Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-06 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I MINUTES Meeting Date: June 6, 2017 Time: 5:15 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: Peter Dahlberg, Alvin Akina, Jr., Theresa Andreae, Fanny Au Hoy, Ann Kern, Shaun Roth, Zon Sullenberger and Mark Van Pernis Planning Department: Terry Dunlap (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) Applicants/Representatives: Pauliasi Teutau Public: None A quorum was present. Chairman Dahlberg called the meeting to order and the Commissioners introduced themselves. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Meeting of March 21, 2017 Chairman Dahlberg 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 There was no one from the public who wished to provide statements regarding the agenda items. NEW BUSINESS 1. Proposing five (5) signs in three (3) locations on an existing three (3) story building on Walua Road. Note: existing building faces two (2) Rights-of-Way (Kuakini Highway & Walua Road) which allows signage for each road frontage. The proposal is as follows: 1) Two (2) wall signs @ 7.5 sq. ft. with 9 inch high letters. One (1) sign faces Walua Road and one (1) sign faces Kuakini Highway. 2) One (1) ground sign @ 8.7 sq. ft. facing Walua Road with a maximum letter size of nine (9) inch high letters. 1 3) Two (2) wall signs @ 3 sq. ft. with a maximum letter size of three (3) inch high letters. One (1) sign faces Walua Road and one (1) sign faces Kuakini Highway. Applicant: Nathan and Heather Cook Landowner: Ohia Lani LLC TMK: (3) 7-5-018: 097 Location: 75-5915 Walua Road, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Mr. Dunlap displayed some site photographs, and gave some background information on the subject property. He said that the Commission had forwarded to the Planning Director a recommendation for approval of the subject building and landscaping a few years ago, and that the property was currently ready for inspection for a certificate of occupancy. He described the proposed signs, and said that the property abutted two streets and therefore was entitled to the proposed number of signs. He noted that the applicant might have to relocate the ground sign slightly so as not to block the line of sight. The applicant’s representative, Pauliasi Teutau, displayed a sample of the signage letter material, and presented additional information. He confirmed that none of the proposed signs would have illumination. However, Commissioner Van Pernis expressed his concern about the wall-mounted light on the Walua Road front that was to illuminate the signs from above. Mr. Teutau stated that he was not sure of the wattage of that light, but that the applicant would be agreeable to limiting it to what the Commission might recommend. Commissioner Van Pernis suggested 40 watts; however, Commissioner Kern opined that that would be too dark to serve the purpose and Commissioner Roth commented that typically 50 watts was used just for landscaping purposes. Commissioner Roth further commented that it would be difficult to limit the luminance merely by a number of watts, and that he was fine with the proposal as is. In response to Commissioner Van Pernis’ further concern about glare from the light, Mr. Teutau stated that the applicant would ensure that the lighting fixture be positioned directly toward the signage. Commissioner Andreae stressed that the Commission’s concern was that the light might shine towards the road traffic. Mr. Teutau expressed his understanding and willingness to address the concern. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Roth, Mr. Teutau confirmed that the same lighting fixture on the Kuakini Highway façade was to light up the wall, and that no signs would be mounted directly underneath. In response to the Commissioners’ further questions, Mr. Teutau stated that the lights would be turned off at the end of the store hours, and that the store would not be open all night. Mr. Teutau displayed a temporary banner sign, which resembled the proposed ground sign in design and colors, and confirmed that the banner was larger than the ground sign. Commissioner Andreae commented that she liked the fun and festive look. Upon inquiry by the Commissioners, Mr. Teutau clarified that the ground level would be occupied by the Kona Town Market, which would be a take-out deli, the second floor would house other commercial businesses, and the third floor would be the owner’s residence. It was moved by Commissioner Andreae that the Commission forward to the Director of the Department of Public Works a recommendation for approval of the proposed signs as presented. Commissioner Van Pernis suggested that the motion be amended to include a condition of approval regarding the luminance, direction and hours of the exterior lighting. Commissioner 2 Roth opined that the type of lighting fixture the applicant had selected, which was an attractive non-adjustable downlight design, indicated their good intent. In addressing Commissioner Van Pernis’ concern about potential replacement in the future, Commissioner Roth noted that any exterior change would require another review by the Commission. Commissioner Sullenberger seconded Commissioner Andreae’s motion as is. There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with seven ayes (Andreae, Sullenberger, Akina, Au Hoy, Kern, Roth and Van Pernis). OLD BUSINESS 2. Discussion of letter from Department of Public Works regarding enforcement of the Sign Code within Kailua Village Special District. Chairman Dahlberg called on the Commissioners to peruse the subject letter dated April 5, 2017, from Frank J. De Marco, Director of the Department of Public Works (“Director”), in response to the Commission’s February 21, 2017, letter. He then opened the floor for discussion. Commissioner Van Pernis commented that the letter gave him the impression that the Director was saying that the Sign Code was being enforced and there was no problem. He said that he disagreed with the Director’s take on the situation, and that it would be a waste of time to have him in a Commission meeting. He then suggested that, if the Commission still wished to invite the Director, he be asked to bring a list of all sign permits issued within the Kailua Village Special District (“KVSD”), which would force him to acknowledge that the vast majority of the existing signs were not permitted. Commissioner Roth pointed out that the letter said that their practice was a complaint-driven