2019-04-23 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) had determined that a sign variance would be required for the other two proposed signs for the following exceptions: The ground sign for the letter/logo height and sign size; the “Pickup” wall sign for the letter/logo height, sign size, number of wall signs and possibly sign elevation. She said that since the current application before the Commission did not include a variance request, the Commission’s recommendation to DPW at this time would be on the design of the proposed signs. Inquired by Chairman Roth, Mr. Neal Tanaka stated that DPW would request that the Commission assess not only the design but also variance for the ground sign and the “Pickup” sign, and that he would defer to the applicant as to what variance was being requested. Ms. Bugado clarified that, according to the request of DPW as stated by Mr. Tanaka, the Commission would be making a recommendation on the applicant’s future variance application based on the configuration being presented in the current application. She also confirmed that generally one ground sign per parcel of land and one wall sign for each street frontage per business were allowed, and that when one business took down its permitted sign and another business was going to put up its sign at the same location, a new sign permit would be required. Commissioner Smith pointed out that based on the method of sign area calculation as set forth in the Sign Code, which had been confirmed by Mr. Tanaka at the previous Commission meeting, the calculation of the sign sizes shown on Sheet A145 seemed incorrect; the total area for each sign was determined by adding the size of rectangle around the word “Walmart” or “Pickup” and the size of square around the logo, instead of drawing one rectangular shape enclosing both the word and the logo. Chairman Roth noted that if the collect calculation method was applied, the size of the “Walmart” wall sign would measure 199 square feet as opposed to 147 square feet, which meant that the existing wall signs might be exceeding the variance allowance. Mr. Tanaka said that DPW did not have a copy of the plans that had been submitted to the County Council for the existing variance, and that he was unable to verify the suspected discrepancy. Commissioner Smith asked whether or not it would be considered a different sign when the color was changed of a sign that had an approved variance from years before. Ms. Bugado responded that if the resolution granting the variance allowed that flexibility, it would not be considered a different sign; however, if the resolution was very rigid and did not provide such flexibility, the new colors would have to be submitted to the Commission for review. Commissioner Smith requested that when staff was to present the applicant’s sign variance application at a future meeting, the presentation be made in such a way that it would be clear to the Commissioners on all the things that were being requested. He said that when additional requests or new information kept coming up verbally during presentation, it tended to become confusing as to what the Commission was supposed to consider. Ms. Bugado responded that staff would work with DPW to get detail of any sign variance applications in the future. Chairman Roth called upon the applicant. Mr. Richard Burrow stated that he was representing Walmart and he was from BRR Architecture, Inc., the architect for the project. He stated that the two “Walmart” wall signs and the ground sign were like-for-like replacements of the existing ones, with no change to the size or the color, and that the only addition was the “Pickup” sign that would be mounted on the front wall of the building. Inquired by Ms. Bugado, he said that his understanding was that the existing McDonald’s logo sign would be moved over to the middle of the building in order to make space for the “Pickup” sign. In response to Commissioner Ikeuchi’s 4