Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-09 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I MINUTES Meeting Date: April 9, 2019 Time: 5:16 p.m. Place: West Hawai‘i Civic Center nd Planning Department Conference Room – Building E, 2 Floor 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, 96740 CALL TO ORDER Commissioners Present: Shaun Roth, Bryant Ching, John Hetherington, Michaela Ikeuchi, Riley Smith, Zon Sullenberger and Ann Kern (from 5:31 p.m.) Absent and Excused: Jasmine Crusat Planning Department: Bennett Mark (Planning Program Manager), Deanne Bugado (Planner), Rosalind Newlon (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) Department of Public Works: Neal Tanaka and Neil Erickson Applicants/Representatives: Cheryl Weaver and Inpyo Hwang (New Business Item No. 2); Chase Villafana and Robert Chu (New Business Item No. 3); Fritz Harris-Glade (New Business Item No. 4) Public: Mark Van Pernis, Fanny Au Hoy and Steve Lopez A quorum was present. Chairman Roth called the meeting to order and the Commissioners introduced themselves. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Meetings of March 5, 2019 Chairman Roth asked if there were any corrections to the minutes. No corrections were offered, and the minutes were approved as circulated. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS The Commission received the following statements: Mr. Mark Van Pernis, a former member of the Commission and representing himself, provided comments on New Business No. 3, a sign variance application for Planet Fitness. He had submitted written testimony, which had been distributed to the Commissioners earlier. He testified in opposition, emphasizing the following reasons:  Knowing, intentional and multiple violations and delays by Planet Fitness. Planet Fitness had been aware of the code requirements for the sign permit process, including review by the 1 Commission, and yet it had gone ahead and installed, and was still maintaining, the illegal signs;  Misrepresentations and lack of required explanations by Planet Fitness. Explanations of hardship was required in order to apply for a variance. The applicant completely failed to meet the requirement, which alone would call for a mandatory denial of the application;  Lack of equity of Planet Fitness. While no sign construction was allowed without a permit, Planet Fitness had intentionally refused to comply with the code and constructed the signs, the cost of which should not constitute hardship as the reason for a variance;  Necessity of enforcement action against Planet Fitness. The Planning \[Public Works per HCC Chapter 3 Sign Code \] Director was required to take enforcement action by the Sign Code, and lack of enforcement was actually serving Planet Fitness at the expense of the County and its people; and,  Planet Fitness had been advised multiple times of the requirement to apply for the Commission review, but had chosen to proceed with the installation of illegal signs, in spite of its representation to the Commission that it would submit their signage plan. He concluded by saying that Planet Fitness’s action was a direct challenge to the law, to the Commission and to the County and its people, as if to say that the Kailua Village was not a special place and could not be a special place. He urged the Commission to show everyone the authority of the Commission and the County. Mr. Chase Villafana, the applicant for New Business No. 3, a sign variance application for Planet Fitness, thanked the Commission for its review of his application. He gave some background information about Planet Fitness that it was a national gym company, which promoted health and wellness for everybody, in particular the large population that wanted to go to a gym but could not afford to do so, by offering affordable fees. He said that the company had spent a few years before coming to Kona to learn about the permitting process and community’s desires through meetings with community members, which had lead them to the building they were now in. He said that he had been advised of different methods for the permitting process, and he had submitted this sign permit application accordingly. He stated that the company had been in the sign permitting process for between five and six months, and because of the length of time, it had opened for business and the signs had been installed during that period. He noted that the sign had been made to match the size variance approved in 1997 for the previous tenant, Borders Books and Music (“Borders”), which was 167 square feet. Ms. Fanny Au Hoy, a former member of the Commission and representing herself and the Daughters of Hawai‘i, provided comments on New Business No. 3, a sign variance application for Planet Fitness. She first asked Mr. Villafana whether he was a resident of Kailua-Kona, and Mr. Villafana answered with a no. She spoke in opposition to the application for the reason that:  The community had established rules and guidelines that everybody needed to comply with, including