Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-08 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I MINUTES Meeting Date: January 8, 2019 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, Zon Sullenberger, Mark Van Pernis and Ann Kern (from 5:23 p.m.) Absent and Excused: Peter Dahlberg Planning Department: Deanne Bugado (Planner), Mark Krzyzanowski (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) Applicants/Representatives: Linda Schatz (until 7:25 p.m.) and Richard Vierra (until 7:25 p.m.) Public: None A quorum was present. Chairman Roth called the meeting to order and the Commissioners introduced themselves. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the Meetings of November 27, 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, Linda Schatz, is proposing a master signage plan for Niumalu MarketPlace, which includes sign variance for a number of the proposed signs in the master plan. This would allow future tenants to submit for new signs permits, as long as the proposed sign matches the size and color approved by the master sign plan without having to continually submit for Kailua Village Design Commission review. The proposal includes:  Four (4) Ground signs – Variance Proposed for Each 1 a. Niumalu ID/Tenant Directory – located at the corner of Queen Ka‘ahumanu and Henry Street b. 2-Sided ID/Directory – located at the corner of proposed Road “A” and Henry nd Street – 2 ground sign c. Gas Station Price Sign, 2-Sided – located along Henry Street in front of the Gas rd Station - 3 ground sign d. 2-Sided ID/Directory – located at the corner of proposed Road “B” and Henry th Street – 4 ground sign.  Anchor Building #4 – Variance Proposed for Each a. Safeway Tower ID Sign b. Bank, Pharmacy, Safeway (Main Store sign) & Starbucks  Gas Station signage – 2 signs - Safeway C-Store ID & Safeway Gas Canopy ID – Variance Proposed for Each  Typical Tenant Wall ID Signs – up to 2 signs per business designed to be compliant to KVDC sign requirements Landowner: Kona Owner, LLC TMK: (3) 7-5-004:007 Location: No Street Address Assigned Yet, parcel located the corner of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Henry Street. Ms. Bugado gave a PowerPoint presentation for the proposed master signage plan, in which variance requests were incorporated. She circulated the applicant’s color samples, and noted that the green color for the Starbucks logo was absent. She went over the Sign Code allowance for each type of signs proposed, and also provided some information on existing blanket variances for commercial centers in the neighborhood, such as Lanihau Center, Kopiko Plaza, Kona Coast Shopping Center, KBXtreme, and Century 21 All Islands Plaza. She further informed the Commission that all variances that had been applied by nearby gas stations had been either withdrawn by the applicants because of comments received during the review process or denied. Commissioner Van Pernis expressed his concern that the staff appeared to be advocating for the applicant by mentioning the existing variances in the area. Ms. Bugado responded that she had been requested to provide the information, and Chairman Roth and Commissioner Sullenberger also responded that they had separately requested her to include the information in her presentation so that the Commission could review the proposal in context. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Hetherington, Ms. Bugado said that the Commission could approve, deny or defer the proposed master plan, including the requested variances, either in full or in part. In response to Commissioner Van Pernis’ questions, she explained that the Commission’s role was to make a recommendation to the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) on any sign permit applications or master signage plans, and that by having an approved master signage plan in place, the tenants would not have to come in for review by the Commission as long as their signs were in compliance with the plan; however, each tenant would still have to apply for their own sign permit. Also in response to Commissioner Van Pernis’ question, she said that the terms “lot” and “parcel” appeared to be used interchangeably in the application document. She explained that the entire project was situated on one parcel of land, which allowed one ground sign for the project as a whole, and therefore, the applicant was requesting a variance for the three additional ground signs. 2 She further said that each tenant was entitled to two wall signs because the parcel had two street frontages, and that there would potentially be 40-plus tenant signs within the entire project. In response to Commissioner Hetherington’s question as to the Commission’s responsibility for the variance application, Ms. Bugado said that the Commission was to make a recommendation to DPW who would then forward it to the County Council for its final decision on the variance. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Crusat, Ms. Bugado said that more specific information about the variances for the surrounding developments was on the Department files, which were not available at the moment. She said that those variances could have played a role in amending the Sign Code to increase the maximum allowable sign size to 22 square feet for outside the Village Core in the Kailua Village Special District (“KVSD”). In response to Commissioner Hetherington’s question, she said that it was her understanding that signs that were not visible from a public roadway or walkway did not require a sign permit; however, she wanted to be sure that in the event any of the interior signs were to become visible from the roadways, they would be regulated by the master signage plan. Commissioner Van Pernis asked whether or not Century 21 All Island Plaza was in violation of the Sign Code, as there seemed to be too many signs on the building. Ms. Bugado responded that to her knowledge