URBAN DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 2, 2011
APPROVED 09-06-2011 A. CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Urban Design Review Board (Board) was called to order by Ms. Linda Kay Okamoto, Chair, at approximately 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, August 2, 2011, in the Planning Department Conference Room, First Floor, Kalana Pakui Building, 250 South High Street, Wailuku, Island of Maui.
A quorum of the Board was present (see Record of Attendance.)
B. COMMUNICATIONS
1. MR. ALLAN A. VILLANUEVA, Acting Secretary of the IGLESIA NI CHRISTO (CHURCH OF CHRIST) CHURCH requesting a County Special Use Permit and a Special Management Area Use Permit to demolish an existing church building and construct a new church building and related improvements in the R-3 Residential District at 1518 Malo Street, TMK: 4-5-014: 009, Lahaina, Island of Maui. (CUP 2008/0006) (SM1 2008/0025) (Anna Benesovska)
The Board may provide comments on matters within their purview regarding the proposed project.
Ms. Linda Kay Okamoto: . . . order. We don’t have minutes from the previous meeting? Okay, we’ll move right on to item-B, communications. Mr. Allan Villanueva, acting secretary of the Iglesia Ni Christo, Church of Christ, Church requesting a County Special Use Permit and a Special Management Area Use Permit to demolish an existing church building and construct a new church building and related improvements in the R-3 Residential District at 1518 Malo Street. Anna.
Ms. Anna Benesovska: Good morning Madame Chair and board members. My name is Anna Benesovska. I am with the County of Maui Planning Department Current Division and I would like to introduce Marcelino Raza who is going to give the presentation on this subject.
Mr. Marcelino Raza: Good morning Madame Chair and board members. My name is Marcelino Raza. I’m an architect and I represent the applicant, Iglesia Ni Christo, Church of Christ, here in Lahaina, who have applied for a CUP/SMA permit. And we’re here in support of that and we will present to you what we are proposing design wise and hopefully it will meet your decision for approval for this project.
With me I have one of my consultants, Civil Engineer, Stacy Otomo. If you have any specific questions in that nature I will defer to him so just let me know. We have some of our members behind me so hopefully we’ll behave ourselves. Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 2 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Again, thank you for having us this morning to present our project. But before I go on I’ll give you a little bit of a background of this church just for your information. It was established in the Philippines back in 1914 by Brother Felix Manalo. And in 1968 after he established his foot holds in the Philippines he established the first church at Ewa Beach in 1968 in the plantation village of Ewa Beach. And since then we’ve moved on to the states, all over the mainland, and also in different European countries, and I’ll have some illustrations for you of where we are, some of the chapels for example. And a bit of history for the Lahaina chapel, it was established back in 1985. It’s when we got our special use permit then. Then back in 1992 we went through this process and we got an SMA . . . (inaudible) . . . Permit. We had a construction permit. But due to final situation at the time we weren’t able to make realize that project, that dream of ours, until 2004 when we began this process all over again. And we had some hiccups along the way, but here we are. We went through the BVA a month ago or so in the same place for a height variance. And because we felt, you know, the steeple is a very significant symbol of any religion and we wanted to take that opportunity as well, and fortunately we got the approval of that.
So let me take you to the present day of the Lahaina Church of Christ. This is where it is right now. It’s at Malo Street which parallels the Honoapiilani. Thank you. Are you able to hear me? Is this microphone okay? Alright, as you can see the foreground is where we held our worship services up until 2005. And in the background there is the minister’s residence. But we were having our worship services here until we had that mandate from EPA that, you know, multiple use or large use cesspools were no longer allowed. So we wanted to comply with the EPA and we’re now holding our worship services at the Lahaina Intermediate School. And our worship service schedules were Sunday mornings, Saturday evenings and Thursday evenings as well. We have approximately 160 members which they don’t go to services all at once because of work and everybody have different schedules. That’s why we have several services. This property here is about 37,000 square feet. The existing as you see it right now, that house in the foreground is about 1,500 square feet and it has about 65 to 75 seats. That’s why we had several worship services to break the congregation up.
By the way, as I ramble on, if you do have any questions just please stop me. There is the map. There’s Honoapiilani, then you have the railroad tracks, and then Malo Street. And the Google A there is the property site. This is an aerial view. As you can see behind the existing chapel we have a parking lot and then you have the parsonage, and then you have a church up above behind this that’s about 20 feet in elevation difference from where the church is right now. Another view. That’s Ainakea Park in the back. And the site has a gentle slope, well, quite gentle I might say. It’s about 5% slope from the front to the back. A difference of about 12-13 feet. Just yell out Stacy if I’m wrong.
This is a view heading towards Kaanapali or Kapalua. There’s the railroad track. There’s our oceanfront view. Going back to Lahaina. Okay, I’ve included this slide because this road driveway you see here is part of our property. This is a 10-foot easement driveway for access to the – there’s a property in the back there underneath those mango trees, so we need to maintain that easement, 10-foot easement. It is on the other side. A view of the park just above and behind the minister’s residence. Here it is again. Okay, before I get to this let me show you Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 3 APPROVED 09-06-2011 some examples of the chapels that we have.
This is our main temple in Manila in the Philippines. I think it holds over 15,000 to 20,000 members in there. This is, if I’m not mistaken, is it in Australia? This is in the Philippines. This is in Waipahu. As you can see the common theme in architecture, the cliche with the spires. And you see this in any denomination of religion. You know, it’s just a symbol of faith. Here’s another one. I included this slide because this is in New York. This actually won a design award from the AIA Chapter over there for design of a religious buildings. These are in the Philippines again. I think this one is maybe in – we have one like this similar to California, over in, one in Carmel and one in L.A. and south San Diego. This must be one in Carmel or L.A. one. I’m not sure.
Okay, let me back up. When we applied for the SMA/CUP permit, this was included in the index. These were our first conceptual pass at the design. As you can see this whole building was dictated by the 30 foot height limit. That ridge up there that you see is 30 foot height. And those little spires, those pointy things, just sits above the 30 foot line. So the base of those spires, those pointy things, is about 30 feet.
Ms. Jane Marshall: I’m sorry, can you point to where you mean? The spires.
Mr. Raza: I’m sorry, I’ll stand up and point. I hope I don’t –
Mr. Darryl Canady: Take your mic.
Ms. Okamoto: I’m sorry you have to use the mic.
Mr. Raza: Okay, this represents the 30 foot height limit right here. If you have, like, you know, an imaginary line, this 30 foot line. This is the only piece that was sticking out above the 30 foot line. And for that reason we went to the BVA and asked for 30 foot height limit or go beyond the height limit. But in my design nature as an architect, it’s always, you know, an opportunity to redesign, I’ll take it. And I guess, sometimes that can be good or bad. In this case, you know, I looked at the proportions again of the building, and since we have this opportunity to increase the height of the steeples, I developed this elevation providing not just the original two- and-a-half steeples you see here. But I proposed a steeple that’s prominent in the front facade and some of the side gable walls along the side elevations. There you see.
