HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-03-05 Kailua Village Design Commission Minutes
KAILUA VILLAGE DESIGN COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I
MINUTES
Meeting Date: March 5, 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, Riley Smith, Zon Sullenberger,
Mark Van Pernis and Ann Kern (from 5:31 p.m.)
Planning Department: Bennett Mark (Planning Program Manager), Deanne Bugado
(Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary)
Applicants/Representatives: Andrea Brown and Jim Matabishop (New Business Item No. 1);
Linda Schatz and Richard Vierra (New Business Item No. 2 and
Old Business Item No. 1)
Public: Arne Werchick
A quorum was present. Chairman Roth called the meeting to order and the Commissioners
introduced themselves.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Meetings of January 8, 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
None.
NEW BUSINESS
1. The applicant, Andrea Brown, is proposing a sign variance application for a
14.33 square foot wall sign for Fun Factory at the Kona Coast Shopping Center, located
at the corner of Queen Kaʻahumanu Highway and Palani Road. The proposal includes
one (1) 16” by 129” aluminum/acrylic tenant wall sign with maximum letter height of
16”. The proposed wall sign exceeds existing Variance No. 4, approved by the Planning
Commission on September 27, 1990, which allowed a maximum height of 12” for the
parallel signs used by tenants, and a maximum square footage of 22 square feet.
1
Therefore, the applicant has submitted an application for a Variance from the sign
code, Chapter 3, for the height of the letters to be 16”. The sign would be constructed
of individual letters with red translucent acrylic faces on aluminum frames with gold
trim cap returns (sides of letters) painted using “Barbary Gold Metallic” satin finish.
Landowner: Lili‘uokalani Trust Estate
TMK: (3) 7-4-015:001
Location: 74-5586 Palani Road, Suite 24-27, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
In her PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Bugado clarified the subject location within the Kona Coast
Shopping Center (“KCSC”). She described the proposed sign, and said that each individual
letter would directly be mounted onto the building wall itself. She said that there were a number
of variances for the KCSC, including ones specific to the two anchor stores, that the latest one
issued in 1990, which encompassed all of the variances, allowed the letter height to be twelve
inches for the interior tenants, and that, therefore, the applicant was requesting a further variance
for the letter height to be 16 inches.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Pernis, Ms. Bugado confirmed that there was currently no
variance to allow the interior store signs to have letters higher than twelve inches, and that none
of the existing variances included provisions about color.
In response to Chairman Roth’s question about the square footage of the sign, Ms. Bugado
explained that the initial application had come in with twelve-inch letter height; however, the
applicant had since found out that they could apply for a variance and opted to increase it to
16 inches. She said that the sign permit application form was prepared correctly based on the
16-inch letter height, but the square footage on the drawings seemed to be inadvertently left
uncorrected. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Smith, Ms. Bugado said her understanding was
that the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) determined the square footage by making a
polygon around the letters in the absence of sign backing.
In response to Commissioner Ikeuchi’s question, Ms. Bugado clarified that the proposed
129-inch length did not require a variance since the total sign area did not exceed the allowable
22 square feet.
Commissioner Van Pernis pointed out that the photograph in the application showed the business
name in two lines as opposed to the lineal design as proposed. Ms. Bugado responded that the
photograph was of the letters being manufactured, and that they would be mounted in a single
line.
The applicant, Andrea Brown, stated that she had nothing else to present.
Commissioner Van Pernis opined that a variance should be requested for the proposed colors as
well since they were not consistent with the Kailua Village guidelines. He said, however, that he
would not object to the colors, if the letter size were to be reduced to be comparable to the other
interior signs. Commissioner Hetherington also said that the Commission should stay with the
rules as much as possible instead of potentially setting a precedent, especially since Fun Factory
was so famous that in his opinion the extra four inches should not make a difference in terms of
business. Commissioner Smith said that it was important that the Commission support the
2
businesses in the Kailua Village, and that from his 40-year residency on O‘ahu he was very
familiar with the Fun Factory logo and how popular their business was. He expressed his
support of the application, and said that the sign as proposed, with the 16-inch high letters in the
area of 14 square feet, would not be out of character for the KCSC. Commissioner Van Pernis
disagreed and said that because this was Kona and not O‘ahu, abiding by the guidelines was
more important. Further, he agreed with Commissioner Hetherington’s opinion that additional
four inches would not make any difference. Commissioner Crusat also agreed saying that the
letter height should remain within the twelve-inch allowance. She also said that she was fine
with the colors because people related Fun Factory with those colors.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Ching, Ms. Brown said that the sign would cost about
5,000 dollars to make, and that it had yet to be made since they were still going through this
approval process. She also confirmed that the photograph in the application was just to show an
example. Commissioner Van Pernis commented that even if they had already put the money in
the sign, the Commission’s review should not be influenced by the cost that they had voluntarily
incurred.
