Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-10-17-12 1 CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES October 17, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann ABSENT: Bill King OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Tasman, Asst. Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:35pm. Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: Bill G. reported that Bruce researched other Sprinkler Laws in New York State and found that there are ten other Towns in New York State with Sprinkler Laws more restrictive than the Town of Ithaca. He noted that Town of Ithaca was the first to establish a Sprinkler Law and other Towns have copied ours. Agenda Item No. 2 – Continued Discussion of Revisions to Town Code Chapter 221, Sign Law: a. Banners – quick fix for IC? Chris passed out pictures of the banners at the Ithaca College (IC) entrance on Rt. 96B. Bruce reported the view of one banner on IC campus and a small discussion followed. Chris reviewed to the Committee emails she received from Hollis Erb (Planning Board), Kirk Sigel (ZBA) and Pat Leary stating the following: the colors used made a small difference, the banners enhanced the entryway to IC, and the banners blended in with the directional signs. Fred commented how he liked the dark blue color of the banners and Eva was pleased with the signs not being as noticeable. The Committee commented that there could be potential visual impacts associated if different colors were used and that the size and appearance of the IC banners seemed relatively small. The Committee then went into a discussion on how to regulate banners and which setback to decide. Pat asked if the content of a sign could be regulated in terms as a distraction or a driving hazard when trying to read the words. Dan T. mentioned that years ago some communities tried to regulate items of information (words, logos, etc.) – attempting to state that a sign could contain a limited number of items of information. Dan noted that most codes like that have been struck down by the courts because they were not considered content-neutral. Sue mentioned in big cities, you see spinning signs, flashing signs and Dan added that those types of signs and electronic message centers could legally be banned, as could signs that can be confused with regulatory signs/devices. Bill G. brought the discussion back to banners, canvassing the Committee as to their thoughts with fixing the Sign Law quickly by setting a setback limit for banners, some distance from the public r-o-w, thereby permitting Ithaca College to go ahead and put up their banners inside the campus. Then, if Ithaca College wanted to put banners at the entrance or within the setback, they’d need to apply for a variance. Eva had concerns about the clutter of signs next to roads and public places and suggested that they should be regulated. Dan added that if and when the Town created an Institutional Zoning district, that banners would be permitted within the district. Sue indicated to the Committee that Ithaca College was not going to wait for the Sign Law to be updated, and had recently submitted an application to the Planning Board requesting a sign recommendation (sign review) for their proposed campus banners. Sue asked the Committee if they wanted IC to get a variance for 60 signs, and if this would set any kind of precedent; or would the Committee rather fix the Sign Law 2 and not have that precedent out there. The intent would be to allow these banners to be out of sight on a campus, but the Zoning Board may or may not allow this. Bill G. reviewed the draft Sign Law the Committee has been working with, where banners were a regulated sign within a residential zoning district. According to the draft law, the applicant would still have to get a sign permit, but under temporary signs, one banner would be allowed without a permit. Bill noted that the proposed IC banners wouldn’t be temporary or qualify for the exemption. Bruce felt that if the Town was going to allow banners off the public r-o-w, then as far as permitting goes, he didn’t care. The law could put a stipulation on that as long as the banners stay under X by X size, then Codes wouldn’t have to enforce them at all. Sue thought it would be good to go back and think about why the Town has these laws and what makes sense. Chris added that banners have always been prohibited. Bill G. felt that if the Town did want applicants to have banners, beyond a certain distance from the public r-o-w, then we would make them an exempt sign under a certain size so they wouldn’t need a sign permit. Susan Brock suggested that we keep the language in the proposed draft law that states that banners would have criteria to meet (air slits, heavyweight fabric, grommets, etc.). She further suggested that the sign permit process might be made easier for those applying for banners that will all look the same and be the same size - then they’d only have to do x, y and z. In that case, Bill G. would like to list banners under the regulated signs section in residential zoning districts. Susan B. asked why only residential districts and why not commercial districts or all other districts. Chris stated that she originally created the language to try and satisfy IC and other institutions; and all of the Town’s colleges and institutions are in residential districts (except the hospital and PRI). Fred noted that the characteristics and considerations in the Town’s Conservation Zones were different and that the Town may not want to permit banners in all districts. Going back to the draft law; Bill G. recommended allowing the suggested language of the draft sign law, which permits banners and banner-like signs, though not just on internal university and college campuses, provided they are at least 500 feet any public road r-o-w. Each sign could be up to 24 square feet in area, and it would pertain to any zoning district. Chris mentioned adding the language about banners having air-slits, non-reflective material, heavyweight fabric, etc. Bill G. asked the Committee for any thoughts. There was a small discussion about restricting certain colors, but Susan and Chris thought that might be considered regulating the content of the sign. A Committee member made a suggestion to revisit this issue once the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code were completed, especially if we have created an Institutional Zone. Aesthetics was a concern for Eva and she felt that the Committee needed to keep it in mind. She recognized that it was hard to regulate aesthetics, colors and architecture, but noted that it has been done in some places. After a short discussion about regulating aesthetics, Eric moved and Pat seconded a motion to recommend to the Town Board to change the Sign Law to allow banners and banner-like signs provided that they are: • 500 ft. from the public right-of-way • Each sign may be up to 24 sq. ft. in area • Permitted in all zones • Regulated – would need a sign permit • All banners must either have air-slits or consist of heavyweight fabric and all corners shall be completely attached