2019-04-23 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

It was moved by Commissioner Ikeuchi and seconded by Commissioner Crusat that the Commission defer action, with the following recommendations:  For the two wall signs, the size and dimensions be clarified, and how they match the existing sign variance allowances be identified;  For the McDonald’s logo sign, the dimensions and the new location be identified;  For the “Pickup” sign, the size and dimensions be clarified; and,  The ground sign be not illuminated, and the size and dimensions be clarified. Commissioner Sullenberger pointed out that there had been inconsistency in the method for calculating sign areas, and that if calculated correctly, the existing wall signs would measure 199 square feet as opposed to 147 square feet as previously determined. He said that he wanted to bring to the Commissioners’ attention that the Commission would be recommending that the proposed wall signs, which were essentially identical to the existing ones, be reduced in size based on the calculation method that was different from the previous time when the existing signs had been considered. He questioned whether that was the intent of the Commission or the intent was to allow the existing signs to be replaced with new ones so long as they were exactly the same. Chairman Roth responded that the Commission had to follow the rules. Commissioner Hetherington also responded that the motion clearly stated that the square footage had to match the variance, and for that purpose the calculation had to be done in accordance with the method confirmed by DPW. Upon inquiry by Chairman Roth, Mr. Burrow stated that his understanding was that the proposal was to replace only the faces of the existing signs, and that if the size were to be reduced, the existing signs could not be utilized and new signs would have to be made. Mr. Tanaka suggested that DPW do its due diligence to determine what the existing variance allowed and provide cross-reference material to the Commission. Requested by Chairman Roth, Mr. Tanaka confirmed that DPW would work with the applicant to make sure that this matter was clear when a revised application was submitted to the Commission. Mr. Burrow also confirmed that the applicant was fine with the motion as stated. Commissioner Ching said that he would not mind allowing the signs to be lit, if it was done in a classy way. Commissioner Hetherington said that his objection would be to having all four signs illuminated. Chairman Roth commented that he would like it if Kona had a small district where businesses could do more with lights, but not for the general area. Commissioner Ikeuchi spoke of the Waikoloa Beach Resort as an example, and said that some of the signs there were not lit internally but had attractive light pointing at them that created softer glow, which looked classy for certain locations. Commissioner Sullenberger agreed, and said that he would be fine with indirect lighting, but would object to self-luminous lighting. Commissioner Smith said that he supported Commissioner Ching’s point of view, and that in his opinion, as long as the place stayed open for business at night, illuminated signs, direct-lit or not, should be allowed, which would be helpful particularly to tourists. Commissioner Ikeuchi said that she would not object to indirect illumination, and amended the last condition of her motion to state:  For the ground sign, the size and the dimensions, as well as whether it would be non-illuminated or indirectly illuminated, be clarified. 7