Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/25/1994 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
TAPE 94-51, SIDE B
Number 008
HB 367 - CONTROL OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
REP. JAMES motioned that HB 367 be moved from committee.
Number 013
CHAIRMAN PORTER felt there should be discussion on the
motion.
REP. HARLEY OLBERG, Prime Sponsor of HB 367, testified that
HB 367 would allow certain restricted exceptions to the
state's limitations on outdoor advertising, thereby
addressing the need for improved directional signage to
accommodate the state's traveling public. These changes
would facilitate efforts by roadside businesses to direct
motorists to available services and products. In response
to suggestions made by members of committees of both bodies
last session, he wanted them to consider CSSB 367 today. CS
for HB 367 allows one new exception to the state limitation
on outdoor advertising signs, displays and devices.
Directional signs could be placed in zoned or unzoned
commercial or industrial areas along the state highway
subject to stringent restrictions. The draft bill would
also codify two existing DOT/PF programs in statute. They
are space leasing program and the tourist oriented
directional signage program. CS for HB 367 would help many
small business owners while not negatively impact the
scenery visible from Alaska's highways. He strongly
encouraged support for this bill and asked that a committee
substitute be drafted, which would be version k. The two
changes in the CS are one, page 3, line 6. He said it used
to read business adjacent to the highway, and it has been
cleaned up to say activities conducted on or abutting the
leased property, and the other one on line 20 of page 3, a
municipality may regulate directional signs allowed under AS
19.25.105(a)(6) in a way that is more restrictive than AS
19.25.105(a)(6) by an ordinance that is adopted after the
effective date of this act.
Number 126
REP. NORDLUND inquired what the problem is that necessitates
this legislation.
Number 129
REP. OLBERG responded that the problem is, along the
highway, say between Tok and Glenallen, a mom and pop
operation are not allowed to have any sign off of there
directing people to their business. This bill would allow
them, within fifty miles of their operation, to place a
maximum of up to four signs, with directions on them, on
private property. This allows for private property
placement only.
Number 183
REP. PHILLIPS remarked that along the Sterling Highway they
have some taxidermists, and he bought a beautiful piece of
property along the bluff of Cook Inlet, as well as a house
as a museum/workshop for the tourists. He put a beautiful
hand crafted wood sign on his property along the highway,
and was ordered to remove the sign. The cost to an
individual is astronomical as a result of a stupid law.
Number 188
REP. NORDLUND expressed a concern that we could end up with
a plethora of signs along the highway that would not be very
attractive and he wanted to know what sort of limitations
are in this legislation to prevent that from occurring.
Number 201
REP. OLBERG responded that in his area of the state, the
shear lack of private property would be the most effective
deterrent.
Number 219
REP. PHILLIPS remarked that she is very much in support of
this legislation and would encourage all committees to
support this legislation.
Number 249
CHRYSTAL SMITH, Alaska Municipal League, testified that the
Municipal League has no problems with the concept of the
bill, but has a problem with the municipalities being able
to control the signs within their boundaries. She felt that
Representative Olberg's amendment was a back-door approach
to solving the problem and she felt that a municipality
should not have to open up their sign ordinances again to
comply with this legislation. She proposed that the bill be
amended at page 3, line 20, stopping after AS 19.25.080 to
19.25.180, which would say that you could enact ordinances
that regulate signs that are more restrictive.
Number 292
REP. JAMES remarked that in the Interior there are a lot of
people who can't find where they are going and she felt the
municipality should be just as interested as finding their
location.
Number 308
MS. SMITH responded that that was true, but the decision
needed to be made in the local environment and if a
municipality already had a sign ordinance that said x, y, z,
that then they shouldn't have to go back into their
ordinance because of a change in state law.
Number 322
LYNN STANTON testified via teleconference from Seward that
she supports the bill as it is presently written.
Number 332
CHAIRMAN PORTER inquired as to the applicability of the
section relating to municipalities. He asked if what was
being said was that a municipality may have a more
restrictive sign ordinance if they want. He asked if there
was any reason they have to adopt it after enactment of this
legislation.
Number 339
REP. OLBERG asked, if we exclude the municipalities from the
more liberal provisions of this bill, can they then by
ordinance take advantage of the exception granted?