Mr. Canady: Take the mic.
Mr. Raza: Thank you. Now we have one, two on each side, which makes four. And then the three in the front which makes seven. And one in the back that makes eight.
Ms. Marshall: Is that part of your presentation for your variance?
Mr. Raza: Yes ma’am. And we subsequently got an approval for that variance. And we proceeded on to this Urban Design Review Board. But in our path to this meeting we met with Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 4 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Ann and Anna, and we discussed a lot about being, you know, sensitive to the character of the neighborhood setting. And they reminded me that, you know, it is a residential area and we still need to be cognizant, sensitive to it and we should maintain that. They didn’t say, you know, you have to, but you know, you’ve got to consider that. And it was our intent from the beginning. Even from our, if you see our conceptual perspective here, that was our intent from the beginning. But going through the BVA with the height variance it sort of gave us an opportunity to look it over one more time and that is what we presented. But I think we’ve gone full circle. It reminded us to come back to what where we started and pursue that so that we can be friends with our neighbors and we don’t become an eye sore and we don’t become, you know, an object of criticism. Or hopefully we can blend in, which we want to do.
So from here, and before we get to the new elevation, this is the site plan that you see in front of you. We have about 36 parking stalls. Through our parking calculations we were required to provide 32, but we have 36 with handicap stalls. We provide the required trees for every five stalls. We have the five foot perimeter walls that goes around. It will be part CMU block with – if you can see, this is the elevation here – it will be part CMU and part wrought iron or aluminum pickets just to soften it up. And it will have, of course, hibiscus hedges around as well. These trees you see on the site plan between the parking stalls are fern trees which should provide some nice shade and they’re very dry, drought tolerant trees. They don’t have crazy roots, so I think that will work with us too. And existing around the property are very large mature mango trees that really help to soften the site up.
Okay, this is what we presented to the BVA with the increased height of those steeples. But because and, architecturally, I was looking at this because we increased the height of the steeples, some things almost have to happen, you know, to balance the elevation, to balance the design. And consequently, I added the center one to provide a visual balance to kind of tame the spires, the two towers on both sides. However, still maintaining that original intent to be sensitive to this area, historically, which has the shipping, whaling shipping background and the plantation history so I implemented those character defining elements by using, you know, ship lap siding and awning windows. And also that porch you see in front of you, that entry porch, that meant to reflect, you know, your typical plantation type houses with the front porch at the front with a stone base and heavy timber bracing and all that. So from this elevation – from this elevation to this elevation – and was what was the originally designed. As you can see how the ship lap and awning windows and the awning roofs were meant to address the history of the area, the Lahaina area.
To this elevation that we’re presenting to you today, we’ve taken off those steeples off to the side. We’ve tamed the two towers on both ends. And then we’ve made the lana`i more significant so that it will anchor the two tall steeples on both sides, and also to tame, or to somehow take away from that big gable wall at the end which became the prominent architectural element in this design because of the shorter steeple. It sort of blends your eyes towards the middle and it became the prominent element.
Ms. Marshall: Can you show us the 30-foot line on this elevation please? Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 5 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Mr. Raza: This elevation?
Ms. Marshall: No.
Mr. Raza: This one?
Ms. Marshall: No.
Mr. Raza: This one?
Ms. Marshall: Okay.
Mr. Raza: The 30 foot line is maintained here. And we’re still underneath the height that was approved with the BVA. Meaning this is still about 13 foot, eight-inches. So we maintained that height that presented at the BVA, but we changed this portion. We changed this proportion and we changed this portion to address proportionally what we presented.
Mr. Canady: Madame Chair are we to wait for questions later on?
Ms. Okamoto: Yes, please we should wait for your questions.
Mr. Canady: Thank you.
Mr. Raza: So this is a colored elevation. As you can see we’re utilizing that ship lap siding a lot. And we’re using the stand up seamed metal roof to mimic the olden day corrugated roofs which we really don’t want to use but this is a modern representation of that. The steeples and the spires themselves will be clad with the same material as the roofing. You know probably kinear finish aluminum roofing, typically of a lot of the buildings you see in town. The solid portions that you see will be either an exterior insulation finish system, or an exterior finish system. And the difference between the two is that if it’s a CMU wall and we want to put a coating on it to make it look monolithic that would be the exterior finish system. Now if it’s a stud wall and we have that foam board or that dense board which is the sub material of the finish system then it’s the exterior insulated finish system, EIFS. We’ll be introducing the reef cladding at the base, again to pick up some of the architectural elements of the past.
Here is the comparative street elevation of the original design which is what you see here, and the revised design. You can see the original design because of the lower steeples, like I said, the center, the gable wall and the facade becomes prominent because it has nothing to hold it back sort of speak. And it becomes proportionally heavy and it kind of dwarfs the porch as well. And then the revised design when we increase the height of those steeples it becomes then, you know, it almost becomes like a well balanced bookend you know. And the facade, the wall, the gable wall, becomes less significant now. Especially when we increase the sides of that lana`i porch. So I think there’s a lot more balanced now and as you’re driving along the highway that facade will not become as much of a visual impact. Instead your eye will be focused on the, first of all, the steeple and then it will go to the lana`i, the porch. And they’ll Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 6 APPROVED 09-06-2011 appreciate the details of the porch reflecting some of the plantation style details of the past.
This is the elevation of the new proposal. And as you can see we’ve removed those steeples at those gable ends, but still maintaining the original design as you see in the rendering we have the plantation windows. We have the standing seamed roof just to mimic the corrugated roof. We’ll have deep overhangs to provide some deep shadows along the sides. We’re mixing the exterior finish system with the lap siding to give it some – you know, to break it up so that it doesn’t become so overwhelming. And this is the rear elevation. This roof here will hide the mechanical system. It will blow the air-conditioning inside the main sanctuary. And all the air handling units will be located towards the back side in the landscaping area so they will be hidden. This is where we can envision where we’ll have some church activities inside under these covered lana`i, like programs or what not.
And this is the material board. If I could pass it around please. Representing the colors of the chapel, you have the green standing seamed metal roof. And then you’ll have the anchoring field color which is that kind of darker beige, yellow ocher. Then you have the cream white to tame that the field color. That will be along the sides of the main body of the church. And then you have the plantation type windows, and that represents –. The bottom here represents the reef, stone veneer that’s going to be applied to the bases of the building. And then to kind of tie everything up, we have the chocolate brown, or tobacco brown, if you will, trims that will go around the roof windows and some of the girt lines of the building just to tie everything together. And I believe that’s it for the architectural design features, so if you have any questions.
Ms. Okamoto: Thank you. We will have questions, but let me check first. Anna, did you have anything to add to this presentation?
