Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutjan62015regKAUAI COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMISSION Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B MINUTES A regular meeting of the Kauai County Historic Preservation Commission (KHPRC) was held on. January 6, 2015 in the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, Meeting Room 2A/2B. The following Commissioners were present: Stephen Long, Chairperson, Pat Griffin, Vice Chairperson, Althea Arinaga, Anne Schneider, Victoria Wichman, and Kuuleialoha Santos (from 3:10 p.m.) The following Commissioner(s) were absent: Danita Aiu, CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 2:56 p.m, by Mr. Long. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Anne Schneider moved to approve the agenda, Althea Arinaga seconded the motion. No vote was taken on this item. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Pat Griffin moved to approve the October 2, 2014 meeting minutes, Ann Schneider seconded the motion. No vote was taken on this item. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS There were no announcements from commissioners. Mr. Long requested that staff schedule the 2015 election of commission officers at the next meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Letter (12/3/14) from Max Solmssen, Proiect Manager, Community Planning and Engineering , Inc requesting input to identify potential environmental and /or social and economic impacts associated with the Lima Ola Workforce Housing Development Project T_MK: 2- 1- 001:054 Eleele Kauai Hawaii for purpose of preparing a Chapter 343 Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 58. KHPRC 1/6/15 Meeting Minutes Page 2 Mr. Long clarified that the information was for the Commission's review and consideration. He suggested that the Department requests a representative from the Housing Agency attend a follow -up meeting to present the project to the Commission. Mr. Jung replied they can do that. UNIFINISHED BUSINESS Letter 9/16/14) from Michael Hunnemann, KAI Hawaii, Inc. request to present an update of design of Kuahi, 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. Mr. Jung noted that this item was addressed in the 12 noon agenda, but can be kept on the agenda for future discussion as they progress with the project. Mr. Hironaka noted that the design to restore the bridge was originally approved using concrete instead of steel girders. The request is for some kind of action from the Commission regarding the steel girders. Pat Griffin moved that the Commission accept the update of the design to utilize steel girders in lieu of concrete for Opaekaa Bridge, Althea Arinaga seconded the motion. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. CLG Status Mr. Long suggested pushing this time to the end to allow the consultants time for presenting the new business items. Staff reported that some of the commission members and staff went to the CLG training and workshop on the Big Island in December and some of the information has provided to us and will be available to the rest of the commissioners. Some of the information might be applicable when Ian will be making some of his training sessions with the Commission in the future. Staff noted that he has not received an update study from Anna Broverman and will continue to follow up with SHPD on the status of the inventory study. The KHPRC requested that Staff provide information for the next two year cycle of CLG funds for review at the February meeting. NEW BUSINESS Class IV Zoning Permit Z- IV- 2015 -8, Proiect Development Use Permit PDU- 2015 -7, Variance Permit V- 2015 -1 and Special Management Area Use Permit SMA (U)- 2015 -6 to permit repair and reconstruction of the former Coco Palms Resort including but not limited to: 350 hotel units, Lotus Restaurant and Flame Room Bar, the Lobby Building, the Commercial KHPRC 1/6/15 Meeting Minutes Page 3 Building, 00/15/14) if the hearing three swimming pools, Queen's Audience Hall, the Palms Lanai, the Utility and if it entails the entire project. Mr. Jung replied that it 10 Historic Preservation Review, Bridge Removal — Coco Palms Lagoon, Maintenance Building, Sea Shell Restaurant Chapel in the Palms 2 of 4 Bridge Crossings, and the construction of a new Queen Lagoon Building into spa and gym facility on the site of the previously demolished structure. The project is situated in Wailua and located at 04 -241 Kuhio Highway, further identified as Tax Map Keys 4- 1- 003:004 (por.), 005, 007, 011, and 017 and 4- 1- 005:014 and 017. Memorandum 00/15/14) if the hearing to Michael Dahilijz, Director of Planning regarding Section 6E- the two bridges and the erection of two new bridges exclusively or if it entails the entire project. Mr. Jung replied that it 10 Historic Preservation Review, Bridge Removal — Coco Palms Lagoon, Ron Agor representing the applicant noted thee two bridges that are in dilapidated condition on the diagram (on file). Mr. Long clarified the Commission is discussing the demolition and removal of the bridges. He questioned the other two bridges. Mr. Agor noted page 8 of the handouts show the current condition; a concrete slab bridge. The rendering below is the proposed bridge that is arched so canoes can go underneath. Mr. Long questioned the reason for demolishing the existing bridges. Mr. Agor noted they are so far gone and repairing it would mean intruding into the water and replacing the columns which may have a major impact on the pond. Ms. Arinaga questioned whether the new bridge would intrude into the water. Mr. Agor replied that the new bridges would span the canal from land to land and would not impact the lagoon. Ms. Griffin noted the lagoon is on the State register of Historic Places and questioned if staff could inform the Commission on what is addressed in the nomination for the State register and if the bridges are addressed. Mr. Jung stated one of the concerns was that if they are going to within the lagoon itself, it may trigger