2019-04-09 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

 Other businesses, such as the Makalapua movie theater and McDonald’s, were complying with the rules and had no huge signs, and customers still found them; and,  The sign was not found to be attractive by the local residents and therefore was not even an effective advertisement for the business. She asked Mr. Villafana to try to be part of the community and show respect for its needs. She also urged the Commission to keep the Kailua Village cultural, historical and peaceful. Mr. Steve Lopez, a community member representing himself, provided comments also on New Business No. 3, a sign variance application for Planet Fitness. He noted that contrary to the statement made by Mr. Villafana earlier, the signs had been up as early as October of last year; he had submitted a letter of concern to the Planning Department with a photograph of the sign in November, and been told then that the Department had been aware of the sign for a month, and that Planet Fitness had been advised of the permitting procedure. He spoke in opposition to the application for the reason that:  Planet Fitness blatantly disregarded HRS \[correct reference should be HCC\] Sign Code Section 3-58, which was very specific as to what was allowed or not allowed, with no ambiguity;  There was no evidence that Planet Fitness had done any due diligence until it had been caught by the community raising the voice;  Planet Fitness’s attitude that it was easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, should not work and could not be allowed to continue; and,  Not only the community but also Planet Fitness itself did not need those signs in order to promote their business because the gym was well-known to the point where people could not find a parking space to go there. He spoke of his experience as the legislative assistant to former Council Member Angel Pilago, who had been instrumental in regulating the Coldwell Banker sign on the same building to be small as existed. He said that Council Member Pilago had not supported any variance for signs because he had valued the culture and the respect people had for each other in the community. He said that the Anderson Wealth Planning sign also on the same building had gotten approval for a bigger size later, of which the design was however not garish, and that now the community was faced with two huge purple signs that did not even have a permit. He further said that those signs were not conducive to the community and looked horrible, especially at night as they lit up. He concluded by urging the Commission to hear the voice of the public, disapprove the sign and hold the applicant to the letter of the law. Ms. Cheryl Weaver from CU Hawai‘i Federal Credit Union (“CU Hawai‘i”) provided comments on New Business No. 2, a sign variance application for CU Hawai‘i. She gave background information about CU Hawai‘i, and said that it was a member-owned and member-driven credit union that had opened in 1995 in Hilo and had since grown to serve the entire island. She explained the significance of their new logo whose message to the members was that they were working together. She said that there were eight triangles in the logo as there were eight islands in Hawai‘i, and that the equal sides of the triangles represented that all members were treated equally in CU Hawai‘i. She said further that when small groups of people were trying to get something done and move forward together, it was like a school of fish that looked bigger, which was the idea behind the logo. She noted that the subject branch building was set back about 3