Commissioner Smith said that although the font sizes on some of the other signs in the KCSC
were smaller, the total illuminated areas were bigger because of the back-lit backgrounds;
therefore, in his opinion the appearance of the illuminated 16-inch letters with no such
background would be smaller than those other signs. Commissioner Ikeuchi commented that the
illumination for the proposed sign should not exceed the other signs.
Chairman Roth questioned the applicant’s reason for the variance, which was their need to be
visible. He said that the other tenants had not expressed the need beyond the existing variance.
Mr. Matabishop, introducing himself as district manager for the outer islands, responded that it
was because he did often hear from the customers that they had a hard time finding the store, and
that while they were trying to stay within the look of the community, they wanted the sign to be
big enough for the travelers on Palani Road to be able to find the store. In response to
Commissioner Van Pernis’ question, he said that a bigger sign would be safer for motorists who
might look for the store while driving. Commissioner Van Pernis also asked whether
Mr. Matabishop was a resident of Kona; he answered that he resided in Hilo.
Commissioner Sullenberger commented that the red color was acceptable to him, but that the
size should not exceed the current allowance. He opined that the illuminated red color would be
visible enough, and that people had to look for the store only once and it would not be long
before everybody learned the location. Chairman Roth pointed out that the twelve-inch letter
height seemed to be workable to the applicant since their drawings had initially been prepared as
such.
It was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Kern that the
Commission recommend denial of the variance for the letter height but recommend approval of
the sign as proposed with a reduction of the letter height to twelve inches.
Commissioner Smith said that he was fine with any decision reached by the Commission, but
that he wanted to make sure that the applicant was treated equitably with the others. In response
to Commissioner Van Pernis’ comment that the Commission should go by rules rather than by
3
equity, Commissioner Smith expounded that if the Commission was going to hold this applicant
to the rules, it should be consistent with the other businesses. He then asked staff to do some
research and report back whether or not the other interior shops were meeting the twelve-inch
requirement. Chairman Roth, recognizing that treating all the tenants equitably was important,
apprised Commissioner Smith of the Commission’s endeavor with the ongoing issue of
compliance and enforcement throughout the Kailua Village.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Hetherington, Ms. Bugado clarified that the applicant was
requesting a variance from the Sign Code, for which the County Council was the final decision
maker, and so it was correct for the motion to say, “recommend.”
There being no further discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried
with eight ayes (Hetherington, Kern, Ching, Crusat, Ikeuchi, Smith, Sullenberger and
Van Pernis) and no noes.
2. The applicant, Linda Schatz, is proposing a revision to Niumalu MarketPlace, which
was previously reviewed by the KVDC at its November 21, 2017 and March 6, 2018,
meetings. This submission has taken out the central gathering space tower and replaced
the area with additional landscaping including large and medium play boulders. The
proposed redesign will also extend and connect the trellis of the buildings.
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, and described the proposed change to the
previously reviewed design. She said that the originally proposed tower in the central gathering
space would be eliminated and replaced with additional landscaping and play boulders, and that
the two bordering buildings would be connected by extended trellises. Commissioner
Hetherington pointed out that the rendering showed a covering that looked like shade cloth on
one side of the trellis and not on the other. Ms. Bugado responded that there was no other
indication of trellis covering within the application, but that the applicant had to explain.
