The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0042.005 2002-2004VOLCANO NEON ELECTRIC SIGNS SINCE 1989 www.v-neon.com e-mail: neon@pobox.com contractor's license #C-21656 I 11' —I PHONE / FAX, (808) 967.7648 P.O. Box 668, Volcano, HI 96785 Testimony on Sign Code revision for Hawaii County Council Committee on Public Works & Intergovernmental Relations March 17, 2003 Dear Chairman Elarionoff and committee members, ltea D Oats County,Ca+ncN . As a professional sign contractor, I commend the effort to revise the sign code. I believe these changes will clear up many areas of confusion, close loopholes and create a reasonable method of enforcement. I am concerned, however, about a lack of input from East Hawaii residents during the revision process, with no notice of these hearings appearing in the Hilo paper nor in the Hawaii County e-mail bulletin (distributed until recently by Peter Young). I only learned of the February Hilo meeting the day it happened, from a friend who happened to read of the next day's Kona meeting in the Kona paper. None of the other sign contractors I contacted had heard of these meetings, and the proposed sign code changes will have a major impact on our work. Why hasn't any input been sought from sign contractors? For example, the proposed changes involving permit procurement have not been viewed from the perspective of those who procure permits. There are a number of comments I wish to make: Section 3-15, Building permits: I strongly oppose the provision that an application for a building permit "shall include sign applications for any signs will be erected." ----- — In most cases this would simply be impossible, because sign contractors Pk'' No. File No. /A�✓ Ref. To:!! ' "•"fe- Ref. Tante MAR 1 8 2Q_ independently from general contractors, dealing directly with the owner. Even if it were possible to synchronize sign planning with all other work, this would overly burden both the general contractor and the sign contractor. Rarely are both applicants ready to apply for permits at the same time, and often the decisions on what signs to propose depend upon what building configuration has already been approved. I view this as a burdensome joining of two separate contracting activities, with no apparent purpose served. Rooftop signs: The new sign code would completely eliminate rooftop signs, which I oppose. At the February meeting in Hilo, Councilman Tyler stated that the justification for eliminating rooftop signs was "several people opposed them in previous testimony." This does not indicate to me any argument or reasoning, just personal preference. Occasionally a building's configuration will not allow a sign in any other place. I have photographed several examples of this; see the supplemental page here or view them at www.v-neon.com/rooftop. Furthermore, rooftop signs are already limited to 32 square feet -- far smaller than wall signs. Permit completion time, section 3-22: As 1 testified at the February hearing in Hilo, I believe a change from six months to 60 days places an unnecessary burden upon contractors. Frequently the sign permit on a large project is obtained far ahead of actual fabrication and installation, as sometimes the combined fabrication and shipping time alone can take months. If anything, the duration should be increased -- I have had several projects, such as the Palace Theatre sign restoration and Home Depot signs, where permits were obtained more than six months in advance of the actual work performed, either due to planning requirements or unforeseen delays. Nine months to a year would be a more reasonable window for completion of sign work. Total number of signs, section 3-7 (b) (1): "The total number of signs shall not exceed two per adjacent street..." If window signs are now going to require permits, then I believe that the total number of signs should be increased to at least three per street frontage, with perhaps the caveat that one of the three be a window sign. In a typical shopping -center configuration there are usually three signs: a wall sign, visible to traffic but not pedestrians underneath; a hanging marquee sign, visible to pedestrians; and one or two window signs, visible to pedestrians approaching the store directly. It is a completely normal scenario around the island and should be allowed to continue. Painted Window Signs, section 3-12 (5): To limit painted window signs to 150 square feet or 25% of the total combined area will eliminate the beautiful and playful work done at a number of businesses including Island Chevrolet. I think that would be a pity. Perhaps there could be some kind of clause allowing an exception for these types of signs. Kailua-Kona prohibited signs, section 3-64 (a) (1): "...any sign or display which is constructed primarily of materials with a shiny, slick, or reflective surface such as fiberglass or acrylic plastic." This is unchanged from the existing code, however, I believe it should be eliminated, as it has not been applied as a criterion for the signs at such locations as Kopiko Plaza, Kona Coast Shopping Center and Lanihau Center, whose channel -letter signs all have plastic faces. Kailua-Kona sample materials, section 3-55 (b) (2): "An application shall include a description and sample of any type of material to be used for the sign..." Most signs are made of standard materials. To require such samples with every sign permit application seems unnecessary. This is unchanged from the current code and should be deleted. Section 3-2, Scope: "...regulates all signs that are visible from all streets... This statement raises the question of signs on Hawaiian Home Lands, since signs erected on DHHL property are currently unregulated — with many in gross violation of the current county sign code -- yet quite visible from public streets. Will enforcement now become uniform? Sign permits, section 3-14 (b): "...kept on file for the lifetime of the sign. " Where? At the place of business? Corporate office? Sign contractor's office? It would be helpful if this were spelled out. Electrical plan inspection, section 3-16: There is room for confusion in the statement "The electrical inspector shall examine the plans and specifications of all wiring and connections." This should be amended to include of the sign itself, as there is also the primary power from the main panel to the sign, and this has its own permit that is obtained by the electrician, not the sign contractor. The above wording might be interpreted in such a way as to require the primary power specifications and/or the permit for same to be included with the sign permit application (as is sometimes the case with the current sign code). Providing such information becomes a cart -before -the -horse problem, as often the sign permit is needed far ahead of the sign's electrical permit. For example, one wants to be sure a sign location will be approved before having the electrician work out the details of getting the power to it and then obtaining that permit. Minor points: Section 3-1, (a), (3): "The indiscriminate erection and maintenance of..." A lack of maintenance would be even more detrimental! Perhaps delete "and maintenance." As I pointed out in my testimony in February, under the "SUMMARY OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS (PROPOSED), on page two, under "SIGNS ALLOWED WITH PERMITS" it states that window signs are prohibited under the current code. This is incorrect. Window signs are not regulated in any way, except in the Kailua Village core area. The conflicting existing code sections regarding this are as follows: Section 3-1, (a), 1: The people of the County have a primary interest in controlling the erection, location, and maintenance of outdoor signs (emphasis added). Section 3-3. Permit required. Except as otherwise provided in this article, no person may install, construct, erect, alter, relocate, reconstruct, or cause to be installed, constructed, erected, altered, relocated, or reconstructed any sign without first having obtained a written permit from the chief engineer. The interpretation that Section 3-1 supercedes Section 3-3 has been supported by employees at the Department of Public Works Building Division, who have stated on any number of occasions that a sign permit is not necessary for an indoor window sign. I reiterate it here because to have existing work wrongly characterized as illegal -- even for just such a summary as this -- is unacceptable, and should be corrected. Sincerely, Ted Pirsig