Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-07-23 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII MINUTES Meeting Date: July 23, 2019 Time: 5:15 p.m. Place: West Hawaii Civic Center Planning Department Conference Room—Building E, 2nd Floor 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 96740 CALL TO ORDER Commissioners Present: Shaun Roth, Bryant Ching, Jasmine Crusat, John Hetherington, Michaela Ikeuchi, Ann Kern, Riley Smith and Zon Sullenberger Absent and Excused: Arne Werchick Planning Department: Rosalind Newlon (Planner) and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) Applicants/Representatives: Richard Burrow (New Business Item No. 1); Chase Villafana, Al Muro and Robert Choi(New Business Item No. 2) Public: Mark Van Pernis A quorum was present. Chairman Roth called the meeting to order and the Commissioners introduced themselves. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Meetings of June 18, 2019 and July 9, 2019 The Commission postponed approval of the minutes at staff's request. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Roth granted Mr. Mark Van Pernis' request that his statement be taken at the time Agenda Item No. 2 was called to order. NEW BUSINESS 1. The applicant, Teresa Jones, is proposing five (5) signs for the Walmart in Kona that include; 1) a new ground sign that is a non-illuminated polycarbonate mounted sign replacing an existing sign on an existing rock wall; 2) two (2)illuminated, with LED lamps, wall signs constructed of aluminum/polycarbonate replacing existing wall signs that are covered by an existing sign variance, per Resolution no. 186-11, approved by County Council on December 21, 2011; 3) a third wall sign for the "Pickup" area constructed of white plastic letters with a logo constructed of"gusto gold" colored plastic 1 letters; and; 4) a relocated McDonald's sign with the letter "M"in yellow letters, illuminated with LED lamps. A sign variance application has been included for the signs that exceed the letter/logo height limit and sign area as required by Chapter 3, Signs, of the Hawaii County Code. There is an existing sign variance for two other wall signs being replaced. The KVDC previously reviewed a sign permit for four (4) signs on April 23, 2019, and recommended to the Director of Public Works to defer action on the application so that the applicant could resubmit an application and address questions that the Commission had on the application. Landowner: Walmart Stores Inc. TMK: (3) 7-5-004:043 Location: 75-1015 Henry Street, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Ms. Newlon presented the proposal. In going over the application, she highlighted the following points on each of the proposed signs: a. McDonald's "M"wall sign: This had not been a part of the previous application that the Commission had reviewed at its April 23, 2019, meeting. The sign itself was existing and was to be relocated near the garden center. A variance would be required for the logo height. b. Two "Walmart"wall signs: As signified by his initial on Sheet A145, the sign area had been confirmed by Plans Examiner Kelly Wilson of the Department of Public Works ("DPW") as 147.78 square feet. The proposed signs were a like-for-like replacement for the existing ones. c. One "Pickup"wall sign: No changes were made to the previously submitted design. A variance would be required for both the letter/logo height and the sign area. d. One "Walmart" ground sign: This was also a like-for-like replacement for the existing sign, and whether or not a variance application would be required was to be determined by DPW. Ms. Newlon noted that the applicant had provided a sign variance application in the current application package, which had not been included in the previous submittal, together with their rationale mainly focusing on visibility challenges due to the setback distance and grade difference from the adjacent roadways. Ms. Newlon referred the Commissioners to the applicant's letter of June 19, 2019 [EXHIBIT A], in which they had addressed each of the four issues that the Commission had raised in its April 25, 2019, deferral letter. She summarized each response, and said that the applicant had updated the application to reflect those clarifications and additional information. Chairman Roth asked for clarification on the variance application, which mentioned not only the logo/letter height and sign size but also the mounting height. Ms. Newlon responded that the "M" and "Pickup"wall signs would both require a variance from the mounting height regulation 2 as well, and that DPW would take in and use all the necessary information when they draft a sign variance resolution for the County Council's consideration. Asked by Commissioner Ikeuchi, Ms. Newlon confirmed that the two "Walmart"wall signs, the "M"wall sign and the "Walmart" ground sign would be a complete like-for-like replacement, including the dimensions, color and illumination/non-illumination. Commissioner Smith questioned if the Commission was making a distinction between variance applications that came in before the sign was put up and those that came in after the fact; it seemed to him that there should be some recognition, if an applicant did not install the sign until he/she had gotten the permit approved. Ms. Newlon responded that DPW had authority over the matter and she could not answer on their behalf, however, the Commissioners would recall that there had been enforcement action on another business in the area for installing a sign without a variance and a permit. In response to Commissioner Smith asking about the unpermitted "Walmart" ground sign, Ms. Newlon reiterated that DPW was the one to determine whether or not any enforcement action should be taken and how they would forward the variance application to the County Council. She added she would