2019-04-23 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

question, he stated that the “Pickup” sign and the “Walmart” wall signs would be illuminated but not the ground sign. Commissioner Sullenberger pointed out that there was conflicting information on Sheet A145 where the signage schedule indicated the ground sign to be illuminated while the detail drawing No. 7 specified it as a “non-illuminated sign.” Asked by Chairman Roth, Mr. Burrow stated that he had no knowledge as to why the existing ground sign did not have a permit, or as to whether the McDonald’s logo sign had a permit or not. In response to Commissioner Smith’s question, Ms. Bugado said that despite the fact that Walmart and McDonald’s used the same door, McDonald’s was entitled to one wall sign for itself as a separate business entity; however, McDonald’s still had to come before the Commission for a sign permit and possibly for variance for the logo size and sign elevation. She further confirmed that the same was true for any other individual businesses in the building. Commissioner Hetherington commented that the wall sign facing Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway seemed to be seen only from the ocean and not give good exposure to the highway traffic due to the angle and elevation of the building. Commissioner Sullenberger said that the sign actually had good visibility to the southbound traffic on Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway, which he found useful for wayfinding. Chairman Roth said that since the two wall signs had previously been approved for variance, the Commission was almost obliged to approve the like-for-like replacements as long as they met the variance allowance; however, if the correct calculation proved that they exceeded the allowance, the Commission should make a recommendation that the sign size be reduced. Commissioner Crusat asked if there was a way to rescind a prior variance. She said that with more businesses coming in, the Commission should take that into consideration to be fair and consistent. Mr. Tanaka responded that he did not recall such a case, but that he was aware of a condition within variances that stated that the variance would become null and void, if that particular business were to cease. He said that he would guess that rescission would also have to be adopted by the County Council through resolution. Commissioner Hetherington spoke of the Planet Fitness case across the street where the variance granted to the previous tenant, Borders Books and Music, had become nullified when the business had closed. Chairman Roth said that which meant to the “Walmart” ground sign was that even if the variance had been approved for the previous “Crossroads” sign, it was not valid for Walmart. Mr. Tanaka commented that the confusion of whether or not the ground sign would be illuminated had to be clarified prior to any action by the Commission. He said that there was also confusion as to why no variance application was included. He suggested that the signs that would require variance be considered at a later date while the “Walmart” wall signs be taken up for a decision at this time. Chairman Roth responded that the best action might be a deferral with detailed recommendations for all four signs. Mr. Tanaka also suggested that the relocation of the McDonald’s logo sign be clarified. Commissioner Hetherington agreed, and said that the Commission needed to know the new location. Chairman Roth asked for Commissioners’ thoughts on the ground sign. Commissioner Ching said that he had no objection to the current sign, which in his opinion just needed a permit, and that he would still like to defer decision and have the applicant present a complete application. Commissioner Smith mentioned CU Hawai‘i Federal Credit Union who was trying to meet the 22-square foot wall sign allowance according to the Commission’s recommendation despite the 100-foot setback from the highway, and said that the “Walmart” wall sign was potentially 5