Planet Fitness;  The Kailua Village was a small village that was historical and cultural, not a strip, and the community was against large signs and neon signs because they wanted to keep the village historical and cultural;  The community was not anti-gym, as there were already other gyms within the village, but unlike those existing gyms, Planet Fitness was advantageously located at a very prominent street corner and therefore should not require two huge signs; 2  Other businesses, such as the Makalapua movie theater and McDonald’s, were complying with the rules and had no huge signs, and customers still found them; and,  The sign was not found to be attractive by the local residents and therefore was not even an effective advertisement for the business. She asked Mr. Villafana to try to be part of the community and show respect for its needs. She also urged the Commission to keep the Kailua Village cultural, historical and peaceful. Mr. Steve Lopez, a community member representing himself, provided comments also on New Business No. 3, a sign variance application for Planet Fitness. He noted that contrary to the statement made by Mr. Villafana earlier, the signs had been up as early as October of last year; he had submitted a letter of concern to the Planning Department with a photograph of the sign in November, and been told then that the Department had been aware of the sign for a month, and that Planet Fitness had been advised of the permitting procedure. He spoke in opposition to the application for the reason that:  Planet Fitness blatantly disregarded HRS \[correct reference should be HCC\] Sign Code Section 3-58, which was very specific as to what was allowed or not allowed, with no ambiguity;  There was no evidence that Planet Fitness had done any due diligence until it had been caught by the community raising the voice;  Planet Fitness’s attitude that it was easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, should not work and could not be allowed to continue; and,  Not only the community but also Planet Fitness itself did not need those signs in order to promote their business because the gym was well-known to the point where people could not find a parking space to go there. He spoke of his experience as the legislative assistant to former Council Member Angel Pilago, who had been instrumental in regulating the Coldwell Banker sign on the same building to be small as existed. He said that Council Member Pilago had not supported any variance for signs because he had valued the culture and the respect people had for each other in the community. He said that the Anderson Wealth Planning sign also on the same building had gotten approval for a bigger size later, of which the design was however not garish, and that now the community was faced with two huge purple signs that did not even have a permit. He further said that those signs were not conducive to the community and looked horrible, especially at night as they lit up. He concluded by urging the Commission to hear the voice of the public, disapprove the sign and hold the applicant to the letter of the law. Ms. Cheryl Weaver from CU Hawai‘i Federal Credit Union (“CU Hawai‘i”) provided comments on New Business No. 2, a sign variance application for CU Hawai‘i. She gave background information about CU Hawai‘i, and said that it was a member-owned and member-driven credit union that had opened in 1995 in Hilo and had since grown to serve the entire island. She explained the significance of their new logo whose message to the members was that they were working together. She said that there were eight triangles in the logo as there were eight islands in Hawai‘i, and that the equal sides of the triangles represented that all members were treated equally in CU Hawai‘i. She said further that when small groups of people were trying to get something done and move forward together, it was like a school of fish that looked bigger, which was the idea behind the logo. She noted that the subject branch building was set back about 3 100 feet from Kuakini Highway, and therefore, CU Hawai‘i was requesting a variance so that it could easily be found and better serve its members and the community at large. Mr. Inpyo Hwang, president of INA Signs, provided comments in support of the CU Hawai‘i application as the maker of the proposed sign. He stated that the applicant was only asking for ten additional square feet, just large enough to be seen from the highway, which was 100 feet away. He requested that the Commission take the building setback into consideration and support the application. NEW BUSINESS 1. The applicant, Yen Wen Fang of Engineering Partners, is proposing a ground mounted photovoltaic system at the Regency at Hualālai, an assisted care facility located off of Hualālai Road, established under Use Permit No. 174 which was approved on April 17, 1998. The proposed ground mounted photovoltaic system includes approximately 728 new panels over an area of approximately 1.153 of the 5.213-acre parcel, and are to be located to the