the existing variance was for the Century 21 tower sign only, and that she could not verify any potential violations. Chairman Roth asked whether or not the existing Safeway tower sign at the current store location, which was outside the KVSD, was in compliance with the Sign Code and permitted. Ms. Bugado responded that the existing Safeway signs had been permitted in June 2008, including the tower sign with the Safeway logo, and that it appeared as though no variances had been required for any of the signs. Ms. Linda Schatz introduced herself as the owner’s representative, and also introduced Mr. Richard Vierra as the signage and design consultant for the project. She drew the Commissioners’ attention to Sheet G-14 Section Thru Property & Building 1 of their submittal, and stated that only the Safeway tower would be visible from the highway because of the elevation drop. She further stated that although they were cautious of the allowable size and number of signs, they also had to consider the need for wayfinding, for which the sign size and placement were crucial. Mr. Vierra provided a clarification on Sheet G-16 Typical Tenant Sign Details, and stated that their proposal was to allow the tenants to use their logo and brand colors within the allowance of the KVSD guidelines. In response to Chairman Roth’s question on Sheet G-14, as well as Sheet G-13 View from Queen K. Hwy, Ms. Schatz said that depending on where the cross section was or the viewpoint was, the perspective drawing would look different. Commissioner Sullenberger commented that the presentation on those sheets seemed accurate based on the 20-foot grade from north to south of the property; he said that it was likely a view from the perspective of southbound travelers. In response to Commissioner Van Pernis’ observation that Sheet G-14 still did not seem accurate, Ms. Schatz said that there would be a fence with additional planting near the property line before the elevation drop. Mr. Vierra also pointed out that the drawing was not in scale. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Pernis, Mr. Vierra said that the ground sign at the intersection of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Henry Street would be at the same elevation as the highway, and that a variance was requested for the size but not for the location. 3 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 therefore, the concept of master plan had always been supported by the Commission. Commissioner Van Pernis pointed out that the Commission had been able to better evaluate the Kuakini Shopping Center signage plan because the complex had already existed. He said that at least the grading should be completed before the Commission could consider the signage plan. Commissioner Hetherington commented that there should still be a balance in terms of the timing for the benefit of the business community.  Four Ground Signs Commissioner Van Pernis expressed his willingness to support the ground signs, provided that the rest of the application was deferred. Commissioner Sullenberger said that he was not in favor of the gas station price sign, Sign GR-ID-3, because it seemed excessive in relation to the other gas station signs in the KVSD. He suggested that the sign be modified by reducing the size, as well as the gasoline price information. He also opined that this type of sign should be located in the interior of the property, rather than along Henry Street. Ms. Bugado noted that the main ground sign, Sign GR-ID-1, at the intersection of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Henry Street, would indicate the gas station along with a gasoline price. Commissioner Crusat commented that the number of signs was also excessive. Commissioner Ching disagreed and said that the signs were for marketing purposes, and therefore, he was fine with the number of signs so long as they were tastefully done. Commissioner Crusat said, and Commissioner Ikeuchi agreed, that it was not the Commission’s responsibility to consider the applicant’s marketing in this review. Commissioner Van Pernis suggested that Sign GR-ID-1 be moved down to where it would not distract the motorists on Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway. Questioned by Chairman Roth, Commissioner Van Pernis said he would support three signs with no signs facing Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway, while Commissioners Crusat, Ikeuchi and Hetherington recommended two signs. Commissioner Hetherington spoke of the ground sign of the adjacent Lanihau Center, and pointed out that once people had learned where things were, they no longer paid attention to signs. Commissioner Sullenberger said that, further, the Lanihau Center ground sign only indicated the center without tenant names. Commissioner Hetherington commented that the design was appealing, which was echoed by other commissioners. Commissioner Ikeuchi said that she particularly liked the rock design element that seemed to make the project appear more high-end. The consensus among the Commissioners was that Sign GR-ID-3 should be removed or relocated, and that the number of signs should be reduced to two. Commissioner Van Pernis, however, said that his preference was to remove or relocate Sign GR-ID-1 and Sign GR-DIR-1.4 at the corner of proposed Road B. Chairman Roth commented that Sign GR-ID-1 was probably the main sign for the project. Commissioner Hetherington opined that Sign GR-DIR-1.4 and Sign GR-DIR-1.2 at the corner of proposed Road A were most important, as they would indicate the entryway to the project from the public street. Commissioner Ikeuchi pointed out that those signs were without the rock design element, which the Commission was in favor of. The Commissioners discussed and agreed that the Sign GR-ID-1 design as presented on Sheet G-2, including one gasoline price, could be used for these two entryway locations, except that the sign size should be reduced to 50 square feet 5 maximum with a maximum height of five feet. Ms. Bugado noted that the applicant might have to adjust the exact locations in order to meet the traffic view plane requirement. Chairman Roth summarized the consensus of the Commission that the number of signs should be reduced to two to be located at the corners of proposed Road A and Road B, and that the design should be according to the specifications on Sheet G-2, excepting the size, which should be reduced to 50 square feet maximum with a maximum height of five feet.  