2019-07-23 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

as well, and that DPW would take in and use all the necessary information when they draft a sign variance resolution for the County Council's consideration. Asked by Commissioner Ikeuchi, Ms. Newlon confirmed that the two "Walmart"wall signs, the "M"wall sign and the "Walmart" ground sign would be a complete like-for-like replacement, including the dimensions, color and illumination/non-illumination. Commissioner Smith questioned if the Commission was making a distinction between variance applications that came in before the sign was put up and those that came in after the fact; it seemed to him that there should be some recognition, if an applicant did not install the sign until he/she had gotten the permit approved. Ms. Newlon responded that DPW had authority over the matter and she could not answer on their behalf, however, the Commissioners would recall that there had been enforcement action on another business in the area for installing a sign without a variance and a permit. In response to Commissioner Smith asking about the unpermitted "Walmart" ground sign, Ms. Newlon reiterated that DPW was the one to determine whether or not any enforcement action should be taken and how they would forward the variance application to the County Council. She added she would assume that the ground sign would have to be included in the variance application. Commissioner Smith commented that the method of sign area calculation that Mr. Neal Tanaka from DPW had clarified at a past Commission meeting was not followed in this case. Ms. Newlon responded that she was not the one to confirm the measurement accuracy, but Mr. Wilson who was with the responsibility verified it on Sheet A145. However, she read aloud Section 34(a)(3) of the Sign Code, and said that as she recalled, that was how Mr. Tanaka had explained to the Commission: Section 34(a)(3): If a sign consists only of words, designs, or figures engraved, painted, projected, or fixed on a wall, the total area/size of the sign shall be the measurable area within the outer boundary of a standard geometrical shape such as a square, rectangle, or circle containing and defined by the extreme reaches of graphic or informational parts of the sign. Commissioner Smith reiterated that what Mr. Wilson had done was different than how Mr. Tanaka interpreted the Section. He used the "Pickup" sign as another example, and said that instead of drawing one rectangle encompassing the spark logo and the word "Pickup" together, the method used here was to draw two shapes around the logo and the word separately and then add them up, which made the total area seem smaller. Ms. Newlon said that the sign area in question would still exceed the maximum allowable 22 square feet either way; therefore, the Commission could point out the discrepancy in its recommendation letter for DPW and the applicant to work it out in the final variance application to be forwarded to the County Council. Commissioner Smith said that similarly the two "Walmart"wall signs would exceed the previously recommended 150 square feet maximum, if the correct calculation method was used. Commissioner Smith also said that he agreed with the applicant's write-up where they explained that the distance from the road necessitated the variance. He reminded the Commissioners that the Commission had voted down CU Hawaii Federal Credit Union's variance application for the reason that their sign should not exceed the square footage set forth in the code regardless of the 3