rear of the assisted living facility. The applicant is proposing a continuous, unbroken planting screen, no less than 5-feet in height along the perimeter of the parcel boundary surrounding the ground mounted photovoltaic system along with 6-foot high chain link fencing. Landowner: MBSB Hualālai LLC TMK: (3) 7-5-010:015 Location: 75-181 Hualālai Road, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Ms. Bugado gave a PowerPoint presentation, and described the proposed project. She noted that during her review it had been discovered that the proposed project was encompassing two areas that were identified as remnants of the historic Kuakini Wall, and consequently any further review of the application, including Plan Approval, had to be deferred so that the Planning Department could consult with the State Historic Preservation Division (“SHPD”). She said that therefore her recommendation would be that the Commission defer action until the matter was cleared. Upon inquiry by Chairman Roth, Ms. Bugado confirmed that the property abutted no right-of-way other than Hualālai Road. Neither the applicant nor his representative was present. It was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Kern that the Commission defer action on the application. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Smith, Ms. Bugado said that building permits for new structures did not require SHPD’s sign-off, and that SHPD did have a procedure for structures that were 50 years or older. Commissioner Hetherington mentioned that if a project needed any grading or grubbing, then SHPD would have to sign off on the grading permit. Commissioner Smith said that the project in question seemed to require grading and therefore would require a grading 4 permit with SHPD’s approval. He suggested that the Commission might consider commenting on the application so that the applicant could incorporate those comments in the plans when he came back. Ms. Bugado said that she would caution that a drastic change to the layout of the system might be required because of the Kuakini Wall, in which case his resubmittal might be a completely different proposal. Commissioner Smith commented that the size of the proposed landscaping plants, namely, manila palm and red hibiscus, should be specified on the plan. In response to Chairman Roth’s remark that the applicant was not present, Ms. Bugado said that the applicant would be provided with a copy of the minutes. Commissioner Smith continued that the annotation about five-foot tall screen shrubs on Sheet PA-1 seemed to be for maintenance purposes rather than the height at the time of planting. Chairman Roth opined that if it was a matter of the Kuakini Wall or the landscaping, the less digging the better, especially since the site was not very visible to the public. At this time Chairman Roth allowed Ms. Au Hoy from the audience to provide comments. She said that she had been surprised to hear the word “remnants” when the Kuakini Wall had been mentioned in the staff presentation. Ms. Bugado explained that it was because she had not wanted to make any assumption regarding the status of the wall. Ms. Au Hoy continued that she was disheartened and concerned that the historic wall had been chipped away little by little by every development that had come in, and that eventually nothing would be left. She emphasized that the Great Wall of Kuakini was significant and should be preserved, and that SHPD should get involved and do something. Chairman Roth pointed out that photovoltaic panels, more than anything else, could be shuffled around to avoid the wall. There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with six ayes (Hetherington, Kern, Ching, Ikeuchi, Smith and Sullenberger), no noes, and one absent and excused (Crusat). 2. The applicant, James Takamine, President of CU Hawaii, has submitted a sign variance application for a wall sign to be located at the Credit Union of Hawaii located on a parcel accessible by Kuakini Highway and Hualālai Road. The proposed variance is for a 32.5 square foot PVC board sign, with satin finish, measuring 5.0’ tall x 6’8” wide. The logo is 36 inches tall, with multi colored diamond shapes on a white background and the fonts will include black and green colored letters for the name of the bank, ranging from 4” to 10” tall. The wall sign is to be located at a height of 22 feet. Landowner: Credit Union Hawaii TMK: (3) 7-5-008:021 Location: 75-5781 Kuakini Highway, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Ms. Newlon gave a PowerPoint presentation, and described the proposed wall sign and variance request for the sign area and the sign elevation. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Sullenberger, she confirmed that the sign would face Kuakini Highway. 