Ms. Benesovska: No ma’am.
Ms. Okamoto: Let’s start with Morgan. We’ll go around and just do questions, and then we’ll come back with comments. But Morgan, starting with questions. One, can you go back and put your actual, the one that is what you’re going to do? That’s the one that you’re looking at is that correct?
Mr. Raza: That’s the original.
Ms. Okamoto: Okay. No, but not the original. Okay. So that’s the one we’re looking at?
Mr. Raza: Yes.
Ms. Okamoto: Okay. Morgan questions?
Mr. Morgan Gerdel: Okay. I have a question regarding the site plan. It looks like one edge the building is six feet away from the property line. Do you know the height of the building at that point? Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 7 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Mr. Raza: I know that it’s not a two-story so we can – or it’s two. I think the code says that if it’s two-story it would be six feet side setback. So it’s below two story height. And in the back of that – the back of that building tappers away from the side yard so it’s low that point and then it goes high towards the center of the property.
Mr. Gerdel: Okay. My other question was I noticed there’s steps at the main entrance. Is there an accessible entrance to the church?
Mr. Raza: Yes, it’s towards the back because the property slopes up. By the time we get to the back of the –. If you could see, if you imagine this as a woman, sorry, a skirt here, that’s where the main entrance are, and ADA accessible entrance. Because the property slopes up this way, the floor of the church remains level here, so this is where they meet up. There’s no requirement to build an ADA ramp per se because the site itself will take care of that.
Mr. Gerdel: Okay, and my last question, do you know the height of the columns of the main entry?
Mr. Raza: It’s a 10-feet.
Mr. Gerdel: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Raza: Yes, thank you.
Ms. Okamoto: Bryan?
Mr. Bryan Maxwell: Just a couple of things. I’m a landscape architect by the way and I’m having a tough time just because I really don’t have much to review as far as landscaping because you had mentioned fern trees and hibiscus, but there’s really not much indicated on the site plan. You know I am kind of concerned with the fern tree selection because they do drop a lot of blackberries.
Mr. Raza: Yeah they do.
Mr. Maxwell: So you can bring those into your church. That’s just a consideration you might want to think of maybe an alternate. But generally what we also look at is if you have any – how you’re doing the irrigation? How were you guys planning on doing that? If you’re going to be reusing water. The other thing would be lighting. Do you have any light fixtures or anything for the parking? I don’t see anything that’s indicating any type of fixtures or anything like that.
Mr. Raza: Okay. I’ll answer your first question.
Mr. Maxwell: Okay.
Mr. Raza: I looked at the list of qualified medium sized trees for parking, and it’s almost like picking your poison. Every tree has some sort of nut or thing that drops of whatever, you know. Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 8 APPROVED 09-06-2011
I had a fern tree at home and you’re right, you know, at that time of the year they drop that black little things, but I thought that was the least problem of all the trees. Do you have, in your experience, do you have a tree?
Mr. Maxwell: Sometimes you could do like the Tacomas, the pink Tacomas or yellow Tacomas. Those seem to work out. The Hawaiian Ko. I’ve used those in the past, but lately I’ve been noticing around parking lots that those seeds have become –. I’m really not going to . . . (inaudible) . . . because they’re almost like marbles.
Mr. Raza: Can you specify any palm trees? Can you say Manila or the –?
Mr. Maxwell: For that you have to have medium size trees. You can’t have those. Unfortunately, I wish that was different. I think we, as a County, we should re-look at that because the palms will be a lot easier to maintain, but not the case at this point. But, you know, also what kind of, you know, for the shrubs and stuff like, you may want to consider other types as well, any type of native plants. Hibiscus tend to get a lot of the white flies and stuff, so just, as far as maintenance wise, you might look into something that maybe using less water. But, you know, and plus when I was looking on here, do you have a trash enclosure area at all?
Mr. Raza: Yes, we do. It will be closer to the minister’s house.
Mr. Maxwell: Where the existing garage is?
Mr. Raza: Yes, it will be.
Mr. Maxwell: Okay, that’s where I thought it would be. But also for irrigation you may consider putting drip line.
Mr. Raza: Drip line or we’ve been considering, you know, and this will come in the during the design stage when I’ll have the engineers, you know, specify systems like photo voltaic and solar heating water. But we’re also going to be thinking about they have this thing where it senses moisture in the ground now. It triggers off the irrigation system.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, rain bird and other manufacturer’s have that. I mean I live in Kihei and it’s very similar to Lahaina as far as then weather. And when you get the rains, you get the rains. And when you don’t, it’s just hot. One thing, you know, for something like this I don’t think you can re-use like gray water or anything like that, but you have a lot of roof you may be able to collect water. Just a thought. But that’s an expense in it’s own way. As far as lighting, have you looked at what the codes are especially for the neighborhood and all that stuff.
Mr. Raza: My electrical engineer and I have already had that discussion that all lights will be, you know, focusing into the site, the parking.
Mr. Maxwell: They’re shielded? Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 9 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Mr. Raza: Yes, it will be shielded. And I think the only light that we might consider up light would be some sort of a night light to just illuminate the sign up front. I mean, that’s about it. It could be a light from the eave perhaps just to light that up. But all of the site lightings will be focused down towards the parking area.
Mr. Maxwell: Like bollard lights?
Mr. Raza: Yes.
Mr. Maxwell: I’m trying to think what else. I’ll pass it off to Jane right now, but if I think of others –. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Raza: Thank you.
Ms. Okamoto: Jane?
Ms. Marshall: I apologize for asking those questions.
Ms. Okamoto: No, no. That was fine.
Mr. Canady: Can’t hear you.
Ms. Marshall: Can you hear me now? Just that he invited.
Ms. Okamoto: No, no. It’s fine. Go ahead.
Ms. Marshall: In the future just for precedent do we just ignore that, you know if they say go ahead and interrupt me?
Ms. Okamoto: No, but what you were asking were things to show right then and that’s fine. Otherwise, I would have told you.
Ms. Marshall: Okay. I have a bigger – I have a lot of little question but I have a big question and it really encompasses the little ones and that is there’s a cornucopia of textures on these elevations and I don’t think your finish board is really telling this what those textures are. You know, they seem to be paint swatches dry mounted on foam board and it shows a color range, but it doesn’t really tell me what the windows are.
Mr. Raza: Does anybody have any –?
Ms. Marshall: Is the ship lap siding concrete fiber board or is it wood?
Mr. Raza: It will be the composite fiber board because they resist termites and they’re more heavy. Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 10 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Ms. Marshall: There’s no way to know that from the texture – I mean from the finish board. But what are the windows?
Mr. Raza: The windows are going to be peller windows like these.
Ms. Marshall: With divided lights? Two divided lights?
Mr. Raza: Yes. Yes.
Ms. Marshall: Or are they applied?
