The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0454.010 1996-1998 :.3,ug-03-98 14: 00 Sandra Scar:- 808 334 1930 P . 01 k. ~1C F A --I 'CIV L E 3 . •m-Pm LCA -' COU;',:l r-1- 71-,,,,:.•-,,: Name: Counci1memHet. Dominic Yagong Organization: l iawaii County Council Fax: 969-3291 Phone: 961-8264 CE)------1 From: Sandra `;carr °' - Vice President for Public Affairs Kona Outdoor Circle Date: 3 August 1998 Subject: Draft Bill ;]mending Chapter 3, Sign Ordinance Pages: 4 ]'lease number this communication and put it on the agenda for the Public \Vor]sCommittee. August 4. 1998. Attached are recommendations for revision of the Draft Bill Amending Chapter 3. the Sign Ordinance. The Signs Committee of the Kona Outdoor Circle (currently. Vonnie Lyons. Sherry Bracken and I) has reviewed the proposed revisions and find that additional changes would be desirable. Our recommendations for specific changes in language are attached. In general. the Draft Bill permits larger and more billboard-like signs, which we find most disturbing. It fails to require permits for ail signs, including real estate and temporary signs. and it ]ails to specify any colors or designs that are not permitted ifor example, neon colors, hand- lettering, and grossly unprofessional signs;. We find that the procedure for getting sign permits is too lenient and the penalties for nonconforming signs too small. v1oreover. we believe that nonconforming siggns that are --gnu-id-fathered- in should have no more than 2 years to be brought into compliance with revised regulations. Specifically for Kona, we want the sign ordinance to be tightened. not loosened. as this Draft Bill seems to do. We do not need more. 'higeer_ and gaudier signs to deface our landscape. Rather. we need fewer. smaller. and more harmonious signs that give important information to residents and visitors but do not obscure the beauty of our island. Perhaps. it is possible for the Council to grant permission to some localities.'such as Kailua Kona.and Kninaliu. to hay e inure stringent regulations than apple to the island as a whole. Thank you far your consideration of our recommendations. Cc: Councilmemher Curtis Tyler. Kell. (ireen\\ell �[ � Comm. NG._I5!/ `• /Q rile No. H c/ 4D met. ZbtPresented PWPc_ AUG 4 1998 IIJ7y,,��...y...............a iwiet . Aug-03-98 14 : 01 Sandra Scarr 808 334 1930 P _ 02 KONA OUTDOOR CIRCLE \ 76-62,80 Kuakini Highway '� Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 RE: RESOLUTION NO. 148-97 (0SIGN ORDINANCE Article 4 - Sign Regulations (page 12) - Section 3-4-1 (1) My two signs per business on street frontage? (2) Why shall both signs bo of a different type? Under Change - 4) "repeated requests for variances for properties granted special or use pf its.t, THE GRANTING OF VARIANCE PIAUESTS samm BB CURTAILED. VARIANCE AT IS A SIGN O I GOOD OD IP IT IS NOT GRANTS I .ADHERED TO ? Mil SD O ' �Y THE PLANNING STRICTLY COMMISSION? - Section 3-4-3 (Paq 13) Exempt signs. i have a problem with exempt signs in the first pleco. . .and_ how can an exempt sign be allowed to be thirty-two square feet in area? See Change 3) on page 15: ". . .enlarging present allowable size of 24 eq. ft. to 32 sq. ft." If they want to ster,d .rd•i.ze allowable size, why don't they maXe them all 24 sq. ft.? - Section 3-4-4 (C) Should be deleted. As written, (C) would cancel (A) and (3) by saying temporary signs and banners are exempt from this article. They could say any temporary sign or banner would have to meet the reglirements of all the sections listed, without making it exempt from the requirements of (A) and 03) . - Section 3-4-5 (page 17) Change - enlarge signs from 6 s sq.t. to 8 sq. ft. tato facilitate enforcement and clarity." o wants Ala sign in a resid _tia1 d_.