the requirement for further environmental studies. Because they worked it out with SHPD to span the lagoon, there is no adverse effect. They can check if the nomination included information on the bridges. Ms. Schneider questioned the possibility of a site visit. Mr. Jung stated that they would need permission from the owners. Mr. Agor replied that he would be glad to meet the Commission out there. Ms. Griffin questioned the structures beyond the bridges as listed on the agenda. Mr. Jung noted the project is identified by the PDU and Use Permit numbers. Ms. Griffin stated that she felt she was not able to make intelligent responses not having received the information until now. Mr. Agor replied that he would not be opposed to coming back. Mr. Long questioned if the hearing is related to the demolition of the two bridges and the erection of two new bridges exclusively or if it entails the entire project. Mr. Jung replied that it KHPRC 1/6/15 Meeting Minutes Page 4 entails the whole project. He noted that agenda item D.l.a. relates to the memorandum submitted as part of SHPD's review regarding the bridge removal. He clarified there were permits in 2005 to tear down the whole place and rebuild it, but those permits have since been revoked. They are now trying to fall under the Iniki Ordinance to re- establish the hotel as it was once before. SHPD's comment was that they are still working on the review but they are working on their 2005 6E process piggybacking on. this permit set. Mr. Crowell stated there are a series of 13 structures over 50 years old; 5 King's cottages, 4 Queen's cottages, House in the Palms, Palms Lani and the Chapel on the coconut grove side of the property. Mr. Agor stated there are three main hotel buildings; the Shell building, Alii Kai I, and Alii Kai 11 and they are built on concrete columns and slabs, within them are built units with metal studs and dry wall. The proposal is to rebuild it with the exception of recessing the wall, and creating a small lanai with railings. Mr. Crowell noted the three buildings were built in the 1970s. Mr. Agor referenced the cottages in their current condition and the renderings showing the cottages raised on poles to have the finished floor above the base flood elevation. Mr. Jung clarified that the Iniki Ordinance allows for certain structures to be recognized as non- conforming but they still have to comply with the flood Ordinance. Mr. Agor noted the existing restaurant and bars; the Palms Lani and the House in the Palms are open structures with posts and a roof. They intend to rebuild the roof and leaving it as open as possible, replicating what was there before. The Queen's Audience Hall will be renovated and will cost less than 50% of its appraised value. Ms. Griffin questioned if the Queen's cottages and King's cottages could be rehabilitated given the Inkiki Ordinance and if they have to be destroyed and raised up. Mr. Jung stated the Iniki Ordinance :focuses only on how the structures are placed on the footprint. It says if you are going to rebuild and want to be protected by the Ordinance then you have to rebuild exactly on the footprint and no expansion. They would have to come in for the SMA permit which looks at historic and cultural issues. The policies and objectives of the SMA will apply. Ms. Griffin questioned the flood plain. Mr. Jung noted the flood plain management ordinance, managed by Engineering, has to make sure the structures are compliant. If elevation is necessary, they calculate the base elevation. Ms. Griffin questioned if the existing buildings can be refurbished under the flood plain management plan. Mr. Agor noted the cottages are beyond repair. FEMA rules state that any renovations or remodeling of a structure in the flood zone more than 50% of its value, the whole structure has to conform to the FEMA rules, in this case raising the building above the base line elevation. Mr. Jung added that it also reoccurs over a 10 year period. If it keeps reoccurring it can't accrue. Mr. Long questioned if the bridges will be ADA compliant. Mr. Agor replied that one bridge will be ADA compliant. The one at the restaurant is such a short span that they can't comply, but the bridge at the poolside complies. The entire site will have pathways to the bridge. KHPRC 1/6/15 Meeting Minutes Page 5 Mr. Long questioned if the bridges that are being demolished are water to water plantoon bridges. Mr. Agor stated it appears that the posts are encased in concrete. Some of the lose posts are just sitting. They would have to change the post in the water in the concrete and they are trying to avoid that. Ms. Wichman questioned if the posts in bridge number two has been impacted already. Mr. Agor noted where the foundations are will not be impacted. There will be a 12" thick footing on the ground and the bridge will abut to it. The prefabricated bridges can sit right on top of the foundation and not go too deep. There was no public comment. Ms. Schneider noted since they just received the information they were not able to absorb it. Ms. Wichman added that it is difficult to tell how the old buildings are and it may be a good idea to take a look at them. Ms. Griffin agreed it is always good to see things in three. dimensions. Mr. Long questioned if they are under time constraints with the applicant and the process. Mr. Jung replied that the agency hearing hasn't yet been open. Mr. Agor stated that any day next week would be appropriate. Anne Schneider moved to defer this item until they have arranged a site visit, Victoria Wichman seconded the motion. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Class IV Zoning Permit Z- IV- 2015 -12 and Use Permit U- 2015 -11 to operate a self- storage facility and resource recovery facility for construction materials within the Nawiliwili Bulk Sugar Building in Nawiliwili, Tax Map Key(4) 3 -2- 005:0090 Lorna Nishimitsu stated this structure was built in about 1950 for the limited purpose of storing bulk sugar before it was shipped off the island for.processing. When the plantation operation ceased on the island, the utility of the building also ceased. The weigh station to which it is connected by conveyor belt is being leased to an operator to weigh trucks and their loads. The client felt that one way to recycle the building would be to put it to different use while attempting as much as possible to retain some of the look of the building as it historically existed. Buttresses were added in the 70s because the walls had collapsed from the weight of the sugar, but the condition of the building is not ideal. Some of the buttresses are slated for removal and replacement. Some of the exterior walls comprised of galbestos and painted with lead paint have to be removed for health and safety considerations. The architect, Mr. Hafdahl, stated the buttresses on the side observable from the harbor side are principally going to remain. There is an attempt to reduce on the buttresses on the mauka side where there are existing buildings to allow greater two way traffic, for safety purposes and for access to the unit that will be a recycling facility. KHPRC 1. /6/15 Meeting Minutes Page 6 Ms. Griffin stated that her understanding was the buttresses were added prior to 1964. She noted that on page I1 of the application it states that the applicant is not aware of the presence of any archeological or historic sites on the property but it is in fact an historic site and it's really an important one. As our 150 years of sugar history slips away and factories are going down that bulk sugar really represented something important. The transition from bagging sugar and putting them on ships to having it sent in bulk. She thanked the applicant for looking at adaptive reuse of this beautiful and important structure because it is something that a lot of us have looked for a long time. She is concerned about removing the buttresses as she believes that the buttresses are historical elements in themselves and as stated in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, which is our guideline for judging changes, page 6, number six says that deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced and where severity of the deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Mr. Lambert reported that their preference was to keep the buttresses but a two lane drive isle for emergency and for access to the rear is required. In response to concerns expressed Ms. Nishimitsu stated that there is a way that the buttresses can be redesigned to allow for two way traffic and from the public view it would look like it like it was the same kind of buttresses and would be more decorative than functional. Mr. Hafdahl confirmed that by removing a couple of buttresses and shaving off five feet of the rest buttresses will allow an adequate amount of room for the access. Ms. Griffin noted that the KHPRC supports the concept of adaptive reuse. The challenge would be keeping the integrity of the historic building and still update it for modern usage. The buttresses are identifying features of the building and she appreciated the applicant's willingness to keeping them where possible. In response to the KHPRC's inquiries the applicant confirmed that there are 4 exterior staircases, one each end of the building and 2 along the long side facing Ndwiliwili. It has to do with the phasing of the project that is going to be done in three phases to accomplish the necessary exiting of the building. Two exits in every phase are needed in this 43,000 square foot project. The openings would consist of a standard 6 8 by 3 0 door punched through the side of the building at landings on the exterior stairs. In addition, the entrance on the Niumalu Road side is not needed and will be eliminated; however, the ' shadow of the door will be maintained by recessing the siding or something to give a reference to the previous opening. The applicant also confirmed that they intend to install a display or plaque acknowledging the historic use of the building as a sugar warehouse and that historic pictures of the building and a 1950s article will be utilized to educate people coming to the facility. The applicant also noted that to relieve the concern of the banker all the galbestos panels which contain lead paint have to be removed and replaced with a similar looking siding. The exterior of the building, with the exception of the buttresses and the emergency exits, is going to remain the same. The applicant are also open to working with the community on coming up with a color scheme for the building KHPRC 1/6/15 Meeting Minutes Page 7 Ms. Griffin confirmed that the applicant is following the standards in historic preservation, which new additions should look like they were always there and be sympathetic to the existing structure and not look like it was always there. Ms. Griffin's motion to accept the plans as shown with the comment that all of the buttresses that are possible to retain can be done so with minimal alteration as necessary; that the panels that are removed and replaced shall be as near to the existing materials as possible; and that photo documentation be made as the project moves along was seconded by Ms. Schneider. Ms. Santos' motion to amend the motion to include the recommendation that the colors of the building be earth toned and compatible with the Lihu'e Town Core color scheme that has been developed by the Planning Department; that the color scheme will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to painting the building, and that signage follow the current County sign ordinances, was seconded by Ms. Schneider. The motion to amend was carried by voice vote (4 ayes, one nay). The primary motion, as amended was carried by unanimous voice vote. SELECTION OF NEXT MEETING DATE AND AGENDA TOPICS The next meeting date was scheduled on February 5, 2015, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:09 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Qz� e akamatsu Commission Support Clerk Date: JAN 2 8 2015