5 Commissioner Hetherington said that the application appeared unclear about the exact size of the sign itself and of the background. Ms. Newlon responded that according to the application, the size measured five feet tall by six feet eight inches wide, totaling 32.5 square feet. Ms. Bugado added that the total size appeared to be that of the backboard. However, Commissioner Smith pointed out that on another rendering the sign elements appeared to be directly mounted on the wall. Mr. Hwang interjected confirming that the sign would be made of individual cutouts with no backboard. Commissioner Smith said that since there was no backboard, if polygons were drawn separately around the logo and the name to come up with the total area, it might be within the code allowance. In response to his request to clarify the calculation method, Ms. Bugado said that procedurally the Planning Department accepted the application submitted via Department of Public Works, Building Division (“DPW”), as is, on the supposition that the applicant had already worked it out with DPW. She suggested that either Mr. Tanaka or Mr. Erickson clarify the calculation. Mr. Tanaka requested that he be afforded some time to review the application materials. Chairman Roth called upon the applicant’s representatives. Ms. Weaver confirmed again that the logo and letter pieces would directly be mounted on the wall surface. She stated that the sign would not be illuminated out of CU Hawai‘i’s respect for its neighbors and for the observatories, and also for the reason that it was open for business only during the day. Commissioner Sullenberger spoke to share the result of his calculation based on the method that Commissioner Smith had suggested earlier, and said that the three polygons, one for the logo and two for the name, totaled 17.45 square feet, which was within the code allowance. Commissioner Smith, mentioning that he had driven by the subject property earlier, asked the representatives if the existing temporary banner was representative of the proposed permanent sign. Mr. Hwang answered that they were very close as to the dimensions. Commissioner Smith said that as he was driving by at 35 miles per hour, he was barely able to see the banner sign because of the setback distance, and therefore, he had no concerns about the size as proposed. Mr. Tanaka, in response to the earlier question about the calculation method, said that Sign Code Section 3-4(a)(3) provided that the total area was to be measured by the outer boundaries of the geometric shape. Ms. Newlon asked Mr. Tanaka to verify whether or not the logo height and the letter height would also require a variance, although those were not specifically included in the application. Chairman Roth suggested that the Commission review and act on the application as submitted, and that the applicant and DPW sort out the variance requirement on their own. Commissioner Ching pointed out that the letter height was ten inches, which exceeded the allowable nine inches. Chairman Roth responded that the application, however, was not requesting a variance for the letter height. Ms. Bugado and Ms. Newlon clarified that even though the particular request was not stated in the text within the application, based on the specifications the logo and letter height clearly required a variance, and it should be considered requested. Commissioner Ikeuchi commented that the size mattered to her, and that she was not inclined to support the request as presented. She opined that the guidelines were set for a reason, and that 6 allowing variances over and over again would bring in more garish signs wanting the same. She questioned why not stay within the guidelines, if what was requested was just a little extra. In answering Chairman Roth’s question, she said that the sign elevation was acceptable to her. Commissioner Sullenberger agreed with her that the height seemed appropriate from an architectural standpoint, but that he was also concerned about the overall size. Commissioner Smith commented that his understanding was that the sign ordinance was intended for signs with no setback from the street. He said that because in this case the building was set back 100 feet, the existing banner sign looked small. Commissioner Hetherington agreed with Commissioner Ikeuchi that each variance granted had been leading to more variances and bigger signs, and that the reason why the Commission tried to hold to the guidelines was so that the small-town atmosphere was kept. He spoke of Aloha Theatre in Kainaliu, which had no signage on the building but was known by everyone in the community. Commissioner Ching, while acknowledging Commissioner Smith’s opinion, also agreed with Commissioner Ikeuchi that the Commission should stick with the set standards. Commissioner Smith said that if the Commission were to not approve the proposed wall sign, the applicant might come back with a 22-square foot ground sign right along the highway boundary, which they were entitled to; in his opinion the proposed wall sign would preserve the character of the village better than a standalone ground sign. Chairman Roth said that the Commission had to be fair in the way it considered variances; for example, the Kona Coast Shopping Center (“KCSC”), whose buildings were also set back, had been granted variances for that reason. He said that variances existed to offer equity to businesses with those unusual circumstances, and so the Commission should not say no more variances at all because of a certain event. He said further that the Commissioners should think about how their review could be applied fairly throughout the village in the way that would still maintain the character of the village. