2012-07-10 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

It was then moved by Commissioner Saito, and seconded by Commissioner Au Hoy, to recommend the Planning Director’s requirement that the subject building include the circular windows in the two tower walls as shown on the applicant’s submitted Sheet A-2, entitled “With Circular Window.” A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with five ayes (Saito, Au Hoy, Andreae, Burns and Hetherington) and two absent and excused (Herbert and Stanbro). RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 6:55 p.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 7:00 p.m. Review of a Sign Variance application proposing multiple signs for Starbucks Coffee 3. Company, including a prohibited roof sign and two wall signs exceeding maximum allowable letter and symbol (logo) height, sign area, and mounting height, as set forth in Article 2 of the Sign Code pertaining to the Kailua Village design district. In light of the decision reached on the previous agenda item, Ms. Burnham confirmed the applicant’s withdrawal of this application. She further stated that although she believed the applicant would still need to seek a variance, she would take the comments made by the Commission to their sign designer, and would come up with a proposal that would be acceptable to the Kailua Village community. The Chair said that the applicant might consider the logo height that the Jack In The Box on the same TMK parcel had successfully obtained the Commission’s favorable recommendation as to a variance from the Sign Code, and which he would have no objections to. For the applicant’s information, Mr. Childs said that the Kona Coast Shopping Center, which is set back far from the street front, has a blanket variance allowing the 22-inch letter height, and that the County Council had recently denied a variance for the Goodyear store in the Kailua Industrial Subdivision, despite the Commission’s favorable recommendation. Commissioner Saito added that the Commission had in the past supported a number of variance applications, giving consideration to factors such as the building size and the sight distance from the street. The Chair also suggested a possible type of logo display with a wrought iron hanger attached to the corner of the two tower walls, mentioning that people recognize the Starbucks logo without the name spelled out. Commissioner Andreae was concerned about adverse impacts of the illuminated drive-through menu board, and moved that the Commission forward a recommendation to the Planning Director that the applicant install a barrier to mitigate visual effect. Mr. Asmus stated that the applicant would prefer greenery to a fence-like structure, and that their landscaper had assured him that they already have mature hibiscuses and ixoras that would screen the menu board. He also explained that it would be difficult to move the menu board because it was strategically placed with consideration given to the customer vehicle queue. Mr. Mark mentioned that the Sign Code could be interpreted that if the menu board were to be visible to the roadway traffic, it might be considered to be a sign, which in this case would require a variance. (Commissioner Saito left the meeting at 7:17 p.m.) Commissioner Andreae then amended her motion to say to forward a recommendation to the Planning Director that the proposed drive-through menu board be screened from public view with trees or foliage prior to approval of a certificate of occupancy for the subject building. The motion was seconded by Commission Burns. Mr. Mark noted that this motion would have been more appropriate under the previous agenda item. No one in attendance, including the applicant’s representatives, raised an objection to inclusion of this recommendation in the previous action for Agenda Item No. 2. A roll 4