Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-27 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I MINUTES Meeting Date: November 27, 2018 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: Shaun Roth, Bryant Ching, Jasmine Crusat, John Hetherington, Michaela Ikeuchi, Ann Kern, Zon Sullenberger and Mark Van Pernis Absent and Excused: Peter Dahlberg Planning Department: Deanne Bugado (Planner), Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) and Bennett Mark (Planning Program Manager, from 5:22 p.m.) Applicants/Representatives: None Public: None A quorum was present. Chairman Roth called the meeting to order and the Commissioners introduced themselves. The tentative meeting schedule for next year was distributed to the Commissioners. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Meetings of October 23, 2018 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 There was no one from the public in attendance. NEW BUSINESS 1. The applicant, Jennifer Nguyen, is proposing a sign for Volcano Grill & Bar at the Ali‘i Sunset Plaza, formerly the location of Island Lava Java. The proposal includes (1) 8 square foot tenant wall sign with max letter and logo height of 9”. 1 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 It was moved by Commissioner Sullenberger and seconded by Commissioner Ching that the Commission forward to the Director of Public Works a recommendation for approval of the sign permit application as submitted, with the additional allowance that a second sign would be allowed on the internal passageway side of the location at the address specified in the application. The Commissioners in unison clarified that the second location would be on the south side that would allow good visibility to motorists. Chairman Roth also offered clarification on the Commission’s intent that the second sign would have to match the proposed sign in size and design in order for the Commission review to be waived. Per Commissioner Van Pernis’ suggestion, Commissioner Sullenberger accepted the clarification and amended his motion as such. Commissioner Ching sustained his second to the motion as amended. There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and motion carried with seven ayes (Sullenberger, Ching, Crusat, Hetherington, Ikeuchi, Kern and Van Pernis) and one absent and excused (Dahlberg). ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS None. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Mark announced that the Commission’s annual recognition dinner was being planned to take place in January. The consensus among the Commissioners in attendance was that it be preferably scheduled for a regular meeting date, if the meeting was to be cancelled due to no applications. Next meeting tentatively scheduled for December 11, 2018. Ms. Bugado announced that the regularly scheduled December 11, 2018, meeting was cancelled since there were no applications to be placed on the agenda, and that the next tentative date was January 8, 2019. Commissioner Hetherington informed the Commission that he had been advised that if anyone would like to complain about the signs that Planet Fitness \[at the intersection of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Henry Street\] had installed, he/she should file a complaint with the DPW. Ms. Bugado noted that the Commission had reviewed their exterior renovation project, but not their sign permit request. Commissioner Van Pernis said that he would like to hear a motion that the Chairman on behalf of the Commission issue a letter to DPW. Chairman Roth responded that he was not in favor of taking up this case as Commission business at this time since the Commission had already held many discussions and issued a letter regarding Sign Code enforcement in the recent past, and also since any individual, including the Commission members, could file a complaint. Mr. Mark informed the Commission that he had sent messages to the DPW chief regarding those signs, and that they were investigating the alleged violation. Ms. Bugado added that having a formal complaint filed would help urge action on DPW’s part. Mr. Mark also reminded the Commissioners that in order for them to discuss the matter, it had to be placed on a future meeting agenda. Commissioner Van Pernis expressed his desire to agendize the matter and have a representative from DPW explain its enforcement practice since apparently nothing had been done. 3 Commissioner Van Pernis also questioned about Planet Fitness not being in compliance with the Commission’s recommendation regarding uniformed exterior paint color. Commissioner Sullenberger noted that exterior painting might not happen, if the proposed lanai enclosure was abandoned, which had not been commenced yet. In response Ms. Bugado clarified that the applicant’s first building permit only covered their interior renovation, which was underway, and that she was not sure of the status of their second building permit application, which was for the exterior work including the lanai enclosure. Commissioner Hetherington from his experience as an architect said that the building permit application process, especially for commercial buildings, could take a long time. Commissioner Van Pernis said he would withdraw his request to agendize the matter for now, but that he would renew it, if nothing was done in a foreseeable future. Commissioner Hetherington offered to track the progress. Commissioner Van Pernis commented that the Commission’s effort would be wasted, if nobody paid attention to its recommendations. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Roth adjourned the meeting at 5:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary A T T E S T: Shaun Roth, Chairman Kailua Village Design Commission 4