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Sullenberger, Ms. Bugado said that the variances granted to KCSC allowed twelve-inch high logos and letters for the interior stores and 22-inch high maximum for the two anchor stores, though one might be slightly less. Chairman Roth commented that in his opinion the design of the subject wall sign was much more tasteful than many other existing signs in the heart of the village. It was moved by Commissioner Smith that the Commission recommend approval of the application as submitted. The motion failed for lack of second. Commissioner Ching moved to defer action, and explained that he would like the applicant to consider other options, such as a ground sign. Chairman Roth questioned if a ground sign was what the Commission wished to recommend. Commissioner Ikeuchi responded that the wall sign was acceptable to her, as far as the elevation and the design were concerned; however, she wanted the overall size and the height of logo and letters to be within the established allowance. The consensus among the Commissioners was that the sign, notwithstanding whether it was wall-mounted or ground-mounted, should comply with the guidelines. Commissioner Sullenberger commented that the proposed sign would have to be reduced by 67 percent in total size to comply with the allowable 22 square feet, and that what might be considered was to make 7 the letter height compliant by reducing it one inch and apply the 67 percent reduction to the logo height, which would make it 24 inches instead of 36 inches. Ms. Newlon pointed out that the 24-inch high logo would still require a variance. Commissioner Sullenberger also mentioned that it might be more advisable to reduce the logo height to 22 inches to be consistent with the other existing variances, rather than his calculation of 24 inches. In response to Commissioner Smith’s request to further clarify the prescribed calculation method, Mr. Tanaka quoted Sign Code Section 3-4(a)(3); “If a sign consists only of words, designs, or figures engraved, painted, projected, or fixed on a wall, the total area/size of the sign shall be the measurable area within the outer boundary of a standard geometrical shape such as a square, rectangle, or circle containing and defined by the extreme reaches of graphic or informational parts of the sign.” The Commission confirmed that the 32.5 square feet as noted in the application was correctly calculated. Mr. Tanaka requested that even if the action were to be an approval with conditions, the Commission defer and require the applicant to revise their application accordingly and resubmit to the Commission for confirmation so that DPW could accurately communicate to the County Council (“Council”). Chairman Roth acknowledged the request, and said that that would clearly document what was approved by the Commission, which would be beneficial to the Council. He noted that furthermore, the application could not proceed to the Council when the action was to defer. Upon inquiry by Ms. Newlon, Mr. Tanaka confirmed that DPW could not change or add more information to the application that the Commission had acted upon when forwarding it to the Council. Commissioner Hetherington said that he would second the motion to defer. Commissioner Ching restated his motion that the Commission defer action until the applicant came back with alternatives. There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with five ayes (Ching, Hetherington, Ikeuchi, Kern and Sullenberger), one no (Smith), and one absent and excused (Crusat). 3. The applicant, Chase Villafana, of Planet Fitness NY, has submitted a sign variance application for two wall signs to read “Planet Fitness” with a logo, for a commercial gym, on two sides of an existing building, with one sign fronting Henry Street and one sign fronting Hawaii Belt Road (Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway). Each of the two wall sign heights are 91 inches by 264.5 inches, for a total of 167.2 square feet. The proposal includes signs made of translucent vinyl with white LED illumination. The colors of the letters are mulberry with black returns (sides) for “Planet Fitness”. The logo includes white letters and black returns letters for the two letters of the business name, “pf”, along with a yellow thumbs up within a black gear wheel with a mulberry colored ring. The height of the signs are approximately 20 feet. Landowner: John David Rapoza, et al. TMK: (3) 7-5-004: 058 Location: 75-1000 Henry Street, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 8 Ms. Newlon gave a PowerPoint presentation, and described the two existing wall signs that the applicant was requesting a variance for. Ms. Newlon spoke of the variances approved in the past for the subject building, including the one for Borders who had been the tenant previous to Planet Fitness. