2010-03-09 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

She explained that while the size (area square footage) of the wall sign was compliant, the particular proposed graphic design is deemed to be a business logo, i.e., symbol, of the business itself, and is thus required by the sign code to be no larger than the permissible lettering size. In this case, the business graphic is proposed to be 36 inches high, while the sign code limits lettering heights to 18 inches within the Kailua Industrial Subdivision. Ms. Newlon stated that the applicant would like to apply to the County Council for a variance from the sign code in order to maintain its proposed design, in the absence of immediate action by the County Council on implementing expected revisions to the sign code that prospectively would allow the subject sign as submitted. Accordingly, she explained, the applicant would like the Commission’s favorable recommendation to the Department of Public Works and County Council for the necessary variance from the sign code. Commissioners discussed the County’s standards for determining building structures or sign graphics as being business logos or symbols, and thus comprising signs or sign elements subject to sign code limitations. Members also discussed the uncertain timing of prospective amendments to the sign code that might allow the applicant’s wall sign as proposed. The applicant’s representative, Lisa Johnson of Manini Holdings, LLC, addressed the particular graphic design element of the proposed wall sign that did not comply with the sign code. She explained that the silo-type image, as scaled, was an essential element of the proposed wall sign, and its deletion or substitution by other designs would not provide the identification their business feels is very important. Commissioners queried Ms. Johnson as to the applicant’s willingness to either wait for prospective sign code changes or delete the non-conforming graphic element for now and add it later, once the sign code has been changed to allow it. After discussing the uncertainties of the timing of code changes and what changes would actually be effected, as well as the costs of making later changes, Ms. Johnson indicated a preference to apply to the County Council for a variance if the Commission were to provide a favorable recommendation for such. Commissioner Ogin moved the Commission to recommend to the Director of the Department of Public Works his favorable recommendation of approval of a request for variance from the sign code to accommodate the applicant’s proposed wall sign,since the wall sign is consistent with Department of Public Works’ proposed revisions to the Sign Code. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ross. Upon discussion, the motion was amended and seconded by Ogin and Ross, respectively, to include a favorable recommendation of the proposed directory and projecting signs as submitted.A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously (Commissioner Harris-Glade absent and excused). 2