2009-01-13 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

Commissioner Harris-Glade at this time made a motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Herbert, to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Publics Works Director, and ask the applicant to consider the CommissionÓs com with a more appropriate sign. A discussion ensued as to how in general the Commission can involve property managers and/or landowners in its effort to achieve consistent signage in the Kailua Village. Commissioner Ogin, based on his experience as a property manager, commented that the best way is to approach landowners whose property value might adversely be affected by disorganized signage; they have the power to hire a sign company or direct their property manager to improve it. Commissioner Bleck circulated his drawing of the modifications he had suggested earlier, and raised a question as to how the idea of having commercial complexes create their own signage programs can be advanced. In response to Commissioner Harris-GladeÓs suggestion that the staff should screen applications and contact property managers about establishing a signage program prior to forwarding the applications to the Commission, Ms. Newlon explained how sign permit applications are processed by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department, adding that the Sign Code does not require a signage program, but does require the Commission to review each completed application within 30 days of its receipt. Commissioner Harris- Glade expressed his frustration over having to discuss the same issue repeatedly and also his desire to find a solution even if it might entail an amendment to the Sign Code by the County Council. Other ideas including the following were exchanged: 1) Send to the property manager or landowner a copy of the Commission action letter to applicant, with or without a separate cover letter; 2) make a list of commercial complexes that are of interest to the Commission for the staff to write the landowners or property managers to request establishment of a signage program; 3) create a one-page document to hand out to applicants, which states the CommissionÓs goal and specific concerns about signage; 4) forward unfavorable recommendation based on lack of an overall signage program; 5) adopt a resolution to forward to the Director; and 6) put together a list of architects and sign companies available to help property managers create signage plans. To conclude the discussion, Vice Chair Ross suggested that all Commissioners think through the matter, and email their suggestions to the staff. Mr. Mark said that he will review their suggestions, and get back to the Commission with a recommendation at the next meeting. With respect to the motion made and seconded earlier, Mr. Mark pointed out that there are two signs on the table. Commissioner Harris-Glade agreed to modify his motion. Action It was moved by Commissioner Harris-Glade, and seconded by Commissioner Herbert, to recommend to the Public Works Director the denial of the marquee sign for the reason that the marquee sign is inconsistent with the guidelines specified in Section 3-54(a), Subsections (1) and (7), of the Sign Code, and the approval of the addition to the directory sign provided that the background color is consistent with the other existing signs on the overall Kopiko Plaza directory sign. A roll call vote was taken and motion carried with six ayes (Harris-Glade, Herbert, Bleck, Coats, Kern and Ogin) and two absent and excused (Au Hoy and Marone). 3