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Sullenberger, Ms. Newlon clarified that the Borders variance application had been subject to the Commission review, that the Commission had recommended approval, and that the Planning Commission, who had been the authority then, had subsequently approved on August 8, 1997. Commissioner Smith asked whether or not the existing illuminated signs had an electrical permit for the hardwiring. Mr. Tanaka answered no, and Ms. Newlon added that an as-built building permit application, including electrical, was being processed but had not been issued. Commissioner Smith noted that the signs then should be neither installed nor illuminated. Mr. Tanaka expressed his concurrence. Asked by Chairman Roth, Mr. Villafana stated that he had nothing to add to his earlier presentation. Commissioner Ikeuchi commented that her first reaction had been “‘a‘ole, it is not pono.” She said that she wholeheartedly agreed with Ms. Au Hoy’s testimony, and that she did not think it would even be ethical for the Commission to approve this request because it did not go in line with looking out for the best interest of the culture in the community. She reiterated that in her opinion the danger of granting variances was that each one would become a step stone to the next one. She mentioned some of the existing variances in the neighborhood as an example, and said that if she had been on the Commission, she would not have supported those variances. She further said that she was generally not against businesses using their own colors and logos, but that the subject signs with bright illumination were almost blinding and even capable of causing traffic accidents contrary to the applicant’s claim that bigger signs were safer. She opined that it would be a mistake to approve this variance. Commissioner Ching recalled that when Planet Fitness had been asked about signage by former Commissioner Van Pernis at the time of renovation design review, its representative had told the Commission that a sign application would be done later, but that no such application had followed. Commissioner Sullenberger commented also that one of the issues to him was that despite the fact that Planet Fitness had been advised of the path they needed to take, it had chosen to not do so and instead gone ahead and put up those signs. He added that the Commission historically tried to work with applicants as long as they communicated, but in this case that collaboration step had not happened. He continued to say that the other issue was the sign itself, which in his opinion was in your face, and additionally, it was illuminated without electrical permit. He emphasized the wrong sequence of events, and said that that was not how things worked in the Kailua Village, and that those signs had to come down. Commissioner Kern also commented that there were so many things that were wrong with this applicant’s process. She said that she agreed with the other Commissioners, as well as the public members’ statements, that there had been no effort made by the applicant to work with the Commission, and that nobody could just do whatever they wanted in this community, including Planet Fitness. She further said that she could not possibly support this request, and that it was not unreasonable for the Commission to tell the applicant to take down those signs now as a gesture of good faith and then talk with the Commission. 9 It was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Kern that the Commission recommend denial. Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Tanaka what steps DPW was going to take to ensure that those illuminated signs with no electrical permit would not stay on. He noted that it was a health and safety issue and a concern of the Commission. Mr. Tanaka responded that pursuant to Sign Code Section 3-37(b) that provided, “When the condition of any sign creates an immediate hazard and peril to public safety or to property, or is illegally placed within any public street, park other public place or pedestrian way, the director shall remove the sign summarily and without notice,” removal by DPW was an available option; however, the status of the enforcement was that DPW had served a notice of violation on Planet Fitness, and they had requested DPW to defer and allow them to determine the course of action based on the Commission’s recommendation at this hearing. There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with six ayes (Hetherington, Kern, Ching, Ikeuchi, Smith and Sullenberger), no noes, and one absent and excused (Crusat). 