Number 363
JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Legal Counsel, Division of
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, testified that
what is trying to be attempted here is that we are allowing
the municipalities to enact sign ordinances that are
anything that they want. They can be more restrictive than
the state, they can do whatever they want, except in this
area. This new allowance for signs that the legislature is
creating is that this is such a new area, no one's been able
to enjoinder that and any previous sign ordinance to this
that could be out there; they are saying this is something
we want everybody to look at, including the municipalities.
Any sign ordinances the municipality has enacted prior to
this can never have engendered this possibility, because it
wasn't out there. It wasn't an option in Alaska. The
thought of this language is that if a municipality wants to
be more restrictive in this particular area, because they
haven't been able to consider this, any previous sign
ordinance has not been able to consider this exception that
is now there, and thus they would have to adopt a new
section, not a new sign ordinance.
CHAIRMAN PORTER inquired whether a municipality had in place
an ordinance that would preclude, and we are now voiding it
and making them revisit it.
Number 412
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded yes for this particular statute.
Number 415
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Chrystal Smith if she know of anybody
that had this kind of restriction that this would fit under.
Number 419
MS. SMITH responded that she was not sure. She reiterated
the point that municipalities that have sign ordinances
regulate the size and type of sign within their boundaries
and should not have to revisit their ordinances as a result
of passage of CSHB 367.
Number 433
DAVID KAMRATH, Legislative Assistant to Representative
Harley Olberg, Prime Sponsor of HB 367, commented that this
bill allows for criteria that a business must be at least
twenty miles away and that seventy-five percent of the
business receipts must come from tourists, so you are not
going to have every business in town putting up signs.
Another point to be made is that the zoned and unzoned areas
along the rural highways, the only thing that is zoned or
unzoned is where a business is located and in operation. A
business must be there, open, and must contact a property
owner down the highway for permission to put a sign on their
property.
Number 452
MR. LUCKHAUPT remarked that this exception only applies to
those areas that are zoned industrial or commercial. This
exception of allowing signs would not exist in those
residential areas and other zoned areas. Again, it only
applies to interstate and primary highways within those
municipalities. So it doesn't apply to those roads that are
not part of the interstate or primary system of this state.
Number 468
CHAIRMAN PORTER remarked that he hopes that doesn't appear
to be too adverse to those municipalities.
Number 477
REP. KOTT inquired as to what we have on the books at this
time that would require those businesses who erected a sign
to actually maintain the sign.
Number 491
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that the exceptions and also the
existing language for signs in statute require that they be
erected and maintained pursuant to DOT's directions. The
DOT fights with people all the time about signs. Jeff
Otteson from DOT has been testifying on how DOT requires and
maintains signs. The DOT has in AS 19.25 dealing with
offending signs and how they can be required to be
maintained or taken down.
REP. PHILLIPS moved the CS for HB 367, version K.
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objection, moved the adoption of
CSHB 367, version k.
Number 553
REP. NORDLUND inquired what are the DOT requirements for the
type, size and lighting.
Number 567
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that you have the requirements that
the letters be a specific size relating to the speed limit
associated with the road. Also, if the road has a certain
amount of traffic on it, the lighting has to be of a certain
type. The sign can be reflective, but it can't be
reflective to the extent that it could blind certain
drivers.
Number 584
REP. GREEN inquired whether there was any provision in the
bill that would require the mom and pop operation to remove
the sign if they closed the establishment.
Number 589
Mr. KAMRATH responded that the DOT has the regulation
authority to monitor that type of situation.
Number 607
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that Section 19.35.150, existing
law, provides that an advertising sign, display or device
which violates the provisions of this chapter is a public
nuisance and the department is required under that statute
to give thirty days notice of an unconforming or illegal
sign. That would be a sign that doesn't meet these
requirements or isn't maintained. Thus, the DOT can order
the removal of the sign, or after thirty days the DOT can
remove the sign and charge the cost of removal to the owner
of the property.
Number 620
REP. KOTT inquired, if this statute were to be implemented,
would we see signs like the Marlboro at Harley's bar one
mile down the road type of signs.
Number 627
MR. LUCKHAUPT responded that we do put requirements on what
the signs can advertise, on page 6. It actually has to
indicate the specific business and must provide directional
information and is limited to those situations.
Number 635
REP. OLBERG remarked that the sign must be for an individual
business entity that is a significant interest to the
traveling public.
Number 644
REP. PHILLIPS motioned to move CSHB 367 from committee with
individual recommendations and fiscal notes as indicated.
CHAIRMAN PORTER, hearing no objections, declared CSHB 367
discharged from committee.
The House Judiciary Committee Standing Committee was
adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|