Anchor Building #4 Commissioner Hetherington commented that the Anderson Wealth sign facing Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway had been approved for a larger size because of the rate of traffic on the highway, and that the sign was visible even though it was smaller than the proposed tower sign; therefore, with the conspicuous red and white colors of the Safeway logo, the tower sign should still be noticeable if reduced to five feet in height. Commissioner Sullenberger expressed his agreement to the reduction rate. Upon inquiry by Chairman Roth, Ms. Bugado said that the existing Safeway logo sign was ten square feet. Chairman Roth, mentioning the large Citgo sign in Boston, said that a sign at a certain size would become a billboard, and that the Commission should question whether this tower sign was still a sign or a billboard. He further commented that the existing Safeway logo sign, which was smaller and farther away from Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway, was still visible from the highway. He also expressed his concern that not only was the sign oversized but also illuminated. In response to Commissioner Hetherington’s question, Ms. Bugado said that the other signs on Building #4 were facing the interior of the project; however, at the proposed sizes and locations and with the absence of mature landscaping, they could be visible from Henry Street. Commissioner Hetherington commented that the tenant signs in the Kona Coast Shopping Center were set farther back from the street and still functioning as a marketing tool. Commissioner Sullenberger referred the Commission to Sheet G-17 Elevations Building 4, and said that the reduction of the sign sizes should be done in relation to the size of the building so that there was a good balance. Concerns were expressed by the Commissioners about the plain white background of the Safeway and the pharmacy signs shown on the elevation drawing. Ms. Schatz apologized and clarified that the color number notations on the sheet were from their architectural review application and therefore were not meant to refer to the color table in the current application. Ms. Bugado displayed the architectural plans on the presentation screen, and confirmed that the Commission had approved wooden slats surface for the particular areas of the building. Chairman Roth expressed his concern about the perforated black letters turning white at night. In response to the Commissioner Hetherington’s suggestion to use warmer L.E.D., Mr. Vierra stated that that would make the letters look gray. Chairman Roth summarized the consensus of the Commission that the Safeway logo on the tower and above the storefront should both be reduced to 10 square feet, that the storefront signs should proportionately be reduced in size, that the logo location for the tower sign was acceptable, and that an example of what the night color would look like should be presented. 6  Gas Station Signage Commissioners Sullenberger said that he was inclined to accept the sign locations, but that the sizes seemed excessive. Commissioners Hetherington and Ikeuchi also expressed their support for the proposed locations of the sings. Commissioner Crusat commented that the code allowance of 22 square feet seemed adequate. During discussion on the allowable number of signs Mr. Vierra clarified that since two of the four signs would face the interior and would not require a sign permit, they were applying for two signs, which was allowable under the Sign Code. Chairman Roth summarized the consensus of the Commission that for both signs the proposed locations were acceptable, but that the sizes should be reduced to comply with the Sign Code.  Typical Tenant Wall ID Signs Commissioner Hetherington expressed his concern that the proposal would allow any color of tenant’s brand. He suggested that there should be a specific color theme or else the tenants should have to come in and get approval from the Commission. Ms. Bugado noted that the Kuakini Shopping Center master plan included more specifics, such as font, color and location for tenant signs, whereas the proposed master plan was simply requiring their tenants to comply with the KVSD guidelines. Commissioner Sullenberger also commented that this proposal seemed to be asking to allow their tenants to put up any signs that were deemed consistent with the KVSD guidelines in their opinion, which would in effect eliminate the developer’s control, as well as the Commission review process; therefore, it would actually be riskier than having no master plan. Commissioner Van Pernis spoke of the Kentucky Fried Chicken project that the Commission had reviewed in the past where the applicant had toned down their brand colors of red and white in order to meet the guidelines; he said that he did not have a problem with the red and white colors for the Safeway signs, but that the other tenant signs should use earthy tones according to the guidelines. Chairman Roth said that the plan as proposed did not specify colors at all, and that the Commission should first consider whether or not colors should be specified as part of the master plan. Commissioner Ching noted that if tenant logos were to be allowed, they would come in various colors. Commissioner Van Pernis commented that his recollection of the existing Safeway signs are red and cream, rather than red