4. At the request of the County Council, the Department of Public Works, Building Division, is requesting the KVDC to confirm whether the revised plans for the sign variance application for the Holiday Inn Express, submitted to the County Council for review and approval, satisfies the recommendations of the Commission. The Commission previously reviewed the Holiday Inn Express sign variance application at a meeting held on November 17, 2015. The Council is in the process of reviewing the Proposed Amendments to Resolution No. 92; resolution granting a variance from Chapter 3 Section, 3-6(b)(3), 3-58(b), 3-58(c) and 3-60(a), Hawai`i County Code 1983 (2016 edition, as amended), to allow two wall signs and two directional signs at 75-146 Sarona Road, Kailua Kona, HI. Landowner: Kona Hospitality TMK: (3) 7-5-007:009 Location: 75-146 Sarona Road, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Ms. Newlon gave a brief PowerPoint presentation about the subject property and the Commission’s past review of the proposed signs. She then deferred further presentation to Mr. Tanaka. Mr. Tanaka stated that DPW’s presence today was to follow through with Council Member Lee Loy’s recommendation to allow the Commission to exercise its authority for the Sign Code. He said that Resolution No. 92 19 in question essentially characterized the variance application as understood by the Council. He explained that there was inconsistency between what had been approved by the Commission and what had been subsequently communicated to the Council. He said that he would prefer to have applicant speak about what variances from the code were needed for the proposed signs, what the Commission had recommended at its November 2015 meeting, and how he and DPW intended to move forward and present it to the Council. 10 Commissioner Hetherington asked whether the plans being presented today were the same as the plans that the Commission had considered years ago. Ms. Newlon referred the Commission to a recommendation letter dated November 23, 2015, from the Commission to DPW regarding the action taken at its November 17, 2015, meeting. She recited the recommendations listed in the letter. Chairman Roth called upon the applicant’s representative. Mr. Fritz Harris-Glade introduced himself as an architect representing the owner of the subject property and business. He gave the history of the variance application process that the owner had been going through since 2014. He also went over in detail each of the Commission’s recommendations in the November 23, 2015, letter and the revisions he had subsequently made to the plans according to those recommendations. He concluded by saying that, with those recommended revisions having been made, he considered the current application to be the version approved by the Commission. Chairman Roth recalled that he had been unable to attend the particular meeting in 2015, but had submitted a letter of strong opposition to the original plans. He said that the current design appeared to be much toned down, and that the applicant seemed to be trying to work with the Commission to meet the requirements. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Hetherington, Ms. Newlon and Ms. Bugado clarified that there were two matters before the Commission under this agenda item; the Commission was requested to confirm whether or not the recommended changes had been made and the variance application before the Council was compliant with the Commission’s recommendation, and, secondly, to confirm whether or not the proposed resolution complied with the requested variances. Chairman Roth, noting that Commissioner Hetherington had been present at the November 2015 meeting, asked for his feedback on whether or not the current application reflected the Commission’s recommendations. Commissioner Hetherington responded that to the best of his knowledge and recollection, the application did comply with the Commission’s recommendation. \[At this time Commissioner Ikeuchi asked to be excused for a moment, and left the room.\] Mr. Tanaka commented that the request from the Council was for accurate information because the site plan that had been transmitted to the Council did not match the request of the applicant. He reiterated his request that if the Commission approved a variance application with conditions, the applicant be asked to come back with a finalized application so that DPW could take that information to create a resolution and transmit to the Council. He further said that in this case Council Member Lee Loy had given the opportunity to the Commission to revisit the application to confirm its compliance with the Commission’s recommendation, and that based on Commissioner Hetherington’s earlier confirmation, DPW would be fine with transmitting it to the Council. Commissioner Sullenberger mentioned that he had also been in attendance at the meeting, and said that in his opinion the application as presented today met the Commission’s intent and recommendation. He also said that he had reviewed the draft resolution, and that it seemed to correspond to the information in the drawings. He opined that the set of drawings presented today was a good representation of the Commission’s comments at that time, and that he would 11 still