The applicant, Linda Schatz, said that she was representing the owner, Kona Owner LLC. She
said that the revised design as opposed to the original tall tower would open up the area and
create a place for people to actually gather. She further said that they also wanted to provide a
place for children to come and play by incorporating beautiful boulders that they had discovered
during the grading, as well as a canopy tree to shade the area. She added that they would
eventually come in with a furniture proposal, as their plan was to also provide seating areas for
people. In response to Commissioner Hetherington’s earlier question, she said that it was just a
drawing blunder, and that the sidewalk would have shade and sunlight through the trellises with
no additional cover.
Commissioner Ikeuchi expressed her approval, and said that she in particular liked the idea of
providing additional landscaping and an area for children to play, which she found refreshing.
Chairman Roth agreed, and said that the tower would have been a little imposing whereas the
revised design would make the area more functional as a gathering place.
4
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Smith, Ms. Bugado confirmed that the application was for a
design review in order to revise their Plan Approval and Building Permit, which currently
included the tower.
It was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Crusat that the
Commission recommend to the Planning Director approval of the proposed project as submitted.
There being no discussion on the motion, a roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with
eight ayes (Hetherington, Crusat, Ching, Ikeuchi, Kern, Smith, Sullenberger and Van Pernis) and
no noes.
OLD BUSINESS
1. The applicant, Linda Schatz, has submitted revisions to the proposed a master signage
plan for Niumalu MarketPlace, reviewed by KVDC at the January 8, 2019 meeting.
Proposed Signs includes:
Two (2) Ground signs – Variance Proposed for Each
a. Niumalu ID/Tenant Directory – located at the corner of Queen Ka‘ahumanu
and Henry Street
b. Gas Station Price Sign, 2-Sided – located along Henry Street in front of the Gas
Station
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.
In her PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Bugado reviewed the requirements under the Sign Code and
the Kailua Village guidelines, and went over the proposed revisions against the original proposal.
With respect to the typical tenant sign details on Sheet G-9, she said that the DPW plan reviewer
had advised her that the total area of the background with the Hawaiian motif where it said
“varies” be specified with a minimum and a maximum allowance; according to the plan
reviewer, although the background would not be considered part of the sign itself, it was
considered a design area that should provide some specifications.
Commissioner Smith, noting he had not been on board for the previous discussion, asked which
signs were to have backlight versus direct light. Ms. Bugado deferred to the applicant, but
mentioned that to her knowledge both the storefront sign and the tower logo for Safeway would
be backlit and the gasoline prices would have the digital lighting. Also in response to
Commissioner Smith’s questions, she said that the Lanihau Center variance did not apply to the
5
subject project but was used by the Commission as the point of reference so that the applicant
would not be further restricted, and that whether the sign permit waiver provision in the Sign
Code was applicable or not was being discussed with DPW, since there was a more restrictive
provision in the Kailua Village Special District section of the Sign Code requiring any sign in the
district to be permitted, regardless of whether the sign was visible or not visible from a public
right-of-way. She added that the staff wanted to make sure that the master sign plan covered all
the signs just in case.
Mr. Richard Vierra, the graphic designer for the project, presented the proposed revisions. His
presentation included the following:
Sheet G-1: The number of signs was reduced to two as recommended. They were
proposing sign locations that differed from the Commission recommendation.
Sheet G-1A: It showed which signs would or would not need a sign permit based on the
visibility from a public right-of-way, but the matter was still up for discussion.
Sheet G-2: The main ground sign was now proposed to be on top of the lava rock
retaining wall at the corner of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Henry Street,
perpendicular to the highway; therefore, it would be visible mostly from the northbound
traffic and the visual impact to the southbound traffic would be minimal.
Sheet G-3 (2 sheets): The second ground sign was proposed to be located along Henry
Street by the gas station. They were submitting two design options, Option A and Option
B, both with a reduced size and a single column for LED lit gas prices.
Sheet G-4: The Safeway logo on the tower was reduced to approximately ten square feet
as recommended.
Sheet G-5: It showed a section through property and the highway, reflecting the reduced
Safeway logo on the tower.
Sheet G-6: The Safeway logo was reduced in height to 24 inches for both signs, as
opposed to the recommended twelve inches. The overall sign area was significantly
reduced for the canopy but slightly increased for the C-store.
Sheet G-7: The Safeway logo was reduced to approximately four-foot diameter, which
was about six inches longer than recommended. The lettering was reduced
proportionally, as recommended, making the total sign area smaller.
