2019-05-07 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

and that since no one would be able to see the area, one side was left open for maintenance ease. In response to Commissioner Smith's questions, Ms. Schatz stated that the screening hedges would be on the outside of the bollards, and that although the plans before the Commission did not show the bollards, they were shown on the building permit drawings, which the developer had already shared with the Fire Department for its preliminary review. Asked by Commissioner Smith, Ms. Bugado confirmed that this was the last time that the Commission would review this particular proposal. Also in response to Commissioner Smith's questions, Ms. Schatz stated that dumpster enclosures had already been addressed, and that she anticipated to come back to the Commission with an outdoor furniture plan for the subject development. Commissioner Hetherington repeated his concern about the choice of plant, and recommended considering other options that would grow straight up, such as hibiscus. Commissioners Crusat and Sullenberger expressed their agreement. Commissioner Sullenberger also suggested that a motion include a recommendation that the safety bollards be provided in accordance with applicable requirements. Commissioner Smith added that a motion should also state that the bollards be screened. Chairman Roth commented that there appeared to be enough room for naupaka at the L-1 site, and that the Commission could suggest other plants, such as ti or hibiscus, for a thinner hedge and approve those as alternates for the other two sites. Commissioner Sullenberger pointed out that the screening hedge might actually obstruct the line of sight and create a hazardous parking condition at the L-2 site, and that he would approve less planting for that location. Ms. Bugado commented that during the Plan Approval process the applicant would be required to provide plans or documentation that the proposed landscape would be safe for traffic circulation. Asked by Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Sullenberger clarified his position that he would be more flexible about the screening requirement at the L-2 and L-3 locations. Commissioner Hetherington commented that he would not be in favor of having no screening, and that he would still like to see some foliage. Commissioner Smith said that he had driven the area along Henry Street the day before and seen that particular section being in a hole below the bank that was 25 to 30 feet high, and that one of the reasons why the applicant was not proposing a lot of landscaping in that area was apparently because it would be down in a hole, with buildings on three sides. Commissioner Hetherington said that he would agree to allow less landscaping for the L-2 site, but that in his opinion the Commission should recommend some landscaping for the L-3 site, as the area was designated as public parking. Commissioner Hetherington made the following motion addressing each gas tank location separately as shown on the plans: • Location L-1: That the Commission recommend approval as presented; • Location L-2: That the Commission recommend approval as presented, but if desired by the applicant, only the screening of the tank be allowed to be eliminated but not the additional landscaping proposed for the area; • Location L-3: That the Commission recommend approval as presented, with a recommendation to consider ti or hibiscus for the visual buffer landscaping instead of the proposed naupaka; and, • For all locations: That the safety bollards be enclosed by the landscaping. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. There being no discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with eight ayes (Hetherington, Smith, Ching, Crusat, Ikeuchi, Kern, Sullenberger and Werchick) and no noes. 4