2018-11-27 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

Landowner: Hidden Meadows Associates L P TMK: (3) 7-5-009:031 Location: 75-5795 Ali‘i Drive, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Commissioner Van Pernis made a motion to defer this agenda item until a future meeting. He said that since neither the applicant nor her representative was present, the hearing could not be conducted. Chairman Roth said that he was not aware of any requirement for applicant to be in attendance or to make a presentation, and as such, if the Commission decided during discussion that additional information from the applicant was needed, he would then entertain a motion to defer. Commissioner Hetherington commented that in this particular case he was also willing to go forward without the applicant. The motion failed for lack of second. Ms. Bugado gave a PowerPoint presentation for the proposed sign. She provided general information on the subject property. Showing some site photos, she said that the proposed sign would replace the existing banner sign facing Ali‘i Drive, and that the other banner facing the south would simply be removed. She provided the specifications of the proposed sign, and noted that the Department of Public Works, Building Division (“DPW”) determined that the proposed sign was in compliance with the Sign Code. She also noted that according to DPW, the sign was considered a marquee sign, rather than a wall sign as the applicant had filled out the application for. In response to Commissioner Van Pernis’ question about the application proposing a wall sign, Ms. Bugado said that it was DPW’s determination during its review that the area where the sign was proposed to be located was not a wall but a marquee and hence a marquee sign. Also in response to Commissioner Van Pernis’ question, Ms. Bugado said that the letters for the business name were individual pieces, which would directly be mounted on the marquee surface, even though the applicant’s specifications appeared as if a “PVC board” were to be mounted on the “wall.” She also confirmed Commissioner Ikeuchi’s observation that the sign would not be illuminated. Upon inquiry by Chairman Roth, Ms. Bugado said that since the property was bounded by two streets, her understanding was that two marquee signs were permissible, one for each street front. She further said that the applicant, however, was proposing only one sign facing Ali‘i Drive at this time. Commissioner Crusat pointed out that there was inconsistency in the location address between the application and the agenda. Ms. Bugado responded that the one on the agenda might be for the entire Ali‘i Sunset Plaza, whereas the application provided the address for the specific business operations; she acknowledged that it was staff’s oversight that the different address was used on the agenda. Chairman Roth noted for the record that the applicant was not present and therefore provided no presentation. He opened the floor for discussion, and expressed his opinion that the sign was too small but generally appropriate. He also said that he would be inclined to approve the proposed sign, with permission for a second sign for the south side so that if the applicant decided to obtain a sign permit for it, the Commission review would not be required. He further commented that motorists on Ali‘i Drive would see the south side location more easily. Commissioner Van Pernis said that he would have no objections to approving the sign as long as the correct address was clarified in the motion in order to avoid any confusion. 2