Laserfiche WebLink
John Hetherington provided testimony saying that although the Department of Public Works did <br />not recognize it as such, the two buildings connected together by the subject enclosing walls <br />should be considered one according to their PUD permit, regardless of the parcel boundary <br />between them. He also said that he was in favor of sidewalk café; he added, however, that the <br />Commission might set a precedent by approving this and start seeing many similar applications <br />in the future. <br /> <br />It was moved by Commissioner Dunlap, and seconded by Commissioner Burns, to recommend <br />the Planning Director’s approval of the requests with exterior colors as proposed, subject to the <br />following conditions: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />The steel support columns for the proposed roof extension be enlarged, by wood cladding or <br />framing, to have finish widths of approximately eight inches by eight inches; <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />The side and street-front fascia of the roof extension should be widened to approximately <br />twelve inches, with the roof and fascia color matching that of the roof of the existing <br />building; <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />All signs on the subject buildings (the two buildings now connected by enclosing walls and <br />decking above), including temporary signs and those on temporary structures placed in front <br />of the subject buildings, are to be made compliant with the Sign Code. <br /> <br />In addition to these conditions, the Commissioners agreed to include a recommendation that the <br />addition of skylights or similar to the roof extension be considered. A roll call vote was taken <br />and the motion carried with five ayes (Dunlap, Burns, Herbert, Stanbro and Kitchens) and three <br />absent and excused (Au Hoy, Power and Saito). <br /> <br /> <br />The Chair suggested that the Commission take up the minutes of the previous meetings at this time, then <br />continued discussion on the Sign Code, and lastly the formation of a sign committee. There were no <br />objections. <br /> <br />ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS <br /> <br />1. Approval of Minutes of the Meetings of July 26, 2011 and August 23, 2011. <br /> <br />It was moved by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Commissioner Hetherington that the <br />minutes be approved as submitted. The motion was unanimously carried by a voice vote of all <br />Commissioners in attendance. (Note: The minutes of the July 26, 2011, meeting had previously <br />been approved; however, an inadvertent omission of the approval of the minutes of the July 12, <br />2011, meeting had subsequently been noted and corrected.) <br /> <br />UNFINISHED BUSINESS <br /> <br /> <br />1.Continued discussion of the existing Sign Code (Chapter 3, Hawai‘i County Code) as to <br />provisions applicable to the Kailua Village special design district (“the District”) and which <br />provisions the Commission may wish to recommend be amended. Discussion to include: <br />a. Commissioner’s individual presentations and recommendations as to current and preferred <br />boundaries of the District, the Kailua Village Core, and the Kailua Industrial Subdivision as <br />presently defined therein; <br />3 <br /> <br />