Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0580.009 2000-2002 at.t ®s p L ~ Harry Kim Dixie Kaetsu Mayor Managing Director Peter T. Young re of..sAP'~ - Deputy Managing Director 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 • (808) 961-8211 • Fax (808) 961-6553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite-103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808) 329-5226 -a Fax. (808) 326-5663 April 20, 2002 The Honorable Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Council Member Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Re: Bill No. 205 Relating to Streets and Sidewalks Recommendations from Charles Hanson Dear Ms. Leithead-Todd: Thank you for transmitting the letter from Charles Hanson concerning Bill No. 205. We appreciate the time and effort Mr. Hanson put in to develop these thoughtful recommendations. Galen Kuba, who was originally responsible for the preparation of this bill, has reviewed Mr. Hanson's recommendations, and his comments are attached. Based on Mr. Kuba's comments, we do not feel that any changes to Bill No. 205 are necessary at this time, and recommend its passage in its present form. Aloha, ~tr~ dL- Harry Kim MAYOR Attachment ~orri ~1®4 • l~ll~ .,,4 ~~AY _0 I ZO ;~w r. 1: ~ :ate CHARLES HANSON COMMENTS April 15, 2002 Section 22-1.2 Definitions. (1) banners - To be considered a banner, the temporary sign must be suspended over a street. If the temporary sign were placed parallel to the street, it is not a banner and would considered a temporary sign that would not be allowed within a County right-of--way . If the temporary sign were placed within private property, the provisions of Chapter 3 would apply. Recommendation: No changes. (2) Building - Since a new building numbering section will be proposed, a definition will still be necessary. The current code has no definition, so a building number could be required for any structure, including chicken coops, tool sheds, green houses, etc. The intent of the building numbering section is to support our 911 Emergency System, consequently the focus is on buildings that are occue~ied (and not vacant) or is being used as dace of business. Recommendation: No changes. (3) Driveway -The existing definition is consistent with the definition used by the American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO establishes national guidelines for the design of streets, highways and driveways. Recommendation: No changes. The suggestion is not consistent with AASHTO. (4) Roadway -The phrase "central portion of a street right-of--way" is inaccurate and unnecessary. In divided highways, roadways are not in the "central portion" of the right-of- way. The term "exclusively" is needed to emphasize the fact that the roadway is not designed for use by pedestrians, skateboards or other unauthorized vehicles. This may be important in certain types of law suits. Recommendation: No changes. The suggested definition is inconsistent with the needs and responsibilities of the Department of Public Works. (5) Violator -Comment is rhetorical. Recommendation: No changes. Section 22-2.1 Encroachments. The definition does not prohibit the planting of trees and shrubs within rivets property. However, we do have problems when such growth overhangs into the street right-of--way such that it obstructs drivers sight-distance, blocks/obscures traffic signs and sidewalks or causes damages to the same. Because of obvious public liability issues, the County needs to minimize/eliminate encroachments into our streets. Recommendation: No changes. Section 22-3.3. Banner permits; application. Because the banner is suspended over a street, there is potential for severe accidents and injury should it fall across the road. Currently, we do not have a permit process. Consequently, some form of permitting is needed. Because all permits have and will continue to be issued by staff engineers, clearly defined procedures are necessary to maintain consistency throughout the County. The detailed requirements help to assure that all permits, under Chapter 22, are issued uniformly and fairly to all applicants no matter who issues the permit or where it is issued. The Banner permit section is intended to be temporary measure until Chapter 3 is revised to include temporary signs across County streets. Recommendation: No changes. Section 22-4.9. (d) Location of driveway approaches at intersections. The definition is accurate. We are establishing a distance from the intersection of two property lines. Using the term "corner" is confusing and unnecessary as there are 4 or more corners at every intersection. The Department will provide sketches to assist applicants when necessary. Samples of the sketch were distributed to the Council at previous meetings and hearings. Recommendation: No changes. Section 22-4.9 (e) Maximum number of driveway approaches. The number of approaches needs to be regulated. Each driveway is a potential conflict point between roadway users and the driveway user. Each conflict point is a potential accident location. Additional driveways for very large lots may be allowed through the variance provisions of the Chapter. By going through the variance procedure, the Department will be given an opportunity to determine whether there is a valid need for the additional driveway(s) and whether the additional driveways will detrimentally impact users of the County street. Recommendation: No changes. Article 8. Violations, Penalties, Enforcement. We