Mr. Raza: They’ll be probably applied because we want to incorporate the double glazed windows for energy conservation.
Ms. Marshall: And are they clad on the outside and painted?
Mr. Raza: Clad on the outside. Yes.
Ms. Marshall: It is?
Mr. Raza: Yeah.
Ms. Marshall: How do we feel about –? I mean, we’ve been letting a lot of finish board slide recently I think.
Ms. Okamoto: No, I think it’s –
Mr. Raza: Excuse me, who has the material board?
Ms. Okamoto: It’s back over there. I think one of the things is and I believe the planner’s – I’m sure Anna did give you a list of things that you need to bring. The finish boards, the landscaping plan, the lights all should have been included. I think what she’s saying on the finish board is you have the colors, but not the textures of the actual materials.
Mr. Raza: I tried to include the texture of the exterior finish system which is in the back. That’s your typical – that’s what it’s going to look like. The ship lap siding it will be smooth. Just as smooth as the paint chip there. And the metal roofing, it will be smooth metal aluminum. So as far as texture if you want something to rub your hands on it and feel texture, true texture, it would be the exterior finish system that I glued on towards the back of the board. And then if you want to feel the base rock at the bottom that would be the represented piece of rock at the bottom there.
Ms. Marshall: So whatever is not ship siding identified by horizontal lines on your elevation is going to be this? Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 11 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Mr. Raza: Yes.
Ms. Marshall: And what is the trim, this corner board?
Mr. Raza: It will be wood.
Ms. Marshall: It will be wood.
Mr. Raza: Yes.
Ms. Marshall: And is this the color of the windows?
Mr. Raza: The color of the frame. The trimmings. The trims.
Ms. Marshall: Of the trims?
Mr. Raza: Yes.
Ms. Marshall: And the window color is going to be?
Mr. Raza: It will be that.
Ms. Marshall: This color too?
Mr. Raza: Yes.
Ms. Marshall: And this is all of the stone?
Mr. Raza: That’s going to be all of the stone. I couldn’t find the true coral rock. I’m sorry. But that was the closest I could find.
Ms. Marshall: So it’s that coral rock that we see all over Lahaina.
Mr. Raza: Yes, yes, because that was established during the whaling shipping era and plantation so we want to get that.
Ms. Marshall: And what is the source of light in your downward shielding parking light?
Mr. Raza: We’ll have in –. We haven’t quite pinned that down. That’s still –
Ms. Marshall: What are you thinking of?
Mr. Raza: We’re thinking of pole lights along the perimeter.
Ms. Marshall: No, I mean, is it metal halide? Is it high pressure sodium? Is it LED? What have Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 12 APPROVED 09-06-2011 you thought about?
Mr. Raza: We haven’t really thought about that.
Ms. Marshall: Because they all have very different characteristics.
Mr. Raza: Yeah, yeah. We’ll probably go for the most energy efficient fixture which would be the, maybe the LED.
Ms. Marshall: I don’t think that you can shine a light up even if it is at a sign. I’m not sure.
Ms. Okamoto: That’s something we would have to check with the planner.
Ms. Marshall: Those are all my questions. Thank you. In fact, I wanted to tell you I think your side and your real elevations are very successful. I really like them.
Mr. Raza: Thank you. Thank you.
Ms. Okamoto: Linda?
Ms. Linda Berry: I appreciate your sensitivity to the local area that you’re building in. I am concerned about the number of materials on a single building. And can you give me an example of a building in Lahaina or on Maui that has stone and ship lap and stucco and concrete? It seems like a lot to put on fairly small building. I’m curious about that.
Mr. Raza: Well I guess, you know, that was our direct reaction to the whaling, you know, the architecture of Lahaina of the past, and we wanted to incorporate all of that. Maybe we were too –
Ms. Berry: Zealous?
Mr. Raza: That’s the word I’m looking for. Maybe we’re over zealous, but, you know, I’ve driven around Lahaina, I’ve driven around Maui a lot and I do see in some instances a lot of these materials, typically, especially the wood and the stone and the siding. Most of them are maybe tongue and grove vertically, but element wise I see a lot of the stone and the wood and the corrugated roof a lot. And in between that are just painted flat board. And that’s represented by the EFS material. So visually it may look over zealous material wise, but if you see the side elevation here you noticed that I only put the wood and the stone foundation on the gable end just to break up that long elevation. And sometimes introducing a lot of materials together does that. I mean, that’s intended to break up the scale of something, so I think that was the purpose. Just to break that long elevation.
Ms. Berry: Well, I think it is successful on the side, but the front of the building it just seems so busy. The other thing is that there’s so many colors and I think that traditionally you wouldn’t see as many colors in that single building. And that might be some way you could tame down Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 13 APPROVED 09-06-2011 that front.
Mr. Raza: We still have the opportunity to do that ma’am. I mean, when you’re doing rendering you get over zealous as well, and you just pick any pens and you start the colors flying.
Ms. Berry: Okay, well, I hope you’ll consider those things. Thank you.
Mr. Raza: Thank you.
Ms. Okamoto: Darryl, question?
Mr. Canady: Thank you very much Madame Chair. My major question is I see no graphics here on the parking. Where, what, how much in each area. And I personally would like to see that based on it looks like there might be parking out in front along the railroad tracks and in that area, I can’t tell from what I’m looking at. And I hope that’s not the case because that could be some traffic problems in that area. If there’s a train, I don’t know how often it goes through there. I’m looking at the landscape plan and I see no parking in that area. I’m concerned in the parking and the flow from in and out, egress and ingress.
Mr. Raza: Okay first question. I don’t think we’re going to provide on-street parking. We’re able to provide the necessary required parking and we got approval from ZAED. And the reason why we have this parking configuration is two fold. We have a very small narrow property that’s sort of an L-shaped and we had to take advantage of that or make the most of it I should say. Then we had that 10-foot driveway easement that cut into our small property again. So those were driving forces that allowed us to lay this site plan such as it is. The function of the church itself how the members arrive to this place had to something to do with it as well. There’s two waves in a typical worship services. There’s two waves of members or two waves of group of cars that come in you know. First we have the officers of the church – the deacons, the deaconess, the choir members, the secretary, the treasures and the ministers. And we perceived that the lower parking area to be the officer’s parking for the most part so we can fill that up. And as the members, the rest of the members arrive then they’ll take the bigger parking space and whatever is left at the bottom there. This site plan illustrates landscaping required for the parking lot. However we haven’t quite developed the landscaping for the rest of the property. For example the front. In our concept, conceptual landscaping plan, we had some Plumeria over there and different type of trees. And that lower plaza area, I think there will be some opportunities to put some featured trees there. And I’ve also considered having planters along the side of the building.
Ms. Okamoto: Excuse me just a minute. We’re trying to get on the same page. If you look in their page 29 in this one.
