2017-06-06 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

enforcement happened. He offered again that he would draft a response letter for the Commission’s approval or revisions. In response to Commissioner Roth’s question, Mr. Dunlap said that there did not seem to be many complaints being filed about signs. Commissioner Van Pernis said that it appeared to him that the business themselves were generating incompliance; they did not want to complain about their neighbors because they themselves wanted to put up signs as they wished. Commissioner Andreae also commented that people might not regard the signs in particular as the problem, but that everybody seemed to have a general idea that the Kailua Village was esthetically going downhill as a whole; therefore, if the Commissioners could make a difference by getting the Sign Code enforcement going, they would be doing a good job. Commissioner Roth spoke of his idea that, assuming every business would need some kind of signage, there be a signage tax on every commercial property, which would be reduced only if they were in compliance. Commissioner Van Pernis opined that that type of taxation would not work because, firstly, there might be businesses with no signage, and secondly, people might contend that they could put up any signs as long as they paid the tax. Mr. Dunlap reiterated that the DPW had not carried through the Sign Code amendment. As a solution example, he mentioned his experience in Florida where a new sign ordinance had grandfathered illegal signs for five years to give the violators ample time to comply, which had proven very effective. He also said that he had shared the story with the councilmembers, and that they had appeared to be supportive of that concept. In response to Commissioner Sullenberger’s question, Mr. Dunlap said that the DPW had worked on the amendment to the point where they had made a presentation before the County Council, but never finalized it. Commissioner Sullenberger said that the Commission could invite the councilmembers and reintroduce the sense of necessity for the amendment, and in turn they could apply some pressure onto the DPW to continue the effort. Commissioner Van Pernis called the Commission’s attention to the Director’s letter, and pointed out that the Director had only sent a copy of his letter to his own staff, disregarding the individuals to whom the Commission had sent copies of its initial letter, including the councilmembers. He said that that indicated to him that the Director did not intend to do anything about this issue. Chair Dahlberg commented that since that had been a recurring feeling on the Commissioners’ part, the Commission could also question the status on the Sign Code amendment in its response letter. Chair Dahlberg concluded the discussion by asking Commissioner Andreae, and anybody else who could, to talk to the KVBID members or other appropriate individuals as discussed earlier, and Commissioner Van Pernis to draft a response letter to the Director for the Commission to review and finalize. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS None. 5