2019-01-08 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes

Home

Commissioner Van Pernis also asked whether the master signage plan was their marketing tool. Ms. Schatz responded that it would be used as such, if approved, which would alert potential tenants to the restrictions that they would have to comply with. She further noted that any signs that did not meet the restrictions would have to be submitted to the Commission for review. Commissioner Van Pernis said that there was a posted notice at the project site regarding the Alahou Street intersection shutdown due to construction until September. He asked why the applicant was trying to get their signage plan approved at this early stage. Ms. Schatz responded that even though the roadway shutdown was expected to continue until September, the vertical construction work in the upper portion of the property was expected to commence in February, and that according to their development timeline, they had to move forward with the signage component for their prospective tenants. Ms. Bugado also commented that the sign variance process would likely take three to four months. Upon inquiry by Chairman Roth, Mr. Vierra stated that all signs were proposed to be directly illuminated, that future tenants would have the option of illuminating their signs directly or indirectly, and that as for the ground signs, only the white lettering and the gold Niumalu name and logo would be illuminated. In response to Commissioner Van Pernis’ question, Mr. Vierra said that the plan already specified a white color for the tenant names on the ground signs, but that the applicant was willing to clarify the specification in any way the Commission would suggest. In response to Commissioner Hetherington’s procedural question, Chairman Roth suggested that the Commission consider the application in groups as broken down on the agenda. The Commission discussed each component as follows:  General Commissioner Van Pernis suggested that the Commission either defer or dismiss without prejudice until more construction improvements were done at the site. Commissioner Ikeuchi commented that the variances being requested seemed excessive, and that the applicant’s justification seemed to be for personal gain, rather than for public safety; for example, there was no evidence that smaller signs cause accidents, as they claimed, and further, oversized glaring signs could be hazardous to motorists. She also commented that the applicant’s justification was more like variations of personal inconvenience. Mr. Vierra responded that the topography and the required landscaping posed a visibility challenge. Commissioner Ikeuchi responded that because the topography was such by the choice of the developer, that did not warrant the need to compromise the guidelines. Commissioner Van Pernis expressed his agreement. Commissioner Van Pernis expressed his opinion that it was too early to grant a marketing tool, and that the application was incomplete and needed more specific provisions in the plan. Commissioner Hetherington said that he was in disagreement in that the application was one of the most complete and documented applications that he had ever seen. He continued to say, however, that he would not vote in favor, as he agreed with Commissioner Ikeuchi that there were too many variances being requested, and that the degree of variances would in effect change the rules for the particular area of the KVSD. Commissioner Van Pernis said that the Commission should not abdicate all of the Commission’s authority to the developer, and should maintain some level of control. Chairman Roth referred to the Kuakini Shopping Center whose master signage plan had recently been approved, and said that a master plan would provide consistency and improve the appearance, and 4