My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0042.005 2002-2004
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2002-2004
>
COM 0042.005 2002-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2017 11:13:46 AM
Creation date
5/10/2008 12:08:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2002-2004
Communication
0042
Point
005
Author
Ted Pirsig Volcano Neon
Communications - Referred To
PWIRC
Comments
Presented: PWIRC - 3/18/03
Communications - File Code
HCC/ADV
Document Relationships
BIL 280 Draft 03 1996-1998
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\1996-1998
COM 0042.000 2002-2004
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2002-2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
independently from general contractors, dealing directly with the owner. Even if it were <br />possible to synchronize sign planning with all other work, this would overly burden both the <br />general contractor and the sign contractor. <br />Rarely are both applicants ready to apply for permits at the same time, and often the <br />decisions on what signs to propose depend upon what building configuration has already <br />been approved. I view this as a burdensome joining of two separate contracting activities, <br />with no apparent purpose served. <br />Rooftop signs: <br />The new sign code would completely eliminate rooftop signs, which I oppose. At the <br />February meeting in Hilo, Councilman Tyler stated that the justification for eliminating <br />rooftop signs was "several people opposed them in previous testimony." This does not <br />indicate to me any argument or reasoning, just personal preference. <br />Occasionally a building's configuration will not allow a sign in any other place. I have <br />photographed several examples of this; see the supplemental page here or view them at <br />www.v-neon.com/rooftop. Furthermore, rooftop signs are already limited to 32 square feet <br />-- far smaller than wall signs. <br />Permit completion time, section 3-22: <br />As 1 testified at the February hearing in Hilo, I believe a change from six months to 60 days <br />places an unnecessary burden upon contractors. Frequently the sign permit on a large <br />project is obtained far ahead of actual fabrication and installation, as sometimes the <br />combined fabrication and shipping time alone can take months. If anything, the duration <br />should be increased -- I have had several projects, such as the Palace Theatre sign <br />restoration and Home Depot signs, where permits were obtained more than six months in <br />advance of the actual work performed, either due to planning requirements or unforeseen <br />delays. Nine months to a year would be a more reasonable window for completion of sign <br />work. <br />Total number of signs, section 3-7 (b) (1): <br />"The total number of signs shall not exceed two per adjacent street..." <br />If window signs are now going to require permits, then I believe that the total number of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.