disagree with the penalty escalation concept for a continuous violation. Escalation requires the re-handling of the same violation. This is an inefficient process, allows violations to fall through the cracks and in most cases, it simply does not work. Because many violations may result in public harm or impair public accessibility, we need to resolve violations as expeditiously as practical. Recommendation: No changes. Organization - No particular rational was given to justify a re-organization Recommendation: No changes. We believe the Chapter is organized in a very logical fashion. CRARLES HANSON COMMENTS April 15, 2002 Section 22-1.2 Definitions. (1) Banners - To be considered a banner, the temporary sign must be suspended over a street. If the temporary sign were placed parallel to the street, it is not a banner and would considered a temporary sign that would not be allowed within a County right-of--way . If the temporary sign were placed within private property, the provisions of Chapter 3 would apply. Recommendation: No changes. (2) Buifldgng - Since a new building numbering section will be proposed, a definition will still be necessary. The current code has no definition, so a building number could be required for any structure, including chicken coops, tool sheds, green houses, etc. The intent of the building numbering section is to support our 911 Emergency System, consequently the focus is on buildings that are occu ied (and not vacant) or is being used as place of business. Recommendation: No changes. (3) Driveway -The existing definition is consistent with the definition used by the American Dissociation of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO). AASHTO establishes national guidelines for the design of streets, highways and driveways. Recommendation: No changes. The suggestion is not consistent with AASRTO. (4) Roadway -The phrase "central portion of a street right-of--way" is inaccurate and unnecessary. In divided highways, roadways are not in the "central portion" of the right-of- way. The term "exclusively" is needed to emphasize the fact that the roadway is not designed for use by pedestrians, skateboards or other unauthorized vehicles. This maybe important in certain types of law suits. Recommendation: No changes. The suggested definition is inconsistent with the needs and responsibilities of the Department of Public ~Vorl~s. (5) Violator -Comment is rhetorical. Recommendation: No changes. Section 22-2.1 Encroachments. The definition does not prohibit the planting of trees and shrubs within r~ ivate property. However, we do have problems when such growth overhangs into the street right-of--way such that it obstructs drivers sight-distance, blocks/obscures traffic signs and sidewalks or causes damages to the same. Because of obvious public liability issues, the County needs to minimize/eliminate encroachments into our streets. Recommendation: No changes. Section 22-3.3. Banner permits; application. Because the banner is suspended over a street, there is potential for severe accidents and injury should it fall across the road. Currently, we do not have a permit process. Consequently, some form of permitting is needed. Because all permits have and will continue to be issued by staff engineers, clearly defined procedures are necessary to maintain consistency throughout the County. The detailed requirements help to assure that all permits, under Chapter 22, are issued uniformly and fairly to all applicants no matter who issues the permit or where it is issued. The Banner permit section is intended to be temporary measure until Chapter 3 is revised to include temporary signs across County streets. Recoaninendation: No changes. Section 22-4.9. (d) Location of driveway approaches at intersections. The definition is accurate. We are establishing a distance from the intersection of two property lines. Using the term "corner" is confusing and unnecessary as there are 4 or more corners at every intersection. The Department will provide sketches to assist applicants when necessary. Samples of the sketch were distributed to the Council at previous meetings and hearings. k~ecoingnendation: No changes. Section 22-4.9 (e) MaXlHnilrn nuYnber of driveway approaches. The number of approaches needs to be regulated. Each driveway is a potential conflict paint between roadway users and the driveway user. Each conflict point is a potential accident location. Additional driveways for very large lots may be allowed through the variance provisions of the Chapter. By going through the variance procedure, the Department will be given an opportunity to determine whether there is a valid need for the additional driveway(s) and whether the additional driveways will detrimentally impact users of the County street. lltecominendation: No changes. Article 8. Violations, Penalties, EnforceYnent. We disagree with the penalty escalation concept for a continuous violation. Escalation requiz-es the re-handling of the same violation. This is an inefficient process, allows violations to fall through the cracks and in most cases, it simply does not work. Because many violations may result in public harm or impair public accessibility, we need to resolve violations as expeditiously as practical. RecoxnYnendation: No changes. Organization - No particular rational was given to justify a re-organization ItecoYnanendation: No changes. We believe the Chapter is organized in a very logical fashion.