Sheet G-8: The Starbucks logo was reduced in size to match the Safeway logo on the
tower. No change was made to the Pharmacy logo. The bank sign indicating Bank of
Hawai‘i, while it was still undetermined which bank would be the tenant, was reduced in
height but increased in length.
Sheet G-10: As requested, photographs were included to show Safeway’s perforated
vinyl signs appearing black during the day and white at night.
Sheet G-9: They were proposing a standard background design with Hawaiian motif for
typical tenant signs, but still with allowance for tenant’s individual logotype and colors.
The size restrictions included a nine-inch height maximum on letters and logos,
22 square feet maximum for the designated tenant sign area, the height of the standard
background at 18 inches or less, and the length and hence the total area variable. The
prohibitions and restrictions under the Sign Code and the Kailua Village guidelines were
also listed.
6
Commissioner Crusat commented that approving larger signs and quantities of signs would
change the atmosphere in Kona the way that did not go with the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona.
She asked why signs within the code allowances would not be adequate for the buildings that
were built in accordance with the code. Mr. Vierra responded that the main ground sign at the
corner of Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway and Henry Street was most important for the project in
order to get the best exposure to the traffic, and that the second ground sign was a desire of the
tenant wishing for gasoline pricing display along Henry Street. Ms. Schatz also responded that
the project was very large and complicated with multiple buildings, and that they were trying to
balance what was optimal for the community and what was good for the tenants from a business
standpoint. She said further that she hoped that the proposed revisions showed that they were
trying to dial back. Commissioner Crusat said that her point was also that it was a very large
project; people would not miss it even without bigger signs. Ms. Schatz responded that the
ground sign on the prominent corner was for the center as a whole to indicate its presence not
only to local residents but also to visitors who were new to the area, and that people might drive
on past the project without the noticeable sign, as the buildings lay low because of the elevation
drop and their vision to preserve the ocean view from the streets instead of building up high.
As they began discussion, Chairman Roth suggested that the Commissioners limit their
discussions to the way that the applicant had addressed the Commission’s concerns.
Commissioner Van Pernis moved that the Commission recommend approval of the application
as presented with the following exceptions: 1) No variance be granted for the lettering on the gas
station signage and the letter height be limited to nine inches; and 2) the red and white colors
shown on Sheet T-2 be limited to Safeway signs and signs of other tenants who use those colors
consistently in their brand name. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion for discussion.
Commissioner Sullenberger pointed out for clarification that the Commission was agreeable to
twelve-inch high letters for the canopy sign to be consistent with Lanihau Center’s variance
allowance. Commissioner Van Pernis amended his motion to state twelve inches instead of nine
inches. The Commission had the following discussions:
Ground Signs
Chairman Roth summarized that as recommended by the Commission, the number of signs was
reduced to two and the sign area was reduced to less than 50 square feet with the height of the
signage elements less than five feet; however, the sign locations differed from the
recommendation.
Commissioner Hetherington commented that he was not in favor of the gasoline price being on
the main sign GR-ID-1. Ms. Bugado reiterated that the Commission had recommended that the
gas station sign with multiple gasoline prices be eliminated, and that the design with one gasoline
price had been the choice of the Commission.
Commissioner Hetherington noted that according to the Sign Code, signage was not supposed to
be a product advertisement. Ms. Bugado said that in her research she had not been able to find
any sign variances approved for gas stations in the area; they had been either denied or
withdrawn. Commissioner Sullenberger spoke of the signs of nearby gas stations, and concluded
that there was no consistency in the number of gasoline prices displayed and the locations of
those sign.
7
In response to Commissioner Hetherington’s question, Ms. Bugado clarified that aside from
GR-ID-1 with one gasoline price, the applicant was submitting two design options for the second
ground sign GR-ID-3 as shown on Sheet G-3. Commissioner Hetherington said that considering
the traffic and traveling speed on Queen Ka‘ahumanu Highway, he was fine with GR-ID-1;
however, he was not in favor of GR-ID-3 with the multiple gasoline prices. Chairman Roth
commented that the gasoline price sign was probably one of the most important signs for
Safeway, as he suspected that the gas station was the major reason for moving the store site.