Mr. Canady: This one.
Ms. Okamoto: Yeah, it has – it shows the parking. I’m sorry, we just want to be sure we’re looking at the same. Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 14 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Mr. Raza: Okay.
Ms. Okamoto: A little better.
Mr. Canady: Thank you. Thank you Madame Chair. I didn’t quite get through that. I’m sorry.
Mr. Raza: So as I was saying this overall site plan was primarily to illustrate that we met the parking landscaping requirement. But as you can see there’s still a lot more opportunity to develop the site landscape wise. We have towards the back which we are tentatively going to set up a gardening area there for the children, and there will be an open plaza over there. And at the front we’ll have some decorative trees there as well as some shrubs. And this lower area here where you see that – here – like I said that will give us some opportunity to provide some featured trees, provide some shade because you know that will ultimately become a hot spot. And I’m sorry sir what was the other question?
Mr. Canady: I want one more question if I may.
Ms. Okamoto: You may.
Mr. Canady: Have you had community input on this and if so is there a local community there? And I would be interested in their comments on the changes that you’re proposing.
Mr. Raza: Good question sir. We are in the process of mailing out to the neighbors an invitation to meet with us at the chapel and then we’ll present this design to them and get their input. Tentatively we have scheduled that for the 22nd – 22nd or the 19th of this month.
Mr. Canady: Should we be purvey of that information?
Ms. Okamoto: That’s what we will discuss later.
Mr. Canady: Okay fine. Thank you. I have no further questions Madame Chair.
Ms. Okamoto: Ann?
Ms. Ann Cua: Sorry to interrupt. If I could just comment a little bit on a couple of things if you don’t mind with regard to the neighbor. Pretty much everything you brought up we’ve talked with them about, trying to help them through the process. I believe my understanding is that in addition to this meeting that they’re going to have which we told – we suggested it because it is something that the Planning Commission looks for. It’s something that can be documented. There’s an actual letter of invitation to the neighborhood. There’s a sign up sheet that they’ll get at the meeting. And then we informed them about doing some summary notes that will be attached to our Planning Commission staff report. But what they did mentioned to us when they met with us is that they did go house to house, and so it’s not that nothing has been done yet. They’re already gone house to house. But what we kind of asked them, or suggested them to do because there’s no legal requirement for them to do this meeting that they’re talking about, Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 15 APPROVED 09-06-2011 but it does really give the opportunity for the community to come out on the most recent design. The comments that he made are correct. They did go to the Urban Design Review Board. The Urban Design Review Board considered their request for the –. I’m sorry, not Urban Design, the BVA, for the height variance for the eight steeples. We did meet with them to ask for if they could really consider that recognizing that they did already have an approval. And so we commend them for trying to work with us on that and bring that down.
You know in terms of the elevation. If you could go back to the elevations of the initial application and what you want to do now, side by side. I mean, we really didn’t have a problem with the first elevation, you know, especially in terms of scale with regard to the neighborhood. We were just trying to work with them on moving forward with the variance that they did receive in trying to reduce the steeples, the number of steeples. And we did look at all those pictures that you saw of all their chapels, or their churches in the world where, you know, there was, I think, maybe one that eight steeples, but majority of them had less. And so I just wanted to provide you that additional information on how we’ve been trying to work with them and their openness to just try to, you know, be sensitive to the neighbors.
Ms. Okamoto: Thank you. Darryl, did you have further questions at this time?
Mr. Canady: No further questions Madame Chair.
Ms. Okamoto: Susan?
Ms. Susan Liscombe: I just have a couple of questions, and one is on the steeples. I haven’t seen any renderings that ties this all together. We see one rendering of what was approved before, but it’s changed. And we have kind of a front rendering of what you’re approving now. But I don’t see any side renderings that match that that shows all these eight steeples sticking up.
Ms. Okamoto: We’re on to the two steeples.
Ms. Cua: I believe it’s three.
Mr. Raza: Here is the side elevation of the eight steeples.
Ms. Okamoto: But we’re not using the eight steeples, correct?
Mr. Raza: No we’re not. We’re not. From here, from here, we went to this elevation.
Ms. Liscombe: And that, I guess I have a problem with this whole presentation. Is I’m not sure what we’re looking at. You know because we’ve seen the eight steeples. We seen the two different front renderings. We see a fence with wrought iron. Then we have another fence in here with pickets. So, you know, I’m a little confused on that. And I did have a problem with the eight steeples as being just over powering. But even with your new rendering the steeples are far more substantial for such a small residential area. What’s the highest surround house Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 16 APPROVED 09-06-2011 or building? Do you know? Is it towering over everything?
Mr. Raza: There’s a two-story house to the right of it if you’re looking at it. And there’s another bungalow type house to the left of it.
Ms. Liscombe: Which is a single-story, right?
Mr. Raza: Single-story. But the perimeter property is inundated with tall mature trees as well.
Ms. Liscombe: Because now your center facade is also raised over the 30-foot limit. Is that correct?
Mr. Raza: That’s correct.
Ms. Liscombe: And I guess – kind of on the fencing – we’ve seen a couple different renderings here of the fence. You mentioned wrought iron.
Mr. Raza: Right. What you see in the rendering will ultimately be the final design.
Ms. Liscombe: Okay, so it’s not in this one we just got passed out which shows the –
Mr. Raza: No ma’am.
Ms. Liscombe: I think that’s all my questions for now.
Ms. Okamoto: Thank you. Michael?
Mr. Canady: One question Madame Chair.
Ms. Okamoto: Yes?
Mr. Canady: We do not have a rendering that shows the fencing around with the new eight steeples.
Ms. Okamoto: No, we’re not talking eight. We’re talking two. Well, three, the one in the middle.
Ms. Liscombe: See I thought we were talking eight also because –
Ms. Okamoto: Yeah.
Mr. Canady: That’s –. I’m sorry. I’m totally confused. I apologize.
Ms. Okamoto: We are talking similar to the one you have up here, correct?
Mr. Raza: Yes ma’am. The only difference with what we’re presenting now what you see in the Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 17 APPROVED 09-06-2011 revised design, to the original design. Yes we’ve tweaked the lana`i porch a little bit in that facade, but what we’ve done is just raise the steeples. So if you will imagine that we’ve pulled those steeples up another 10-feet.
Ms. Okamoto: Michael, questions?
Mr. Michael Silva: Sure. I do appreciate the – I guess, trying to incorporate the whaler’s village time materials. I’ll defer to the architects to the amount of materials and colors. I’m just an engineer. And I also appreciate the reduction of the number of spires. You know eight definitely would have been a little overpowering for my taste. One quick comment maybe for Planning. If there was a board or BVA approval, it would have been nice to have because I’m not sure what got approved and what the language was if it was eight or what that is. I mean . . . (inaudible) . . . but maybe just for the future that would be helpful for us.