find it acceptable, even if it had been a new application. Commissioner Kern commented that her first thought on this agenda item had been a question as to why it had come back, because her recollection was that the Commission had resolved all the issues on the proposed signs then. Mr. Tanaka clarified that what had been presented to the Council was not the packet in question today but rather a site plan with only one sign, which had caused the confusion. Chairman Roth pointed out that the Commission had allowed some illumination back then, but that the current packet seemed to show no illumination, which in his opinion was even better. Commissioners Sullenberger and Kern expressed their agreement. Commissioner Kern recalled that the Commission had had a lengthy discussion about the illumination. Commissioner Hetherington moved that the Commission confirm that the material presented today conformed to the previous recommendations of the Commission, and that the draft resolution presented to the Commission appeared to correspond to the information provided. Commissioner Sullenberger suggested that the motion specify the drawing set that had to be forwarded to the Council. Commissioner Hetherington confirmed the intent of his motion as such. Chairman Roth asked Commissioner Hetherington to repeat his motion for Commissioner Ikeuchi who had just returned to the room. Commissioner Hetherington restated his motion that the Commission confirm that the sign variance application materials with a revision date of March 6, 2019, corresponded to the recommendations provided by the Commission at its last review of this proposal, and that the draft resolution in question also corresponded to the information in the plans. Commissioner Sullenberger seconded the motion. Commissioner Smith asked who in the Planning Department was responsible to make sure that DPW would end up with the submittal that reflected the Commission’s motion. Ms. Bugado responded that the Planning Department was not responsible to work with the applicant on making the changes to the submittal to DPW, but that the Planning Department planner, who gave the presentation on a particular application, was responsible to write up the action letter with recommendation details according to the motion. She continued that the letter would then be signed by the chairperson and sent to the Director of DPW, with a copy to the applicant, and that it was the applicants’ responsibility to update the application with necessary changes in order to move forward in the variance process with DPW. Commissioner Sullenberger referred Commissioner Smith to the Commission letter dated November 23, 2015, as an example of the action letter. Commissioner Sullenberger commented that the Commission might need to be more specific so that its recommendations would clearly be communicated to the applicants. He also said that deferral action might be another option, instead of approving with conditions and assuming that those recommended changes would be made. Mr. Tanaka said that his intention was to request another check by the Commission where in case of conditional approval, the Commission require the applicant to make those changes and resubmit for confirmation. He said that allowing DPW to have a recommendation letter and an application that match would eliminate confusion. Chairman Roth noted that the Commission had recently been doing more deferrals than conditional approvals, which seemed to provide additional opportunities for dialogue with applicants. Commissioner Hetherington commented 12 that his understanding was that deferral was the only way to have applicants come back, as with any other actions they would be done with the Commission and move on. Ms. Bugado said that Mr. Tanaka’s request as she understood was that the Commission defer final decision until the applicant addressed all the recommendations and the Commission could forward approval without conditions. Commissioner Sullenberger commented that that would be ideal; however, the Commission would have to decide whether or not it wanted to keep applicants coming back. There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with five ayes (Hetherington, Sullenberger, Ching, Kern and Smith), one no (Ikeuchi), and one absent and excused (Crusat). Commissioner Ikeuchi explained that she had not been on the Commission in 2015, and only based on the current proposal she was not supporting the motion. In response to Mr. Tanaka’s question, Ms. Newlon said that the Commission action letter in this case would also be addressed to DPW, who in turn could forward it to the Council. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS None. ANNOUNCEMENTS Next meeting tentatively scheduled for April 23, 2019. Ms. Newlon announced that the Commission would meet on April 23, 2019, as scheduled. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Roth adjourned the meeting at 7:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary A T T E S T: Shaun Roth, Chairman Kailua Village Design Commission 13