via pole pockets or grommets 3 The Committee’s vote was four to one and motion carried to recommend to the Town Board at their next Town Board meeting. b. Hopkins Model Law – like it or scrap it? Bill G. noted that the Committee received another copy of the Hopkins model Sign Law, a Planning Department memo, and Susan Brock’s e-mail regarding the model law. The discussion started with the model law. Susan B stated that the law is from Minnesota, and that the City of Hopkins attempted to avoid content-based regulations. Susan thought this was an interesting approach, and felt that the Committee should review the law to see if this was an approach the Town might be interested in. Susan felt that there was great appeal for letting the property owner pick the mix of types of signs they wanted, subject to the regulations that would limit the size of any one sign, along with the square footage of all the signs. Susan felt this would make our law simpler and wouldn’t need a huge list of exemptions compared with what we allow now. She explained that she was not intending that the Committee would adopt any specifics of the Hopkins Law, but would consider their approach. Planning staff reviewed the law and Chris said the biggest problem that staff saw was the approach of permitting or letting the property owner choose what type of mix of signs they wanted. She explained that not all signs had the same type of visual or aesthetic impact. She noted that there were pros and cons with the law, and suggested that staff look into it with a little more detail if the Committee was going to restructure the Town’s law to meet this type of an ordinance. Staff’s initial impression was that the Hopkins Law didn’t appear to be comparable with the characteristics in the Town of Ithaca. The Committee discussed some of the issues with the Town Sign Law that might be alleviated in a Hopkins-style law. The Committee also discussed some basic items that the updated Sign Law should contain (regardless of whether we went with the Town draft or the Hopkins model). Bill G. mentioned that the Hopkins Code seemed like it didn’t prohibit all the things that the Town Code was prohibiting. Looking at the Town’s prohibited and the exempt sign lists, Chris noted many items on the lists were obvious, and thought there were ways we could cut down, condense or combine items on the lists to make the overall lists shorter. Chris stated that Planning staff felt the exempt list in the Hopkins law was way too short and didn’t quite address the bigger issues. Bill G. surmised that the updated Town law could contain lots of prohibited and exempt items and still contain elements of the Hopkins law. For example, the law could permit up to X total square feet of signage in residential districts, and up to a different X total square feet of signage in commercial districts rather than specifying and limiting the type of signage (freestanding, wall, canopy, window, awning, etc.) Bill wondered if staff’s main objection to that type of approach was not having control over the type of signs within the overall limit that’s given. Dan added that the issue was more related to the fact that different types of signs have different impacts on an area and that they should be considered individually, not lumped in together. For example, a freestanding sign has a much greater visual impact than a wall sign, because it’s next to a road and adds to visual clutter. Permitting any type of sign as long as the total number of signs met a set area could potentially create a very busy, visually-cluttered property with all manner of signage on it. It’s an aesthetics issue. Fred said, right now, the Sign Law, allowed four square foot signs in residential zones. Chris added that that was only true for some signs. Chris went on to say that if you are a house of worship, a library, a museum, a nursing home or a similar institution, then you could have a 24 square foot freestanding sign in a residential zone and be completely exempt from review and not need a permit. Whereas, a medical office could only have a four square foot sign in a residential zone. Susan B. noted that political signs 4 could be 6 sq. ft. in our existing law. Chris mentioned that these are some of the inconsistencies in the existing law. Fred suggested permitting 8 sq. ft. of total signage in residential areas, and not specify the type of signs involved. The Committee then went into a long discussion about permitting a certain square footage for signs and not regulating the type of sign, with members suggesting limiting the area to something really small (2 s.f.) thus requiring those who want larger signs to seek variances from the ZBA. Dan expressed that the Town should not base their law on requiring people to get a variance to have the sign they want; that it’s not the intent of what a variance should be for. Sue noted that the problem in the Town with having a catch-all maximum sign area for residential zones, per se, is that it did not consider the variety of non-residential uses in the residential zones (colleges, museums, farm stands, etc.) Hopkins does not appear to have the same level of variety of uses, so the law makes sense for their community. So, the main challenge in the Town Law is how to deal with signs related to non-residential uses in the residential zones. The Committee did like how the Hopkins Law contained an easy-to-read chart of permitted sign areas in the various zones. The Town law could be adapted to have a similar chart. Bill suggested that the Town Law could contain the prohibited, exempt, and temporary lists, but that the regulated section could be simply designed as a chart, like the Hopkins Law, and that the section could have an overall sign size limit for the regulated signs in the various zones. The Committee agreed that this approach might work. After a bit more discussion, the Committee decided to consider portions of the Hopkins approach. Chris asked if the Town Law could still have a section on design standards and area calculations, etc. The Committee agreed with that. Bill suggested that for the next meeting, the Committee should go through the draft Sign Law section by section, considering cutting down the list of prohibited, exempt, and temporary signs where practical, and then keep the Hopkins Law in mind when they got to the regulated sections of the law. The Committee agreed. c. Town Draft Law, “Purpose” and “Prohibited” sections – review page by page. Re-scheduled for the November 14, 2012 COC meeting – to be listed second on the agenda. Agenda Item No. 3 – Possible Continued Discussion of Town Code Section 270-233, Roofing Permit Requirements: Rescheduled for the November 14, 2012 COC meeting – to be listed first on the agenda. Agenda Item No. 4 – Other Business: None. Agenda Item No. 5 - Next meeting date and agenda: Next meeting: November 14, 2012 and the agenda will include:  Discussion of 270-333 – Roofing permit requirements.  Continue discussion of the Sign Law – Town Draft Law.  Sprinkler Law updates. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Sandy Polce Administrative Staff