Two questions for the applicant. Or actually three. For the civil design actually I had a question. Since there is no County sewer it looks like a lot of hardscape. I just want to see if there’s an thought to the layout of the sewer systems and the drainage systems. How is it all going to fit on the site?
Mr. Raza: I can answer that. We have with the, in file, with our application of the septic tank system. And I apologize for not showing it on this site plan because we are of time, but the tank would be embedded in this area here. And the leaching field would be somewhere a portion of this here in the back, or a portion of that open area.
Mr. Silva: And that would be for the reverend or the priest house and the church?
Mr. Raza: Yes.
Mr. Silva: And is there going to be a drainage system also included?
Mr. Raza: A drainage system for the septic tank?
Mr. Silva: For the storm drainage, storm water?
Mr. Raza: Yes we do. There will be a catchment grates in the parking lot. I don’t know, maybe I’ll let Stacy pick this one up.
Mr. Stacy Otomo: Good morning Madame Chair, members of the Urban Design Review Board. My name is Stacy Otomo. To answer Mike’s previous question regarding the sewer, Mike, we did also look at connecting to the County sewer system. Unfortunately the connection point is back towards Lahaina at the pump station, roughly about 1,300 feet away so that would have been a great expense to connect. Regarding the storm drainage, we will have catch basins in the parking lot as well as landscaped areas. And we have a perforated drain and possibly a surface detention system in the front of the lot. And we realized that there’s no system in there now and the property is somewhat developed so what we’re aiming for is actually – what the Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 18 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Planning Commission wants basically 100% of the develop so that’s our goal in this particular project as well.
Mr. Silva: Okay. And did you actually look at the sizing of it again with the sewer absorption field? I guess I’m just trying to fit it on the site. It looked like there’s wasn’t a lot of room.
Mr. Otomo: Yeah, the drainage system would be on the bottom end of the site, versus the sewer being in the upper end of the site.
Mr. Silva: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Maxwell: One question. You know, so, in front, you know, where the main road is, will that be a detention area or is that pipes on the ground?
Mr. Otomo: We, right now Bryan, we’re envisioning perforated pipes in the parking lot and whatever space we have fronting the project in the landscaped areas, using that as a detention basin.
Mr. Maxwell: Will there be – I hate to ask – is there oil separation or anything like that?
Mr. Otomo: Well, one of the standard conditions for the Planning Commission is we’re going to have to do the catch basin inserts, so there will be no old water separated, but maybe catch basin inserts.
Mr. Silva: Second question is it didn’t look like from the photos that there is any kind of pedestrian connection in front of the church. Is that look that all to have some kind of sidewalk so people who walk by on Malo Street?
Mr. Raza: No. I think Stacy can answer that too.
Mr. Silva: Or maybe even on this rendering it looks like there’s possibly some paving.
Mr. Raza: Not yet, but there’s a road widening that will include a sidewalk there. If you can elaborate.
Mr. Otomo: Mike, regarding any kind of pedestrian access on Malo right now the right-of-way is only 30-feet, and there’s a road in there. What the church is obligated to do is actually give up a seven-foot wide road widening lot. But the churches are actually exempt from doing the actual improvements in the road widening lot.
Mr. Silva: And last thing, it’s not quite a question but more of a comment maybe going forth with the Planning Commission. All of the material in here was couldn’t quite make out a lot of the words and text so if you could be a little more legible for the next application you guys do. Thanks. Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 19 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Mr. Raza: Thank you.
Ms. Okamoto: I have just one question before we open to public testimony. Your two parking lots do not connect, correct?
Mr. Raza: Correct.
Ms. Okamoto: So you enter, if one is full you have to go out here.
Mr. Raza: Yes, and we’ll have parking attendants at every event. We do that typically for all of our functions at our churches.
Ms. Okamoto: Is there’s any further questions? Jane?
Ms. Marshall: Is there a legal requirement –
Ms. Okamoto: Jane, you have to speak into the mic.
Ms. Marshall: I mean I was trying address this to Ann. Is there a legal requirement when they make presentations to the surrounding neighbors to put up story boards?
Ms. Cua: No. First of all there’s no legal requirement for them to do a presentation to the neighbors. There is legal requirement for them to notify in writing to the neighbors of the public hearing that the Planning Commission is going to hold. This meeting that we speak of came up actually years ago as a suggestion to applicants as a way of informing the community so that there’s hopefully no surprises when they come to the Planning Commission, and a neighbor shows up and said I never heard about this. It protects the applicant. It gets it out there. It gives people the opportunity to come, listen to the project. The Planning Department does not attend these meetings. It’s all on their own. But then at least there’s evidence that they tried, that they used the people within 500 feet. They tried to inform them of what they want to do. They invited them out to the site. It’s not necessarily the site. You know, we let applicants know you can go to a community association meeting if you like. But what we have found in the past is we use to require people to go to community associations until one of them started charging applicants, and so we didn’t require that anymore. But what we found out more importantly, what the Planning Commission found out is that going to a community association and getting input from them doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re hearing from the people that are going to live by a particular use or a particular building. And that’s when we kind of shifted gears and said, you know, we really – the Commission, the Department – really wants to hear and see what the people that live by this project what they feel like. What are they going to experience? And so we found it more beneficial for applicants to hold their own community meeting. Most of them do it right on site. And so, you know, we always encourage this. We can’t force people to do it, but we always encourage people to do that and it has proven to be successful.
One other thing I do want to comment that we will need to work with the applicant on in terms Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 20 APPROVED 09-06-2011 of moving forward with landscaping and your comment was well taken. There really is no landscaping in the front of the property, and there is a requirement that there needs to be. And so we’re going to need to work with the applicant. These are conceptual, but even going before Planning Commission we can get, I think, a more comprehensive landscaping plan because there is a requirement for landscaping in the front of a property, and especially a property like this that has frontage right along the highway. That’s probably the most important statement that you make with your landscaping is right in the front. And we need to work with you – work with you on that.
Ms. Marshall: Is there any requirement for them to put story boards at any time during this project?
Ms. Cua: No. No.
Ms. Okamoto: Okay then one other question. Do you have scheduled the Planning Commission meeting yet?
Ms. Cua: Anna?
Ms. Benesovska: We have not scheduled the Planning Commission meeting yet, but we are working with the applicant and pending your comments we’re hoping that we can schedule it in a very near future.
Ms. Okamoto: And then the second one, when they went before the Board of Variance, that is considered a public hearing also correct?
Ms. Cua: I believe, yes, a variance, a public hearing is held.
Ms. Okamoto: Were there any community members who attended that?
Ms. Benesovska: Yes, there were many community members attending. And if I recall correctly there were members of the church, and friends of the church testifying positively on behalf of the variance that they have received and it was a variance for the eight steeples with a height of 38.6 feet?
Mr. Raza: Four.
