Commission whether they want to still include it on the agenda for record- keeping purposes. She stated if they will be using the email process for reviewing the letters, then Communications can be used for something else rather than reading a letter after the fact. Mr. September 4, 2014 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 7 -------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- .......................................... ................................................................. ....... ........ ...I..................... ..................I.................... ............................... ........................ .......... ................................................................................................................................ Jung stated they will still receive a copy of the recommendation letter for their records. Mr. Jung will create a communication protocol for the Commission to follow. Mr. Jung provided a summary of KHPRCs review process noting that HRS -Chapter 60 encourages them to promote historic preservation through two points: 1 . Establishing programs and commissions to promote, preserve, and develop historic resources 2. Provide by regulation special conditions or restrictions for the preservation of historic resources as land use entitlement permits come through. He noted the weight of authority of this body, as well as SHPD, is the ability to require people who come in for permits to mitigate any impacts to historic sites, Ms. Naone stated she asked whether SHPD can recommend certain permits be brought to the Commission. She is unclear whether KHPRC or SHPD reviews them first. Mr. Jung explained the only time the historic preservation review process is started is if there is an effect on a known or reasonably known historic property; that initial threshold is made by the Planning Department. However, they have been advised that every permit get routed to SHPD, which is why they may be inundated with permits. Ms. Aiu commented that it was her understanding that the process was if it was a known historic property on the inventory list it would trigger a red flag; it usually went to SHPD first and then to KHPRC. She stated that not every single thing should come to KHPRC. Mr. Jung stated the categories covered under 6E are: Historic properties, burial sites, and aviation artifacts. Most of what this commission sees is the potential effects on historic structures; whether it is on the historic register or not is irrelevant as long as it reaches the 50-year-old threshold. There was a recent proposed amendment to Chapter 6E to redefine what historic property was by including only those sites that are on. either the State or Federal registries; that died at State Legislature. Still, there are numerous homes that are currently 50 years or older, and any additions made to those homes will need to come before this .body as well as through SHPD. Ms. Sheehan asked to clarify that currently everything goes to SHPD first, which creates a stack of permits too large to go through in a timely manner to which Ms. Naone replied she feels she is managing the load, and as she becomes more familiar with the resources on the island they are being done more timely. If it is anticipated being late, Ms. Naone informs the Planning Department now to request more time. She clarified that she does feel inundated, but it seems there is an independent process taking place where KHPRC gets some of the permits, and SHPD gets some others, Ms, Naone . is wondering what her. role in the process is, and asked that when she. receives a pen-nit if there is a way in the process that she could reconunend that KHPRC also sees it. She stated that there is much more to historic properties than just buildings, and many projects that are impacting historic properties that KHPRC may not necessarily know about. September 4, 2014 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 8 .......... ...........----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ....................... ........ ...................... .................................I............................................... ........... ....................... ...... ....... ................... ........ ............ ........... .............. ......................... ................ ..... ....................................................................... Ms. Sheehan asked to clarify that SHPD is also under a 15 -day deadline to get a letter out to which Ms. Naone replied yes. In response to Ms. Schneider, Ms. Naone stated she reviews zoning and use permits, SMA minor permits, clearinghouse clearance forms, and other discretionary permits. Ms. Schneider asked if those permits going to the Planning Commission are required to come to SHPD first to which Mr. Jung replied it would depend on the initial read from SHPD, noting that many cases have no effect; however is some cases there will be a request for an ATS . Ms. Naone asked to clarify that the permit comes to KHPRC after it goes to SHPD to which Mr. Jung replied yes, commenting that the idea behind that is because SHPD is considered the expert, they can provide relevant resource information for decision-making by KHPRC, Mr. Hironaka stated if there is a permit required firom the Planning