2019-05-07 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

install propane gas tanks in three locations, together with landscape screens. She showed the applicant's plans for each location and described the proposal. She added that it would be confirmed during the Plan Approval amendment process that no changes were being made to the traffic pattern in the affected areas, and that everything else was true to the existing Plan Approval. Commissioner Smith asked if these provisions should have been included in the original submittal. Ms. Bugado suggested that the question be directed to the applicant; she said, however, that it seemed that as the project progressed, matters requiring review by the Commission were turning up, resulting in a piecemeal application method. In response to Commissioner Smith's further questions, she said that only for substantial changes, was the Commission review required, and that the determination of whether or not a certain change was substantial enough for review was made in consultation with the Chairperson unless it was unquestionable. Commissioner Smith commented that the installation of three propane gas tanks seemed too insignificant to hold up the progress of the project. Ms. Bugado responded that since no indication of even the possibility of installing gas tanks had been presented during the initial review, staff determined that it was a new addition to the approved plan and therefore required review by the Commission. She said further that when a Plan Approval was needed, that was also a trigger for the review requirement. Commissioner Crusat commented that she did not recall naupaka being in the original submittal, and asked if the proposal was to use the previously approved plants. Ms. Bugado responded that naupaka had been in the original plan, and that the current proposal included relocating some of the naupaka from the original locations to the tank sites for screening. [At this time, 5:33 p.m., Commissioner Kern arrived and took her seat.] Commissioner Smith pointed out that the plans did not show any safety bollards, and asked whether or not they would be depicted on the actual building plans. He also questioned the functionality of the parking layout as shown on Sheet L-3. Ms. Bugado responded that those details would be scrutinized during the Plan Approval process. The applicant, Linda Schatz, introduced herself as the owner's representative. In addressing Commissioner Smith's earlier question, she apologized for the piecemeal approach, and explained that they had not realized that the gas tanks would require design review by the Commission. She stated that in selecting suitable locations, they had had to take into consideration that the tanks could properly be screened from public view, that the sites could provide good access for the gas company to reach the tanks, that requirements for distance from buildings and other features could be met, and that the ground had to be level; in their opinion the proposed locations were most favorable. She also confirmed that safety bollards were required around the tanks, and that they would be inside the naupaka screen as well. She said that for the L-1 site where motorists might see the top of the tank due to the elevation drop from the roadway, they were proposing to relocate three kala trees there to cover the top. She also said that they had selected naupaka for its fast growth and drought tolerance. She mentioned that they had made sure that the parking count was not reduced by this change. Commissioner Hetherington commented that he was fine with the proposal except that he was concerned about using naupaka, as the plant might have to spread wide to grow high enough to screen the tanks. Commissioner Ikeuchi asked why the naupaka was not shown to be planted all around the tank for the L-2 site like the other two locations. Ms. Schatz responded that the L-2 site was a loading area, which was not visible due to the elevation drop and landscaping plants, 3