Ms. Benesovska: 38.4 feet. So the variance was passed.
Ms. Okamoto: And with a variance you do have to notify people within the 500 feet correct? Any other questions before we move forward? Yes Susan.
Ms. Liscombe: I understand now that we’re on two steeples and we are talking at 38.4 foot and not the 43 or 40-whatever, the 40-foot number was. Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 21 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Mr. Raza: No we’re at – we’re still below the 43 feet. I’m sorry, we’re still below the 43-foot.
Ms. Liscombe: So what you’re asking you’re talking about 43-feet now?
Ms. Okamoto: No below that.
Ms. Liscombe: Below 43 – much more substantial . . .(inaudible) . . .
Mr. Raza: That’s what we presented to the BVA.
Ms. Okamoto: If there are no other questions, we will open it for public testimony. At this time do we have any public testimony? Seeing none, public testimony is closed. We will go through now, and if you have comments, things that we need to consider, things that we need the applicant to consider. And Anna, you will be taking note of any of those comments. And if one of you has a comment, I don’t think we need to really repeat at the time so that Anna ends up with a list of either things we want to see or comments on the plan. I do have one quick question, I’m still a little confused. This really is not the rendering that we’re going to be looking at, correct?
Mr. Raza: Correct.
Ms. Okamoto: The steeples are but the front is one you have later here in black and white. Is that correct?
Mr. Raza: That’s correct.
Ms. Okamoto: The steeples are taller and the front is different.
Mr. Raza: Yes ma’am.
Ms. Okamoto: Okay, but the general part is this one, but we really need to look in our packet.
Mr. Raza: Yes ma’am.
Ms. Okamoto: Can you put that one up so we’re all looking at that one? I’m thinking it’s on page 34 in our booklet. That one.
Mr. Canady: That’s it.
Ms. Okamoto: Okay, this is the one we’re actually looking at this time.
Mr. Raza: Yes ma’am.
Mr. Canady: Do you have a side view of that one also? I don’t call it the way the architects do, but it’s the view of the side. Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 22 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Ms. Okamoto: That one.
Mr. Canady: And one of the rear end of it too. Pardon me.
Ms. Okamoto: That one.
Mr. Canady: I’m sorry.
Ms. Okamoto: So we all know what we’re looking at. Okay Michael comments that you want to make.
Mr. Silva: I have no comment.
Ms. Okamoto: Susan?
Ms. Liscombe: My comment would be on the front rendering. The one I do have a problem with the taller more substantial spires. It’s not just they’re higher, but there’s a lot more mass to them. And you know at 38 feet it’s sticking up pretty high over the neighborhood and at 43 feet it just adds to that. But the building because of the number of materials and colors it’s just so very, very busy for that small residential area.
Ms. Okamoto: Darryl?
Mr. Canady: I’m back to my parking again. I’m looking now at the new page whatever it is – 29 – in the new presentation. I still have a problem looking at egress and ingress to the parking areas. It is not shown here and I’m just not sure that it is workable. Thank you.
Ms. Okamoto: Thank you. Linda?
Ms. Berry: The side view does not show this point at the top of the front view. If you look at that the roof on the –. Well, maybe it is behind the towers and I can’t see it. Anyway, I don’t like the fact that the building has gotten taller, not just the steeples. I think that that’s overstepping the bounds of the variance. And I like the looks of all the renderings that you have where there’s a pointed roof in area rather than this little bump.
Ms. Okamoto: Jane?
Ms. Marshall: I don’t have any further comments.
Ms. Okamoto: Bryan?
Mr. Maxwell: I guess the things that I said before is that I’d like to see a landscape plan that kind of indicates the plant materials. The second thing is some type of lighting plan that shows whatever fixtures they’re proposing. Third would be an irrigation just to show some type of schematic or whatever, just to show kind of how they want to indicate the water, and if there’s Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 23 APPROVED 09-06-2011 any best practices that they can use. I think it be also – they had brought about solar and all that stuff. They may want to indicate that. Where they’re proposing to do that. If it’s going to be on the building or whatever. And if any of the fencing or wall material, you know, if it’s going to be wood or if it’s going to be steel or kind of what it’s going to look like. And lastly is the – if there’s any additional signage besides what’s on the building and maybe how that’s going to look because right now it’s just black and white.
Ms. Okamoto: Okay, Morgan, comments?
Mr. Gerdel: Okay, I have a couple of comments. I actually like the taller revised steeples. . . .(Mechanical problems with the audio recording) . . .
Ms. Okamoto: Try again.
Mr. Gerdel: I was going to say I like the taller steeples. It seems like a better proportion for the size of the building. They’re a little wider. My comment would be maybe to look at doing a louvered element at the top versus the ship lap siding. That might more architectural with the historic architecture in Maui and in Lahaina. And my other comment maybe just to use a few less colors on the front elevation so it’s not quite as busy, some more subdued colors.
Ms. Okamoto: One additional comment I would have besides you know the things that Bryan asked for. I think we would like to see what the actual comments from the Board of Variance. But, I think we need to get a real for sure this is what because yeah there was confusion on the original plan, the second plan and the final plan. If you look at your revised one versus your original one you did change, you know, quite a few other things also. So I think we just all need to be sure we’re talking the same thing. Any other comments? Linda?
Ms. Berry: I agree and I’d like to see a material board as well.
Ms. Okamoto: Okay. Anna, can you kind of summerize what’s been said?
Ms. Benesovska: So building is very busy for the small residential area. There’s issues, or potential issues, with the egress/ingress access and it’s not shown on the plan. So at this point the board is not sure if it’s a workable plan. There’s a comment that the building got taller and there maybe a question about whether that is overstepping the BVA variance that approved the 38.4 height and the eight steeples. What needs to shown further is landscape plan indicating materials, lighting plan, irrigation schematics, hopefully including best management practices to indicate what type of power is going to be used, indicate fencing materials, and any additional signage. There is a comment about that the new design for the taller steeples is appreciated, that the proportions are more pleasant. And then looking at doing a louvered element instead of the ship lap siding, and using few less colors on the front elevation. And then comments – what were the comments from the Board of Variances. And need to know exactly what the final design is to be as multiple designs were presented today so there’s confusion as to what the final design is. And then seeing a material board, an expanded material board that shows the textures. Did I capture everyone’s? Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 24 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Ms. Okamoto: I think on the final design, we need to have heights and, you know, the actual dimension shown. There is one on page 27 but it’s of a previous plan. But something like that that shows tree heights. You know, it really gives you all the dimensions on the current plan. Any other comments? Bryan?
Mr. Maxwell: On churches do they need a loading zone in there? They’re not required?
Mr. Raza: It’s not required in a residential.
Mr. Maxwell: Okay, I just wanted to know.
Mr. Canady: I had one other question I didn’t ask. In the rearview of the building they have those, looks like a garage door opening and closing. What’s that for?