and white, along with the apparent color scheme of the entire shopping center. Commissioner Hetherington responded that the cream color might just be a result of the white paint being weathered. Commissioner Sullenberger said that considering the Commission’s past decisions where the uniqueness of tenant signs had also been supported, the question might be whether the Commission wished to have colors specified in the master plan or to have each tenant sign come in for review. Chairman Roth said that the benefit of having a master plan was to allow tenants to bypass the Commission review, if they chose to follow the master plan; otherwise, they would also have the option of submitting their proposed signs for review. Commissioner Crusat commented that the applicant should come up with a sign package for the entire project with the basics, such as colors and sizes, and that there should also be some consideration for the surrounding residents because of the property’s close proximity to the residential neighborhood. Commissioner Ikeuchi expressed her agreement, and said that individuality and creativity was understandable for small businesses, but that she would like to see uniformity for a project of this scale and to be able to review deviations as they come. 7 Ms. Schatz drew the Commissioners’ attention to Sheet G-1A Overall Site Plan Tenant Sign Locations, and said that the green color indicated the signs that would be facing the interior of the project and therefore would not require a sign permit. Ms. Bugado advised the applicant to be cautious about the determination because any of those signs could become visible from the public right-of-way at one point, in which case having a master plan in place would expedite the permitting process so long as the sign was consistent with the master plan. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Hetherington, Ms. Bugado clarified that the proposed Road B directly across from Alahou Street was a private driveway to the project rather than a public right-of-way. Chairman Roth summarized the consensus of the Commission that a font and color scheme should be included in the proposed master plan, and that tenants who wished to diverge from it should submit their individual proposal to the Commission for review and approval.  Motion Upon inquiry by Commissioner Hetherington, Ms. Bugado explained that a denial action by the Commission would not stop the application process with DPW, and that another option for the Commission would be to defer action with specific recommendations for the applicant to address in their revised proposal. It was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Ching that the Commission defer action until the applicant can revise the proposal to address the Commission’s recommendations as follows:  Four Ground Signs: The number of signs be reduced to two; the signs be located at the corners of proposed Road A and Road B; the size of the signs be reduced to 50 square feet maximum with a maximum height of five feet; and the design be as presented on Sheet G-2.  Anchor Building #4: The tower sign be reduced in size to ten square feet with the Safeway logo approximately 3.5 feet in diameter; the Safeway logo on the front elevation be also reduced in size to ten square feet, or approximately 3.5 feet in diameter, and the size of Safeway name be reduced proportionate to the logo reduction; the applicant provide a rendering with the correct background material; and the bright white color be modified to a creamy white color or a warmer L.E.D. be used, and the applicant provide a nighttime visualization sample.  Gas Station Signage: The overall sign area of the canopy sign be reduced to no longer require a variance; but that the font and icon size be allowed a variance to match the existing variance approved for the Lanihau Center.  Typical Tenant Wall ID Signs: The applicant submit a font type and color palette that the Commission can approve for the signs of future tenants. There being no discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and motion carried with six ayes (Hetherington, Ching, Crusat, Ikeuchi, Kern and Sullenberger), no noes, and one absent and excused (Dahlberg). Commissioner Van Pernis abstained. Note: Ms. Schatz and Mr. Vierra requested to be excused at 7:25 p.m. in order to catch their return flight. Although they left the meeting prior to the conclusion of discussion and the subsequent 8 action, they agreed with Chairman Roth that they had heard the main points and concerns raised by the Commission. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Election of Officers for 2019. Chairman Roth opened the floor for nominations. Commissioner Hetherington nominated Chairman Roth for chairman. There being no further nominations, Commissioner Van Pernis made a motion to close nominations. Chairman Roth closed nominations and his nomination was unanimously supported by a voice vote. Chairman Roth accepted the position of chairperson for 2019. Commissioner Hetherington expressed his willingness to serve as vice chairperson. Chairman Roth nominated him for vice chairperson. There being no further nominations, Commissioner Van Pernis made a motion to close nominations. Chairman Roth closed nominations. Commissioner Hetherington was elected vice chairperson for 2019 by a unanimous voice vote. ANNOUNCEMENTS Next meeting tentatively scheduled for January 22, 2019. Ms. Bugado announced that the January 22, 2019, meeting was cancelled since there were no applications to be placed on the agenda, and that the Commission’s recognition dinner was now scheduled for that date with details still being worked out. Mr. Krzyzanowski introduced himself as new planner, and was welcomed by the Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chairman Roth adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary A T T E S T: Shaun Roth, Chairman Kailua Village Design Commission 9