Commissioner Hetherington, mentioning that the Commission would not want to hurt their
business, said that he would vote for Option B. Chairman Roth agreed. Mr. Vierra then
presented a modified Option A incorporating lava rock in the design, which he had prepared later
based on the meeting minutes. Commissioner Hetherington said that the modified design would
be his preference over the first two, which was also the consensus among the other
Commissioners.
Commissioner Van Pernis amended his motion to include that the Commission recommend the
third option, Option A with lava rock, for GR-ID-3.
Anchor Building #4
Chairman Roth summarized that the tower sign was reduced to three and a half feet in diameter
while the storefront logo did not appear to meet the recommendation, and that renderings of the
correct wooden slats background were provided as requested, as well as the nighttime effect of
the perforated black vinyl letters.
In response to Chairman Roth’s question, Mr. Vierra said that when he had reduced the
storefront Safeway logo and lettering as recommended, it had looked too small, and that from a
designer standpoint the proposed size was more proportional to the architecture. He further said
that the signs would also be less prominent because of the wooden slats background.
Commissioner Smith asked the applicant if requesting a larger logo without the name “Safeway”
had ever been a consideration, as people would recognize certain businesses just by their logos
and also the applicant would then be less out of compliance. Mr. Vierra replied no, and said that
they were following Safeway’s brand guideline book.
Gas Canopy and C-Store Signs
Chairman Roth summarized that the canopy sign area was reduced to no longer require a
variance, but with the logo height still exceeding the variance allowance for Lanihau Center.
Upon inquiry by Chairman Roth, Ms. Bugado confirmed that the variance allowance for the logo
was twelve inches.
Mr. Vierra explained that just like the Safeway storefront sign, when he had reduced the logo to
nine inches high, which he had by mistake thought was the recommended height, it had looked
very small relative to the height and size of the canopy structure. He said that twelve inches as
recommended, instead of nine inches as he had tried, would help. Commissioner Sullenberger
expressed his concern that in looking at the rendering, even the twelve-inch high logo might still
8
be too small on the canopy that would be 21 feet high on a 20-foot rise off the roadway. Asked
by Commissioner Van Pernis, Commissioner Sullenberger suggested 18 inches.
Commissioner Van Pernis amended his motion to state that height of the logo and the lettering be
18 inches and twelve inches, respectively.
Typical Tenant Sign
Chairman Roth summarized that more details were submitted; however, the plan would still
allow the tenants to use their fonts and colors without the Commission review.
Commissioner Hetherington asked whether the background design was a generic concept where
each tenant would be able to choose their own color and motif. Mr. Vierra responded that the
color and the motif would be standard, and that the proposal was to give the tenants an allowable
range of size with a maximum height of 18 inches. Also in response to Commissioner
Hetherington’s question, he said that the color of the background was not determined yet, and
that it would be selected from the approved building color palette of browns and beiges so that it
would not stand out in high contrast.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Van Pernis, Mr. Vierra clarified that the particular red and white
color samples on Sheet T-2 were for Safeway signs; however, their proposal was that their
tenants be able to use their brand colors, which might include reds and whites. Ms. Schatz added
that those individual brand colors would be allowed only within the designated sign area, and
that the background would be kept the same for all tenant signs in a color from the approved
color palette for the buildings. Commissioner Van Pernis said that he wanted to confirm that the
tenants would not be allowed to use the red and the white, even though they were provided in the
plan, unless their brand colors were as such. Ms. Schatz reiterated that reds and whites would
not be used outside of their brand because those were not in the approved color palette.
Chairman Roth noted that the tenants would not have to come in for the Commission review as
long as they followed these proposed guidelines. He questioned whether the Commission would
want to allow that much flexibility. He added that he generally liked the master plan concept for
consistency; however, in this case, because fonts and colors were not defined, the Commission
would be giving up its oversight in that aspect. Commissioner Kern commented that she liked
the proposed concept where all tenant signs would be framed the same way with the design
element, which might soften the mixed look of different logos and colors. Commissioner
Hetherington agreed, but expressed his concern about allowing as many as 20 stores to use
whatever colors. He suggested that Commission’s approval be only for the design concept and
not for individual signs.
