2017-06-06 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

Roth opined that the type of lighting fixture the applicant had selected, which was an attractive non-adjustable downlight design, indicated their good intent. In addressing Commissioner Van Pernis’ concern about potential replacement in the future, Commissioner Roth noted that any exterior change would require another review by the Commission. Commissioner Sullenberger seconded Commissioner Andreae’s motion as is. There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with seven ayes (Andreae, Sullenberger, Akina, Au Hoy, Kern, Roth and Van Pernis). OLD BUSINESS 2. Discussion of letter from Department of Public Works regarding enforcement of the Sign Code within Kailua Village Special District. Chairman Dahlberg called on the Commissioners to peruse the subject letter dated April 5, 2017, from Frank J. De Marco, Director of the Department of Public Works (“Director”), in response to the Commission’s February 21, 2017, letter. He then opened the floor for discussion. Commissioner Van Pernis commented that the letter gave him the impression that the Director was saying that the Sign Code was being enforced and there was no problem. He said that he disagreed with the Director’s take on the situation, and that it would be a waste of time to have him in a Commission meeting. He then suggested that, if the Commission still wished to invite the Director, he be asked to bring a list of all sign permits issued within the Kailua Village Special District (“KVSD”), which would force him to acknowledge that the vast majority of the existing signs were not permitted. Commissioner Roth pointed out that the letter said that their practice was a complaint-driven enforcement system for all violations, including signs and structures, and that the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) did not have an enforcement section within the Building Division. Commissioner Andreae added that the Director was basically asking if the Commission would initiate complaints. Commissioner Van Pernis said that the Commission should still make sure that the Director recognize that there were lots of unpermitted signs in the KVSD, and that who would file complaints was a secondary matter. Chair Dahlberg opined that it was not the Commission’s role to file complaints. He said, however, that the Commission could take a photograph of signs and ask the Director if those particular signs were permitted, and if not, then it would become the Director’s job to get them in compliance. Commissioner Kern, referring to the sentence that stated, “Please advise if the commission would be interested in contacting property owners directly in order to educate and obtain compliance,” said that it seemed to her that the Commission was being asked to do his work for him. She also disagreed with Commissioner Van Pernis’ notion that having the Director in a meeting would be a waste of time, and said that the Director or his representative should meet with the Commission face to face to deal with this issue. Mr. Dunlap commented that the Commission should make it clear with him that the Commission’s responsibility was for the aesthetics of the KVSD. He suggested that rather than give the Director a way-out by overwhelming him with a request for a list of all the sign permits issued within the KVSD, a short stretch of Ali‘i Drive, namely between Palani Road and Hualālai Road, be used as statistics. He said that that would be an achievable goal for the Director, and that the data would more than likely demonstrate the signage problem throughout the KVSD. He added that that way 3