The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0454.016 1996-1998 Waimea Outdoor Circle Post office Box 1644 ~jy® a~, . Kamueia, Hawaii 967'43 11me_.~___ -7- Date__..___ ~7-~~ August 18 1998 Committee on Public Works and Parks county couna~//'~'!~ Statement on Bill 280: An ordinance amending chapter 3 of the Hawaii County Sign Code by Karin Hazelhott, 1st Vice President ' Waimea Outdoor Circle Good Morning- I am Karin Hazelhoff, Vice President of the Waimea Outdoor Circle, speaking for Na Leo Pohai, the Public Policy Affiliate of The Outdoor Circle: The object of the proposed amendment to the sign ordinance was: to provide clarity and understandability for the residents of this County who wish to erect signs. However, there are so many issues that have still not been clarified, the format is not any simpler, and the guidelines as set forth do not appear to reflect the input of the majority of those who commented in the public meetings of 1997. rpu.ou,s . There~ts a list of these issues, and possible suggestionsppended to this statement for your review, which cover the following 5 points which were to be addressed by this new resolution, as listed in County Resolution No.138 97, 1 : Definitions -could be made more understandable with graphic examples. Some are still unclear. 2: Sign permit and variance process- much has been added which does clarify the obtaining of permits, but does not address the problgm of sign~ompanies who do not ask to see the permit, nor adhere to the sign laws.'':~`/anance~efSaiF~ also been enlarged, which may clarify to some but also may lead some to believe that this is a normal and regular procedure. 3: Enforcement of the sign code- addressed in detail, however the chief engineer was to enforce the previous sign law, and despite many notices to that office, action was never taken. How can we be assured that the same situation will not continue? Additionally, while there is a time limit provided for future sign violations, the rule for existin non-conforming signs would allow them to remain, without any abatement policy, nor time limit (how can a 'non-confoming sign' still be in compliance with existing ordinances? A contradiction in terms) 4:Constitutionality of the sign code -not addressed a~ x.. ~5 ~ /6 ~ xa. NCL/A DV _ ~ Pressntetl PwPL mot. na„ t111G 1 8 1998 p.2 5: Continuity between sign regulations set out in Special Districts -not addressed What has been addressed, and proposed in this ordinance however, is the changing of districts to only 2 categories: residential and all other. This would result in the proliferation of number and size of signs, certainly not what was intended in the resolution 148 and certainly not by the majority of those who are interested, as the ordinance itself says, in the natural beauty of this County. At the same time, no attention has been paid to the present problem of multiple businesses ,which are each allowed to erect 32-square-foot ground signs should they wish, and~signs whose sizes are already too large for small communities,as well as the problem of window signs. Therefore, feeling that there is still much work to be done to actually improve and clarify the law ,and while appreciating the efforts which the Legislative Auditors' office have put into this proposal, we would respectfully ask that this resolution be not adopted ,but revised and reviewed until mutual agreement is found between all parties. p.3 Supplemental input /Karin Hazelhofl 8/18/98 Public Works Committee A-1 Any person wishing to put up a sign should a/ be made aware that there is a County sign law*This information could be given by: aJ realtors b/ architects cl designers d/the sign company and the Tax Office, when one is applying for an excise tax permit. * AND P~2Kir ~~-s-c~~ec~.~6~-.r- A simple guide could be given out which lists sign regulations FOR THAT ZONE. The more complete guide would be available from the appropriate County agency. A-2 Allowable signs should be listed under each zone: 'This many allowed, this size, this type, "with drawings of each type to illustrate. A-3 Window Signs should be addressed as per the Kailua Village Sign Code. A-4 Under" Ground Signs" the frame is included. What about the 'hat'or' roof' which many signs have, and which could go up to 3 feet or more.(the chief engineer told me it did not count as part of the sign) What about the supports? This needs clarification. A-5 Directories for multiple businesses should be addressed, with height limitations, and number of signs allowed by individual businesses within the district. Again, frontage, as in the Kailua Village ordinance, seems a better way of solving sign size. B-1 If sign companies are held responsible for making illegal signs, surely that would be one way of enforcing the law that would be easier? Some of them are not aware of the law at present. Others are, but are afraid of their clients. They should see the permit, before starting work, and be fined if they do make non-conforming signs. B-2 With so many conditions and attention to variances, it might be better to limit them entirely, or make them REALLY difficult to obtain. C-1 The constitutionality of sign laws seems to be expressed in the American Planning Associations' brochure on sign regulation. They quote the Supreme Court's decision on VINCENT (p. 20) as being read as a strong support of a community's right to regulate the size and appearance of signs for aesthetic or safety reasons . To regulate the CONTENT of a sign however, may be a breach of the 1st Amendment right of free speech. (note: how does this affect the prohibition in our sign ordinance in section 3-8, (3) of "any sign which is obscene". This is certainly open to discussion) D1 Setbacks: What is public property? How far from the street should a ground sign be? The number of sandwich signs on County and State lands increases daily,and is not directly mentioned. D2 Again, in section 3-8 'Diverting, or attempting to divert the attention of drivers,etc.' Surely allowing larger signs along highways, and ones over 12 feet in height, which is considered the maximum for safe viewing, as well as agricultural large signs, will be a distraction? For that matter, isn't that what businesses WANT?? p.4 E-1 Abatement policy: ref:Division 11 3-35 Existing signs which are illegal {non-conforming?) should be removed according to the same guidelines as used by Kailua Village, that is, over a scheduled time period. By allowing 6 months before an ordinance comes into effect, and with this paragraph, any and all illegal signs could remain indefinitely, provided they were kept in good order, and it would give people 6 months in which to erect them, the way the code reads. E-2 Section 3-12 Many of the sign sizes, and allowed lettering (ie: 2 feet on roof signs, 32 square feet for ground signs) are already larger than that allowed in most Special Design districts. The majority of our villages are rural, not even considered as 'small towns'(Las Vegas, in the APA signage brochure, for instance, is considered amiddle-sized community) If all signs were modestly sized, as long as they are readable (at village speeds, 4" at curbside is sufficient) then the urge to outdo the next business might be contained. In conclusion: I personally hope that ,also as a former business person, we would all come together and help to preserve that which makes this a special place. It is more valuable in the long run, and more cost-effective, than spoiling what we have now, for a short-term gain. Respectfully submitted, Karin Hazelhott