2019-04-23 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

147 square feet at about 400 to 500 feet away from the roadway. He opined that it was a matter of perspective rather than the correlation between the setback distance and the sign size, and that considering the huge size of the wall, he would be fine with everything as submitted so long as the information was accurate. Commissioner Sullenberger commented that the “Pickup” sign, if installed at the current location of the McDonald’s logo sign, would not be seen from off-property. Commissioner Smith spoke of the past discussion on the Niumalu MarketPlace signage master plan where it had been said that all tenant signs, regardless of visibility from a public right-of-way, had to comply; he asked staff to confirm whether or not visibility from a public road was a criteria. Ms. Bugado responded that the standard section of the Sign Code required a sign permit if the sign was visible from a public roadway; however, the Kailua Village Special District (“KVSD”) section of the Code stated that any sign within the KVSD was required to get a sign permit, with no provision about visibility. She said that, therefore, to err on the side of caution, the Niumalu master plan covered all tenant signs in the entire complex. She added that the Code also stated that enforcement would defer to the more stringent requirements, such as those for the KVSD. Commissioner Kern commented that in her opinion it did not matter whether or not the “Pickup” sign was visible from the roadway, that the sign appeared comparable to the other signs, and that the matter of visibility should not be made a condition of any decision. Inquired by Commissioner Crusat, Mr. Burrow stated that the “Pickup” sign was for online grocery order where customers could stay in their cars and their order would be delivered to them. Commissioner Hetherington commented that considering the last meeting where other variance requests had been either deferred or denied, the Commission should particularly be careful about the potential to set a precedent. Chairman Roth said that he appreciated the fact that the applicant was going through the process to get everything in order; however, neither the excuse that they had not been aware that a permit had been required, nor the fact that the ground sign was still unpermitted was acceptable. He reiterated that the Commission needed a complete package of all the requests that was clear and well organized. It was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Crusat that the Commission defer action. Chairman Roth asked for Commissioners’ suggestions for specific recommendations on each sign. Commissioner Hetherington expressed his concern about providing detailed recommendations with a deferral action, and questioned if the Commissioners were in agreement on each of the signs. Chairman Roth said that the purpose was to clarify the Commission’s positions so that the applicant could come back with a revised application that would be approvable. Chairman Roth said that he would be fine with indirect lighting on the ground sign, but would oppose to internal illumination. Commissioner Ikeuchi responded that in her opinion illumination was unnecessary for the ground sign. She proposed an amendment to the motion to include the following recommendations: The square footage of the two wall signs be clarified and they match the existing variance; the new location of the McDonald’s logo sign be clarified; and the ground sign be not illuminated and clarification on the size be provided. Commissioner Hetherington withdrew his motion, and suggested that Commissioner Ikeuchi make a new motion. 6