Department, Planning Commission, or Public Works which may involve archaeological features, he feels it may be appropriate that SHPD make a recommendation for KHPRC to review it. If it does not require a permit, the Commission would just comment back to the State. Mr. Jung added that KHPRC falls wider the auspices of the Planning Department, and provides commentary on permits issued by the Planning Department as well as grading and grubbing permits that may affect archaeological sites and features that may not necessarily be related to the structure. There was further discussion on the 106 process, and Mr. Jung explained that this part of the discussion is the most complex, and can be saved for another meeting, Ms. Naone stated there is a training coming up put on by SHPD, which she feels would be a good place to iron out the timing of the process so that they are able to meet their deadlines, but still provide KHPRC with the projects that she would really want them to comment oil. If the Section 106 projects are not being seen by the County, she thinks some of the disconnect there is that they are going to Oahu, often without recommendations to have KHPRC review them; that recommendation will now be made. Ms. Sheehan asked to clarify that if KHPRC sees a project and makes a comment to the applicant, a letter would also be sent to SHPD with their reconunendations to which Mr. Jung replied yes, but noted that the goal is to get SHPD comments first, and if KHPRC has questions, or wants to dovetail on those comments. they also get routed to the Planning Commission. Ms. Sheehan stated KHPRC has not consistently received conmients from SHPD to which Mr. Jung replied that is starting to change now. Mr. Jung continued with his presentation, explaining that those details are all contained in the Administrative Rules. There are separate segments of Administrative Rules, one that deals with burial sites to deal with previously known sites as well as inadvertent burial finds, and the other that deals with the historic preservation process. This is quite an elaborate and complex process, and will be presented at a subsequent meeting. Ms . Aiu commented the portion to do with burials should be put aside as it is not the Commission 's kuleana. .. .. ... ..... . ................. ... .............. ... ................ ...... ... .... .. . .. ........... . ....... .. .......... .. Ms. Aiu commented on a motion made at a previous meeting at which five members were present, and where a 4- 1 vote was talecen, and determined. by Mr. Jung to have failed. Ms . Aiu questioned why it failed when she thought it was a majority vote, yet she was told she needed to have 5 votes. Mr. Jung explained because KHPRC is a 9 member commission, the majority vote September 4, 2014 K.H.P.R.C. Meeting Minutes Page 9 ...... ........... .................... ..... - . ... ..... ........ ....... ... .............- ............... .. ....... .I.. .................... .... ..................................... ............. .......... ... ...... ... ........ .....I............... ....... ......... .. ... ..... ..... .......... ............ ...... .I......... .................. .... ........ ............. ... . .............. would be 5 as it would need to be based on the FULL commission, not just those that are present at the meeting. Ms . Aiu stated how that would work if members are not present at meetings to which Mr. Jung stated that is a problem that he points out at his trainings, noting that per the County Charter any commission member is allowed 3 unexcused absences before possibly being removed. They are respectful of the fact that commission members are volunteers, but in order to move County business forward there must be member participation. Mr. Jung offered to do a training on general housekeeping aspects of the boards and commissions rules and processes. In closing, Mr. Jung briefly summarized all the points made during his presentation. Mr. Jung asked if this educational piece is something the Commission would like to do monthly to which Chair Long replied if Mr. Jung has time in his schedule. Mr. Jung stated he and the Planner will consult with the Chair, and depending on what else is on the agenda, they can include an educational piece. SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS Mr. Long noted the next meeting is scheduled for October 2, 2014 . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p .m. Respectfully Submitted, Chefisse Zaima Commission Support Clerk Date: . .. .. ... . ... . . . .... ................ ........ ... ..... ..... .. ..... ...... .... .. .. ......... ... .. . . .. ...... .. .. .. .... ..... ... . ....... .... ........................... . . .. . ........ ..... . .. . ...................... . ........ ..................... ................................. . ....... ................ ................................. .... ...... .............. ..... ......... .......... ............... ............................. ... ........... ................................. ....... ...... ........ . ............ ........... ...-. ................................... ........ ................. ...... ................................................... ........................................... . . ...... ....... ......... ... KAI HAWAII Ken K. Hayashida, P.E. STRUCTURAL & FOREN51C ENGINEERS Michael P. Hunnemann, P.E. September 16, 2014 Michael Dahilig, Planning Director County of Kauai Planning Department 4444 Rice Street, Suite 473 Lihue, Hawaii 96766 Attention: Mr. Myles Hironaka Subject: KHPRC Meeting, October 2, 2014 Kapahi Bridge Puuopae Bridge Opaekaa Bridge Dear Mr. Dahilig, KAI Hawaii, Inc. respectfully requests to be placed on the October 2, 2014 Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) meeting agenda to present the following: 1 . Update on design of Kapahi, Puuopae, and Opaekaa Bridges 2. Request design variation to Opaekaa Bridge (steel girders in lieu of concrete) 3 . Update on site visit to Opaekaa Bridge by consulting engineer, historic architect, and SHPD representative. Please see attached determination memorandums for the three bridges. Thank you for the opportunity to present information about this project to KHPRC. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 00 Michael Hunnemann KAI Hawaii, Inc . 31 North Pauahi Street, Second Floor Honolulu Haww 96817 Telephone: (808) 533-2210 * Facsimile: (808) 533-2686 * E-mail Address: mafl@kaihaw=" .com 1D. OCT 02 2014 - 2 - SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 (808) 791 -3980 P x .......................... ----------------------------- .................................................................................................... ....... ............... ....................................... ...... .. . .......I........... ................................ ........................................................................... ......... . ...... ................ ............................... ............... ........... .. ... .......... COUNTY OF KAUAI PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4444 RICE STREET, SUITE A473 LIHUE, KAUAI, HAWAII 96766-1326 MEMORANDUM DATE. November 25 , 2013 TO: Michael Hunnemann, Kai Hawaii Inc, 31. North Pauahi Street, Second Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 FROM : auai Historic Preservation Review Commiss "bw SUBJECT. Department of Public Works Requesting to present Conceptual Design ans for Opaekaa Stream Bridge, Federal Aid Prqject No. BR-0700(59) This is to inform you that the Kauai Historic Preservation Review Commission (KHPRC) met on November 7, 2012 to review and discuss the conceptual design plans for the Rehabilitation/Repair of the Opaekaa Stream Bridge as contained in your letter and attachments of September 18, 2013 . Based on the information presented at the meeting, the conceptual design plans were developed based upon previous comments from the KHPRC and comments from the community. In summary, the conceptual design plan on the Opaekaa Stream Bridge include retaining the one lane bridge design and retaining the existing 12 ' -6" width of the bridge, for safety purposes the design include the use of sharrows along the bridge and the inclusion of steel bridge railing to be designed to be as unobtrusive as possible, A/C overlays at both ends of the bridge, retaining the existing steel/concrete end post at four ends of the bridge, retaining existing pier abutments, restoring existing truss, replacing certain. beams to be identical to original, and rehabilitating existing truss and kickers. Following the presentation, the Consultant, in behalf of the Department of Public Works (DPW), I requested "no adverse effect" from the KHPRC under the following conditions as -represented : • The railings should not look like they are part of the truss system, but be as unobtrusive as possible, while complying with safety standards. Truss pieces will be repaired only where necessary; cleaned and coated following Preservation Briefs and Secretary of Interior Standards. Determination will be made by consulting engineer, historic architect, County and SHPD representative. • Specs will include benchmark site visits by the above personnel to ensure proper follow- through by the contractor. VA2014 Master Files\CommissionsHstoric Preservation\Recommendation letters\1 1-7-20130packaabridge.docx . ................... ...................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... • Qualified personnel meeting the Secretary of Interior' s Standard for historic architect will be included in the review process, • Above qualified personnel will also be involved in the review of designated submittals by contract such as shop drawings or request for substitutions, and at key milestones in the construction process. Based on the information and testimony presented, the KHPRC voted to accept the "no adverse effect" of the proposed plans for the Opaekaa .S.tream Bridge, Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding this matter. Mahalo, cc : State Historic Preservation Division Department of Public Works .. .. .... .... ... ....... ............................. ............. ................ ...... .......................... ................................ ... .......... .............................. ................. ............ ............. ....................... . ........... ................ ... .... .................... .. . ........ .... ........................ .............. ....... ... ..................................... ............... ... .. .... ........................ .. ......... .