In response to Commissioner Sullenberger’s question about the proposed size and height
restrictions, Mr. Vierra said that some logos might come in a stack design rather than a lineal
design, in which case there could be two lines of nine-inch high lettering. Commissioner
Sullenberger pointed out that the current proposal would allow the signs to be at varied heights
within 18 inches, as well as different lengths. He said that he would like to see uniformity in size
of the background throughout the project by specifying not only the height but also the length,
which could be determined based on the 18-inch total height and the 22-square foot designated
9
signage area, so that it would be their brand font size that might have to be adjusted, rather than
the overall sign itself. Mr. Vierra expressed his agreement.
Chairman Roth commented that considering the fact that compliance was always an issue for the
Commission, a legal way to do it might be to have every tenant come in with their applications;
however, there was the risk that only responsible tenants end up coming in. He questioned if
having them follow a master plan would actually result in better compliance. Commissioner
Hetherington said that from his experience tenants’ compliance would entirely depend on the
management of the center, and that his concern was that the owner’s representatives here were
not the ultimate managers. Commissioner Sullenberger pointed out that the tenants would want
to put on their brand anyway, but that the size would not get out of control, if the specifications
were provided in the master plan. Chairman Roth said that the Commission could accept the
framework and have each tenant come in under the framework until the Commission approved a
more precise master plan at a later date. Commissioner Smith, in looking up the tenant signs at
Kona Commons on his computer, said that they looked pretty uniformed even though there were
a lot of different font styles; likewise, in this case, allowing the tenants the latitude of font and
color within the fixed size would create unique mess within consistent boundaries. He further
said that that would also allow the tenants to be consistent with their national marketing and give
the applicant guidelines to administer to the tenants.
Commissioner Van Pernis amended his motion to include further recommendation that the
background size be standardized as discussed, and that the fonts and logos be controlled by the
management according to the master signage plan, with the understanding that any sign requiring
a variance be submitted to the Commission for review and recommendation.
Motion as Amended
For clarification Ms. Bugado restated the motion, as amended, made by Commissioner
Van Pernis and seconded by Commissioner Smith that the Commission recommend approval, to
the Director of Public Works, with the following revisions:
Gas Station Ground Sign (GR-ID-3): The design shall utilize the new option presented
during the meeting, identified as Option A Rock.
Gas Canopy Sign: The font size can be increased to twelve inches but the icon/logo size
shall be reduced to 18 inches.
Typical Tenant Sign: The proposed background design space must be fixed in height to
one foot six inches, with the font and logo of each tenant controlled by the management
per proposed master sign plan, with the understanding that should any sign require a
variance, those shall come before the Commission for recommendation.
The proposed red and white colors identified as the color/material samples on Sheet T-2
shall be limited to Safeway signs and logos and to other tenant signs and logos if those
colors are consistently used in their logo and brand name.
A roll call vote was taken and motion carried with six ayes (Van Pernis, Smith, Ching,
Hetherington, Kern and Sullenberger) and one no (Ikeuchi). Commissioner Crusat abstained.
10
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
Ms. Bugado reminded the Commissioners that their mileage for Commission business could be
reimbursed, if they elected to claim. Mr. Mark noted that the reimbursement would be on a
first-come-first-served basis among all the County boards and commissions, as the funds were
limited.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Mark announced that Mayor Kim had nominated Mr. Arne Werchick to the Commission,
who was present in the audience, and that if confirmed by the County Council, he would succeed
Commissioner Van Pernis. Mr. Mark recognized Commissioner Van Pernis’ continuance
beyond his term, and expressed his appreciation.
Commissioner Van Pernis said that he would plan on attending a future meeting as a member of
the public, in particular when the sign application for Planet Fitness was placed on the agenda.
He further said that he would like the opportunity to question the applicant, as no action had been
taken even after complaints had been filed with DPW. He requested to be notified of the
meeting.
Next meeting tentatively scheduled for March 19, 2019.
Ms. Bugado announced that the March 19, 2019, meeting was cancelled since there were no
applications to be placed on the agenda, and that it was anticipated that the Commission would
meet on the next scheduled date of April 9, 2019.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Roth adjourned the meeting at 7:17 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Noriko Sauer, Secretary
A T T E S T:
Shaun Roth, Chairman
Kailua Village Design Commission
11