assume that the ground sign would have to be included in the variance application. Commissioner Smith commented that the method of sign area calculation that Mr. Neal Tanaka from DPW had clarified at a past Commission meeting was not followed in this case. Ms. Newlon responded that she was not the one to confirm the measurement accuracy, but Mr. Wilson who was with the responsibility verified it on Sheet A145. However, she read aloud Section 34(a)(3) of the Sign Code, and said that as she recalled, that was how Mr. Tanaka had explained to the Commission: Section 34(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. Commissioner Smith reiterated that what Mr. Wilson had done was different than how Mr. Tanaka interpreted the Section. He used the "Pickup" sign as another example, and said that instead of drawing one rectangle encompassing the spark logo and the word "Pickup" together, the method used here was to draw two shapes around the logo and the word separately and then add them up, which made the total area seem smaller. Ms. Newlon said that the sign area in question would still exceed the maximum allowable 22 square feet either way; therefore, the Commission could point out the discrepancy in its recommendation letter for DPW and the applicant to work it out in the final variance application to be forwarded to the County Council. Commissioner Smith said that similarly the two "Walmart"wall signs would exceed the previously recommended 150 square feet maximum, if the correct calculation method was used. Commissioner Smith also said that he agreed with the applicant's write-up where they explained that the distance from the road necessitated the variance. He reminded the Commissioners that the Commission had voted down CU Hawaii Federal Credit Union's variance application for the reason that their sign should not exceed the square footage set forth in the code regardless of the 3 building setback from the road. He noted that he wanted to make sure that the Commission was consistent in its review and analysis of applications. Chairman Roth called upon the applicant. The applicant's representative, Richard Burrow, stated that the existing "M"wall sign would simply be relocated, that the two "Walmart"wall signs were covered by the current variance and would be replaced with like-for-like new signs, and that the new "Pickup"wall sign would have minimal visibility from the road. He also corrected the staff presentation by saying that the existing "Walmart" ground sign would not be replaced, that nothing would be done to it, and that the proposal was to get it permitted as is. Asked by Commissioner Smith, Mr. Burrow confirmed that the ground sign had never been permitted. He also concurred with Commissioner Smith that the original ground sign had said "Crossroad," and so the current ground sign with the word "Walmart"was considered a new sign. Commissioner Smith expressed his support for the proposal and in particular he mentioned the colors, which in his opinion were suitable for Kona; however, he noted that if the application was to be approved, what was being approved had to be clear so that there would be no discrepancy later between what was approved and what was installed. Chairman Roth opened the floor for discussion, and suggested that the Commissioners focus on the items that the applicant had been asked to come back on, and that the Commissioners refrain from revisiting things that they had had no problem with at the previous meeting. With respect to the "M"wall sign, Commissioner Hetherington opined that the proposal was reasonable, considering how big and conspicuous a McDonald's arch could have been. Regarding the "Walmart"wall signs, Commissioner Crusat asked whether the existing variance was based on the calculation method that the applicant was using or the signs were actually exceeding the allowance. Commissioner Hetherington noted that if the sign size was calculated according to the code, it would be 197 square feet. Chairman Roth said that he agreed with Commissioner Smith that the Commission needed clarification on the calculation method, but that he would expect that the intent of the variance at that time had been to approve the application as presented, including the measurement. Commissioner Hetherington pointed out that even if that had been the case with the "Walmart"wall signs, there was the same issue with the new "Pickup" sign, which the Commission was presently faced with. Chairman Roth commented that the Commission should be careful not to blame the applicant, if DPW had confirmed the sign size as such, and that what the Commission should make sure was that the variance would be enough to cover the size that was acceptable. Commissioner Crusat commented that she wanted to clarify the matter of measurement so that it would not be an issue in the future with other applicants. Commissioner Smith said that if the Commission found the proposal to be acceptable, one solution might be to approve it as presented without mentioning the specific square footages. Commissioner Smith also said that the Commission had to advise DPW to ensure that Acting Building Division Chief Tanaka and Mr. Wilson interpret the regulation the same way or they attend Commission meetings. Chairman Roth said that the Commission seemed to be caught in the middle. Commissioner Sullenberger commented that the Commission had asked the applicant to come back with square footage clarification, although that should have been directed towards 4 DPW whom clarification had to come from. Chairman Roth said that DPW had made the matter more confusing. Commissioner Smith said that Mr. Tanaka had clarified the calculation method at a past meeting, but his plan examiner had verified the applicant's incorrect calculation, which meant that their office internally had inconsistency. Commissioner Smith also