=trict, except for a small "For Sale" signIf these ,�-ne. e a1lo d, why allow them to be 4 larger than theexisting 4 17) (1 ) Ground sign. (A) There's - Section 3-4-6 f p�'P,r 1 f a 3 Z �.c;. ft. sign were two feet wide byym16fee wrong it would thi u{r ements of this section, but 16 feet high moot the g��. This section should insome cases would e3:te~d anyaground sigVe the n to the height of the building, and no more then bee clarified to limit16 feet�� meximum height in any event. "six feet above the - Same section (3) Projecting sign. • I don't think lowest edge of the roof ' Sava objection as (1) should be allows hit her ham the roof. any sign against this one - Same section (4) Roof r=ign. I'm altogether. I don't bel: ° signs o 'u1d be allowed on the roof of any building. La ninreea.iC CIW?Art. Aug-03-98 14 : 01 Sandra Scare 808 334 1930 P _ 03 b' I SIGN ORDINANCE Page 2 - Same section (5) Wall sicfn• " . . •twenty percent of the total exposed area. . .not exceeding 400 sq. ft." If that's not a billboard, 2 don't know what is. See Change 2) : "• • •it will allow projecting and roof signs in agricultural , resort, and multi-family districts, which are presently not allowed." See Change 3) : „Present allowable wall size for these districts ranges from six or thirty-two square feet et nd ad the NO 1ge would allow a wall size of four hundred square - Section 3-6-1 Variances. (page 25) Change ". . .guidelines for granting variances nay be worthy of consideration." I buy that. - Section 3-7-1 Permit fees. (page 26) (b) Why would an applicant for a sign .permit be allowed to erect a sign before the pehe does don't think any sign shouldif be allowed havepay at does not t ha larger a permit. Perhaps this could be amended to include something like: No signs are allowed to be erected prior to obtaining a sign permit. If a sign is illegally erected prior to obtaining a sign permit, and it is within the guidelines,the applicant will pay an application fee of$100 for each sign application. If the sign is not within guidelines, it will he removed as per the sign ordinance. - Section 3-9-1 Nonconforming sign. (Page 31) Included in this section should bee a rnaycnable time limit on how long a pre- existing nonconforming oign is allowed to remain in use. A nonconforming sign should not be allowed to remain indefinitely. - Removal of noncomplying signs. (page 39) (b) ". . .sidewalk or sandwich signs, snipe signs. . ." (1) ". . .when unlawfully erected. . . " No sidewalk or sandwich sign should be permitted at any time. (I don'tknow what a "snipe tier" is, but it doesn't sound like anything I'd want around, cd.thsr, - Removal of noncen.Corming signs. (page 40) Should go further and state a time limit on nonconforming signs. - Article 12. /Callus village Signs. (page 42) (1) So, the Planning Commission isn't supposed to grant variances, the Planning 4 Director can do that. This is the variance thing again. The Kailue Village Design Co eiasion serves only as an advisory board to the Planning Commission. K7DC has advised against variances being granted by the Planning Commission, of which the Planning Director is a part. The Planning Commission, including the Planning Director, has granted •vn iances anyway, and the question has always come up as to why we have a F.ign ordnance in the first place if the Planning Commission end/or Planning Director can overrule the ordinance. (2) says . _ ."responsibility seems to be shared by the Planning and Public Works Department" and goes on to say "if the Planning Director finds the proposed sign to be in compliance with the applicable law. . .the Public works Department shall issue the Aug-•03-98 14 : 02 Sandra Scarr 808 334 1930 P . 04 Ir SIGN ORDINANCE Page 3 permit." Again, there's something wrong here. The Planning Director can grant a variance even if the sign is not in compliance, in which case the Public Works Department shall issue the permit anyway. Last section: Draft Bill Creating Public Works Hearing's Board. - section 2-47. Terms. (pages 3 and 4) I am against anyone serving on a board or commission more than 3 or 4 years. I think 5 years is too long for any one person to serve. - Division 2. Appeals Process. (page 5) Section 2-49. Persons who may appeal. I think both (b) (1) and (2) should be deleted because " . . .the person's intereat is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public, and the person will be adversely affected by the decision. " No person should be allowed to appeal whose interest is not that of the general public and, naturally, anyone appealing would be adversely affected by the decision for whatever reason or theywouldn't be appealing in the first place. Section (a) is enough. Submitted by Sandra Scarr. for Kona Outdoor Circle (80S) 334-1930 (808) 334-1932 fax