2019-04-09 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

still find it acceptable, even if it had been a new application. Commissioner Kern commented that her first thought on this agenda item had been a question as to why it had come back, because her recollection was that the Commission had resolved all the issues on the proposed signs then. Mr. Tanaka clarified that what had been presented to the Council was not the packet in question today but rather a site plan with only one sign, which had caused the confusion. Chairman Roth pointed out that the Commission had allowed some illumination back then, but that the current packet seemed to show no illumination, which in his opinion was even better. Commissioners Sullenberger and Kern expressed their agreement. Commissioner Kern recalled that the Commission had had a lengthy discussion about the illumination. Commissioner Hetherington moved that the Commission confirm that the material presented today conformed to the previous recommendations of the Commission, and that the draft resolution presented to the Commission appeared to correspond to the information provided. Commissioner Sullenberger suggested that the motion specify the drawing set that had to be forwarded to the Council. Commissioner Hetherington confirmed the intent of his motion as such. Chairman Roth asked Commissioner Hetherington to repeat his motion for Commissioner Ikeuchi who had just returned to the room. Commissioner Hetherington restated his motion that the Commission confirm that the sign variance application materials with a revision date of March 6, 2019, corresponded to the recommendations provided by the Commission at its last review of this proposal, and that the draft resolution in question also corresponded to the information in the plans. Commissioner Sullenberger seconded the motion. Commissioner Smith asked who in the Planning Department was responsible to make sure that DPW would end up with the submittal that reflected the Commission’s motion. Ms. Bugado responded that the Planning Department was not responsible to work with the applicant on making the changes to the submittal to DPW, but that the Planning Department planner, who gave the presentation on a particular application, was responsible to write up the action letter with recommendation details according to the motion. She continued that the letter would then be signed by the chairperson and sent to the Director of DPW, with a copy to the applicant, and that it was the applicants’ responsibility to update the application with necessary changes in order to move forward in the variance process with DPW. Commissioner Sullenberger referred Commissioner Smith to the Commission letter dated November 23, 2015, as an example of the action letter. Commissioner Sullenberger commented that the Commission might need to be more specific so that its recommendations would clearly be communicated to the applicants. He also said that deferral action might be another option, instead of approving with conditions and assuming that those recommended changes would be made. Mr. Tanaka said that his intention was to request another check by the Commission where in case of conditional approval, the Commission require the applicant to make those changes and resubmit for confirmation. He said that allowing DPW to have a recommendation letter and an application that match would eliminate confusion. Chairman Roth noted that the Commission had recently been doing more deferrals than conditional approvals, which seemed to provide additional opportunities for dialogue with applicants. Commissioner Hetherington commented 12