commented that it was important that the Commission be fair and timely with the applicant, as they had come before the Commission a number of times and had been upfront and responsive to Commission's comments. He said that the applicant was due a timely answer, instead of further delay until the Commission could clarify the measurement with DPW; therefore, he was in support of approving the application as submitted. Commissioner Sullenberger also expressed his approval of the application, and said that the Commission might consider sending a separate letter advising DPW to straighten out their calculation methods. It was moved by Commissioner Sullenberger and seconded by Commissioner Ching that the Commission forward to the Director of DPW a recommendation for approval of the sign permit and variance application as submitted with the dimensions as shown on the plans. There being no discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with six ayes (Sullenberger, Ching, Hetherington, Ikeuchi, Kern and Smith), one no (Crusat) and one absent and excused (Werchick). 2. The applicant, Chase Villafana, of Planet Fitness NY, has a sign permit 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). The KVDC previously reviewed a sign variance application for two wall signs on April 9, 2019, and the KVDC recommended denial to the Director of Public Works. The applicant has submitted a new sign permit application for two wall signs that have been reduced in size to meet the requirements of Chapter 3, Signs, of the Hawaii County Code. Each of the two wall signs measure 18 inches by 102 inches, for a total of 12.75 square feet each with a maximum logo and letter height of 9 inches. The proposal includes signs made of translucent vinyl lettering with white LED illumination on a panel in the color of"Amarillo White" to match the exterior paint color of the building. The colors of the letters are mulberry with mulberry returns (sides) for "Planet Fitness". The logo includes white letters and black returns letters for the two letters of the business name, "pr", along with a yellow thumbs up within a black gear wheel with a mulberry colored ring. The height of the signs are approximately 15 feet above grade or at approximately 5 feet above lower office floor level. Landowner: John David Rapoza, et al. TMK: (3) 7-5-004: 058 Location: 75-1000 Henry Street, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Chairman Roth called upon Mr. Van Pernis as requested earlier. Mr. Van Pernis expressed his disapproval of the applicant's violations, and suggested that the applicant be appropriately disciplined. His statements included the following: 5 • He had been a member of the Commission while the applicant had been in violation for about nine months; • The applicant's previous application before the Commission at its April 9, 2019, meeting had drawn an unusually high number of public members who all had testified against the application and then existing illegal signs; • At that meeting the Commissioners had commented, using words such as "unethical," on the applicant's refusal to file the application and their continued violation of the code; • At that meeting the Commissioners had unanimously rejected the application and had indicated that the offending signs had to be removed; • Since then the signs had eventually been removed, but banner signs had then been erected without permission in violation of the code, whose design differed from what was shown in the current proposal; • The issue here was the knowing, intentional and continued violation of the Sign Code, rather than whether the current application was appropriate or not; and, • He would suggest that the Commission make its decision contingent upon enforcement and adjudication by civil or criminal standards to appropriately discipline the applicant for the nine months of intentional violation that had offended the Commission, the citizens of Kona, and him personally. Ms. Newlon presented the proposal. She pointed out that the sign permit application erroneously indicated one wall sign fronting Kuakini Highway, which was in fact Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. She described the design elements of the proposed signs. She noted that the signs were consistent with the Sign Code, and that the applicant was not requesting a sign variance. She mentioned that she would rely on DPW's evaluation of the sign elevation, which appeared to be higher than the code restriction. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Ikeuchi, Ms. Newlon confirmed that each letter on the signs would individually be illuminated from the inside, with no illumination on the back panel. Commissioner Hetherington in answering Chairman Roth's inquiry said that the other signs on the same building were not illuminated. Chairman Roth called upon the applicant. Al Muro representing the sign company, Universal Signs, introduced himself. In addressing Mr. Van Pernis' comments, Mr. Muro stated that his understanding was that there had never been an official written violation notice to Planet Fitness, and that the previous tenant, Borders Books and Music ("Borders"), had had an even larger sign. Ms. Newlon commented that the sign variance allowing Borders' larger sign had been approved specific to Borders and could not be used by anyone else. Mr. Muro emphasized, however, that the proposed sign was smaller than Borders'. Regarding the sign elevation that Ms. Newlon had mentioned in her presentation, Mr. Muro stated that it was shown on the plans as being 20 feet, but that it could come down at 15 feet, if necessary. He explained that they were trying to center the sign to the facade, and that it would come close to the existing Coldwell Banker sign above. He also confirmed that each letter was proposed to be self-illuminated. Asked by Chairman Roth, he reconfirmed that the back panel would not be lit, and that only the letters and the logo would be illuminated. 