Mr. Raza: That was intentionally placed there so that the activity within that area could be shared with what’s happening in the covered lana`i, so it becomes one free flowing space.
Mr. Canady: Thank you. It wasn’t for a garage.
Mr. Raza: No.
Mr. Canady: Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Okamoto: Okay, any other comments, questions from the – any member of the board? Anna and the applicant at this time, are you comfortable with coming back and bringing those, the additional plans and so forth? Is that something you’re comfortable with?
Mr. Raza: Well, surely we would like to satisfy this board and cover every concerns necessary prior to the Planning Commission. But I believe some of the concerns you have today if we have the opportunity to discuss them further we may able to resolve that. Some of the things that we may cannot, it was an intent – it was our intent this morning to show you sort of like a story board where we got to this point. That’s the reason behind why we have three different designs. But you must understand when we change an element such as a steeple, some other things have to change too architecturally just to get to that comfortable scale or proportion that we fall into. And a lot of the concerns that you brought is already written up in the SMA/CUP report that’s in progress right now. And as far as the parking, as far as whether it was workable or not. It doesn’t show a turnaround area towards the bottom portion there because there’s a tree there. But we have ample turn around area here to backup and turn around. And this is very deep, very deep, driveway because of the additional 10-foot easement driveway there so one could easily maneuver and turn around. We want to accommodate your request for another hearing if that’s what you desire. We really want to get this project moving. We want to get a positive feedback from the Planning Commission so we would have no trouble coming back and meeting with you.
Ms. Okamoto: Thank you. I think since you don’t have your Planning Commission meeting Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 25 APPROVED 09-06-2011 scheduled yet correct? Because there was so much confusion and I appreciate having the story board, but it did for some people was a little more confusing. If we could come back with the things that, you know, the lighting plan, the signage, the landscaping, and the actual, you know, with the dimensions of just what you’re actually planning. You know, we’ve seen the board, and I think we can see where it came from. And so if we can have those at a next meeting. I’m gathering from everyone that would be what you be asking correct? Correct me if I’m wrong.
Mr. Canady: Madame Chair, I’d like to – if it needs to a motion I’d like to move.
Ms. Okamoto: I don’t know that we need a motion at this time.
Mr. Canady: Okay. But yes, I think dotting the i’s, crossing the t’s here, and giving us some positive and straight forward what really is the plan – and new building, old building, new drawings, old drawings. Get it to us so that we can look at and say, yeah, that’s what we want.
Ms. Okamoto: And I will tell you our board is almost all here today so that the next time you come it shouldn’t have to be reinvent. You know, this is pretty much it so it’s not like re-doing it all.
Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, I think it will be a quick presentation.
Ms. Okamoto: Yeah I think so too. We could do a very quick presentation.
Mr. Raza: So in the next presentation we would just bring one design?
Ms. Okamoto: What is your final design, color, as well, but especially with your dimensions. You know, exactly how high is the roof, the steeples, with the color board that has more actual materials. And definitely with the landscaping, the fencing, signs and lighting plan. I think those would be the ones that it should be a fairly quick going through. But I just get the sense that people are a little confused because we say it’s this one, but then it really isn’t that one because, you know, did make some other changes, so that we’re all sure we’re on the same page. I think that’s what I’m hearing from the group. Okay, any questions? Yes?
Ms. Marshall: I just wanted to clarify what I meant by story board. It wasn’t something that is on a piece of paper. It’s two by fours stuck in the air so that your neighbors get a sense of the scale. Sometimes it’s as crude as just putting caution tape from two by four to two by four to identify to mass and height. It’s routine in a lot of communities, but I guess you don’t require that here. But I didn’t mean like Walt Disney story board. That’s what I meant. Does that –?
Ms. Okamoto: Yes. Okay, any other questions? If not, thank you very much. And if we can get it scheduled, you know, as quickly as possible that would be great. And it shouldn’t have to be a real long presentation. Thank you. And the actual notebooks that you gave us before, would you like to have those back? Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 26 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Mr. Raza: Yes we could. Thank you.
Ms. Okamoto: So we will give those back. I’m going to keep one.
After comments were duly taken and discussion ensued, the Board deferred the application and requested further information as discussed.
C. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
1. Status of the filling of Board vacancies 2. Agenda items for September 6, 2011 meeting.
Ms. Okamoto: Moving on with our agenda. Is everybody ready to move on with the agenda? Director’s report.
Mr. Clayton Yoshida: Thank you Madame Chair and members of the board. We haven’t receive word of any new nominees to fill the alternate, two alternate vacancies we have. As far as agenda items for the – your next meeting is on September 6th – possibly we could have the return on this item that you deferred. Basically we’re still in a slow period. For the calendar year we’ve received six SMA Major Permit applications, although the legislature has raised the threshold to $500,000 – from $125,000 to $500,000. So you’ve seen three of them already – Easter Seals, Lahaina Fire Station Apparatus building and the Auwahi Windfarm. Two of them traffic improvements on Piilani Highway and Uwapo Road intersection, and the solar farm at Ulumalu, you won’t see those. So possibly there’s only one.
Ms. Okamoto: We won’t see those other two?
Mr. Yoshida: No.
Ms. Okamoto: Why is that?
Mr. Yoshida: Because it’s generally just, you know, traffic signals. Just a solar farm where the PV panels are on the ground. So that’s what we have to report.
Ms. Okamoto: So what is the other one that we may see?
Mr. Yoshida: It’s a Kihei Wellness Center Project. They’re – I think by the veterinary clinic nearby St. Theresa Church that area where there’s some wetlands on the property and so forth. So that’s all we have to report.
Ms. Okamoto: So if they are able to get their things together we may have them on the September agenda.
Mr. Yoshida: Correct. Urban Design Review Board Minutes – August 2, 2011 Page 27 APPROVED 09-06-2011
Ms. Okamoto: And if not we may not have a –
Mr. Yoshida: That’s correct.
Ms. Okamoto: Okay.
Mr. Canady: So we may not have a September?
Ms. Okamoto: Correct. Thank you Clayton. Any other questions, comments? If not, meeting is adjourned.
D. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 6, 2011
E. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business brought forward to the Board, the UDRB meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:24 a.m.
Respectfully transmitted by,
LEILANI A. RAMORAN-QUEMADO Secretary to Boards and Commissions I
RECORD OF ATTENDANCE:
PRESENT: Linda Kay Okamoto, Chair Linda Berry, Vice-Chair Darryl Canady J. Morgan Gerdel Susan Liscombe Jane Marshall Bryan Maxwell Michael Silva
EXCUSED: Robert Bowlus
OTHERS: Clayton Yoshida, Planning Program Administrator, Department of Planning Ann Cua, Staff Planner Anna Benesovska Staff Planner Michael Hopper, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Department of Corporation Counsel