enforcement system for all violations, including signs and structures, and that the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) did not have an enforcement section within the Building Division. Commissioner Andreae added that the Director was basically asking if the Commission would initiate complaints. Commissioner Van Pernis said that the Commission should still make sure that the Director recognize that there were lots of unpermitted signs in the KVSD, and that who would file complaints was a secondary matter. Chair Dahlberg opined that it was not the Commission’s role to file complaints. He said, however, that the Commission could take a photograph of signs and ask the Director if those particular signs were permitted, and if not, then it would become the Director’s job to get them in compliance. Commissioner Kern, referring to the sentence that stated, “Please advise if the commission would be interested in contacting property owners directly in order to educate and obtain compliance,” said that it seemed to her that the Commission was being asked to do his work for him. She also disagreed with Commissioner Van Pernis’ notion that having the Director in a meeting would be a waste of time, and said that the Director or his representative should meet with the Commission face to face to deal with this issue. Mr. Dunlap commented that the Commission should make it clear with him that the Commission’s responsibility was for the aesthetics of the KVSD. He suggested that rather than give the Director a way-out by overwhelming him with a request for a list of all the sign permits issued within the KVSD, a short stretch of Ali‘i Drive, namely between Palani Road and Hualālai Road, be used as statistics. He said that that would be an achievable goal for the Director, and that the data would more than likely demonstrate the signage problem throughout the KVSD. He added that that way 3 the Commissioners could make their point with the Director that they needed his help to make the Kailua Village beautiful. Commissioner Roth said that according to the Director’s letter, someone had to file a complaint in order to start the enforcement process, and therefore would basically be confronting the particular business owner. Chair Dahlberg noted that complaints could be filed anonymously, but that the complainant would not be informed of the enforcement progress. Commissioner Van Pernis said that the ordinance did not provide that enforcement was to take place upon a complaint, and that if the Commissioners were to ignore this issue, there was no reason for the Commission to exist. Chair Dahlberg pointed out that there was also a fairness issue where some business owners were following the required process to obtain permits, as exampled by the earlier agenda item, yet there were others who put up any signs anywhere without permits. Commissioners Roth and Sullenberger agreed that if the Commissioners were to take on the complainant’s role, they would have to be very careful to be fair, which would basically require them to turn in all businesses that were in violation. Commissioner Sullenberger further said he did not think that that would be the right path for the Commission. Commissioner Andreae suggested that a committee be formed together with public members who might be better suited for forewarning businesses. Commissioner Van Pernis said that he did not think it was the Commission’s job to warn the businesses, and that at present the Commission should write back to the Director, asking him to attend a meeting and be ready to present the data of sign permits in the area. He then offered to prepare a draft letter for the Commission to review. Commissioner Roth commented that rather than make work for the Director to prepare a list of the existing permits, which itself would not provide a solution, a better way might be to have a business organization, such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Kailua Village Business Improvement District (“KVBID”), talk with the businesses to create an environment where they would work with each other to get in compliance together. Mr. Dunlap reminded the Commissioners that the DPW had not accomplished the Sign Code amendment as directed by the County Council. He opined that it would be reasonable to invite the applicable councilmembers to a meeting and find out if they would support enforcing the Sign Code within the KVSD, if not county-wide. Chair Dahlberg commented that since the councilmembers were to support what their constituency supported, there was merit in Commissioner Roth’s point about involving the grass roots. Commissioner Kern said that the KVBID would be a good organization to involve since their interest was focused on the center of the Kailua Village and they had already done a lot to improve the appearance of the district. Commissioner Andreae mentioned that she had a friend in the KVBID whom she could speak to. She opined that regardless of the DPW’s current practice, the Commission should hold the Director to the ordinance, and that the Commission could assist him by enticing the KVBID or another private group to initiate the enforcement process. Commissioner Roth commented that if he were a business owner, he would rather be approached by the KVBID in a collaborative manner. Chair Dahlberg noted that the Commission should keep in mind that the KVBID might not share the Commission’s concern and/or might not be supportive of this effort. Commissioner Van Pernis said that as long as the current ordinance was in place, it should be enforced, and that it was a duty of the Commission to make sure that 4 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 ANNOUNCEMENTS Next meeting tentatively scheduled for June 20, 2017 Mr. Dunlap announced that with no applications to be agendized, the June 20, 2017, meeting was cancelled. He mentioned that he had been contacted by one applicant who might submit an application for the following meeting of July 5, 2017. Mr. Dunlap requested assistance in finding suitable candidates for the Commission. The secretary confirmed that presently one seat in the engineer/construction category was vacant due to a previous member’s resignation and six out of the other eight members were holding over beyond their respective term expirations. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Dahlberg adjourned the meeting at 6:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary A T T E S T: Peter Dahlberg, Chairman Kailua Village Design Commission 6