6 Commissioner Smith asked if Universal Signs had been involved with the last signs that had had to be taken down. The applicant, Chase Villafana, introduced himself, and answered that it had been a different sign company. He stated that Planet Fitness had initially been advised that as long as the sign size matched the Borders variance, it would be approved, and that since that had not been true, they were trying to comply with the code and not seek a variance. Commissioner Kern asked who had given them such advice. Mr. Villafana responded that he did not want to mention the names, but that they were local consultants and expediters that Plant Fitness had hired. He agreed with Commissioner Kern that they had been ill-advised. Commissioner Smith brought to Mr. Muro's attention that the last signs had not had an electrical permit for the illumination. Asked by Commissioner Smith, Mr. Muro stated on the record that the applicant would obtain an electrical permit in order to illuminate the signs. Also asked by Commissioner Smith, Mr. Villafana confirmed that the three existing banners would be taken down when the new signs were put up. Chairman Roth opened the floor for discussion. Commissioner Ikeuchi commented that she was displeased with the applicant's justification that just because something had been approved decades ago, it should be grandfathered in. She said that especially because she had not been on the Commission then, she could disregard comparison with the past sign and focus on what was before the Commission now. She then asked the other commissioners' opinion about light shining on the sign or the sign being backlit, instead of each letter being individually illuminated from the inside. Commissioner Ching responded that in his opinion the proposed lighting method would be more subtle and classier. He also said that he had been quite annoyed by their unpermitted signs and would have filed a complaint himself, if Commissioner Hetherington and Mr. Van Pernis had not done so, especially because the applicant had previously talked about it with the Commission at the initial design review meeting and therefore had been aware of the requirement for sign permit; however, after having been faced with considerable opposition from the community, they had acknowledged their mistake and had come back with a more presentable application in trying to get it right, and because of that the Commission should look at their merit. Chairman Roth, in response to Commissioner Ikeuchi's question about the lighting methods, said that it would be difficult to have light shining on the signs because the building was large with no eaves near them, that the lighting fixture could actually make the signs more distracting, and that the purple letters would not be so bright as white, even if they were lit from the inside. Commissioner Crusat inquired about two different shades of the letter color being presented. Mr. Muro confirmed that the purple color as shown on the presentation copy was the true color. Ms. Newlon added that the color on the Commissioners' copies appeared more like fuchsia due to color copy quality. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Ikeuchi, Mr. Villafana stated that the business was open 24 hours a day. Commissioner Sullenberger commented that while the other businesses in the same building were open only during normal business hours and therefore did not need their signs lit, illumination would serve Planet Fitness better because they were open in the evening. Commissioner Ikeuchi agreed that it mattered to the applicant to have signs illuminated during their business hours. 7 It was moved by Commissioner Smith and seconded by Commissioner Ching that the Commission forward to the Director of DPW a recommendation for approval of the sign permit application as submitted, and note the requirement of an electrical permit to comply with the DPW requirements. There being no discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with seven ayes (Smith, Ching, Crusat, Hetherington, Ikeuchi, Kern and Sullenberger), no noes and one absent and excused (Werchick). ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS In consideration of Commissioner Sullenberger's earlier comment, Chairman Roth asked if the Commission wished to send DPW a letter asking them to clarify their sign area calculation method. Commissioner Hetherington expressed his willingness to draft the letter, and said he would communicate with staff about distribution and subsequent approval at a future meeting. Commissioner Smith said that the need for consistent interpretation should be noted, as well as the Commission's expectation of the attendance of Mr. Tanaka or another representative at future meetings for items concerning the Sign Code, which was not within the purview of the Planning Department. Commissioner Crusat commented that her issue was with approving sign variances because the rules and guidelines were there for a reason and the Commission should abide by them. Commissioners Kern and Ikeuchi expressed their agreement. Chairman Roth recapitulated the discussion that the Commission would send a letter to DPW specifically asking for clarification on and consistency in sign area measurement and also for attendance of its representative at Commission meetings for DPW-related items. ANNOUNCEMENTS Next meeting tentatively scheduled for August 6, 2019. Ms. Newlon stated that this tentative date had yet to be confirmed, and that staff would notify the Commissioners of upcoming schedule as confirmed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Roth adjourned the meeting at 6:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary ATTEST: Shaun Roth, Chairman Kailua Village Design Commission 8