2019-07-23 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

building setback from the road. He noted that he wanted to make sure that the Commission was consistent in its review and analysis of applications. Chairman Roth called upon the applicant. The applicant's representative, Richard Burrow, stated that the existing "M"wall sign would simply be relocated, that the two "Walmart"wall signs were covered by the current variance and would be replaced with like-for-like new signs, and that the new "Pickup"wall sign would have minimal visibility from the road. He also corrected the staff presentation by saying that the existing "Walmart" ground sign would not be replaced, that nothing would be done to it, and that the proposal was to get it permitted as is. Asked by Commissioner Smith, Mr. Burrow confirmed that the ground sign had never been permitted. He also concurred with Commissioner Smith that the original ground sign had said "Crossroad," and so the current ground sign with the word "Walmart"was considered a new sign. Commissioner Smith expressed his support for the proposal and in particular he mentioned the colors, which in his opinion were suitable for Kona; however, he noted that if the application was to be approved, what was being approved had to be clear so that there would be no discrepancy later between what was approved and what was installed. Chairman Roth opened the floor for discussion, and suggested that the Commissioners focus on the items that the applicant had been asked to come back on, and that the Commissioners refrain from revisiting things that they had had no problem with at the previous meeting. With respect to the "M"wall sign, Commissioner Hetherington opined that the proposal was reasonable, considering how big and conspicuous a McDonald's arch could have been. Regarding the "Walmart"wall signs, Commissioner Crusat asked whether the existing variance was based on the calculation method that the applicant was using or the signs were actually exceeding the allowance. Commissioner Hetherington noted that if the sign size was calculated according to the code, it would be 197 square feet. Chairman Roth said that he agreed with Commissioner Smith that the Commission needed clarification on the calculation method, but that he would expect that the intent of the variance at that time had been to approve the application as presented, including the measurement. Commissioner Hetherington pointed out that even if that had been the case with the "Walmart"wall signs, there was the same issue with the new "Pickup" sign, which the Commission was presently faced with. Chairman Roth commented that the Commission should be careful not to blame the applicant, if DPW had confirmed the sign size as such, and that what the Commission should make sure was that the variance would be enough to cover the size that was acceptable. Commissioner Crusat commented that she wanted to clarify the matter of measurement so that it would not be an issue in the future with other applicants. Commissioner Smith said that if the Commission found the proposal to be acceptable, one solution might be to approve it as presented without mentioning the specific square footages. Commissioner Smith also said that the Commission had to advise DPW to ensure that Acting Building Division Chief Tanaka and Mr. Wilson interpret the regulation the same way or they attend Commission meetings. Chairman Roth said that the Commission seemed to be caught in the middle. Commissioner Sullenberger commented that the Commission had asked the applicant to come back with square footage clarification, although that should have been directed towards 4