Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC draft Minutes 2016-09-14 Pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of September 14, 2016 6:37 P.M. – 8:33 P.M. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King and Yvonne Fogarty. Staff: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk; Christine Balestra, Planner and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town. Absent: Eric Levine 1. Approval of Minutes from August 10, 2016 COC Meeting. Typos provided to Paulette to correct. No other changes. Moved by Yvonne, seconded by Pat. Unanimous. 2. Member comments/concerns. Bill G. reported that the Solar law had to be pulled from the Town Board agenda recently because the wording around the 10-acre limit on the size of an array was not phrased clearly; it seemed that the lot or parcel where a large array could be was limited to 10-acres in size, which was not the intent. Language changes are being made and the public hearing will be held again at the Town Board meeting in October. 3. Continued Review and Discussion of Draft Art Mural Provisions. Bill G. reminded the group that this draft was based upon other mural laws. The committee originally began a discussion on the law in April 2016, but had only gotten through sections 1 and 2 on page 1. Chris provided the group with a redlined updated law for the committee to review. The COC discussed the law below: Page 1, Section2.A – The Committee revisited their previous decision to limit the height of murals to 30-feet tall, measured from the bottom of the mural to the top of the mural. Bill K. asked why the height was limited at all? Why couldn’t a mural go to the top of a building, regardless of the height of the building (e.g. a 60-foot tall building)? Chris showed the committee pictures of murals on an entire building wall in downtown Philadelphia and the group liked the look, but added that there was not much chance of that happening in the town, other than possibly on the college campuses or the hospital campus. Otherwise, there aren’t really any large, empty building facades in the town and most buildings in the town aren’t that tall. Ultimately, the COC decided to keep the 30-foot height limit as drafted in the law. The committee then moved on to discuss Section 2.B, related to the limit on murals extending more than 6 inches from a wall. Some members asked for clarification as to what was meant by sticking out no more than 6 inches and the staff responded that the provision allows for murals to have 3- dimensional elements to them, e.g. the topographic relief mural in the city of Ithaca near City Hall. The words “the plane of” were removed from the language in 2.B to make it clear since a “plane of the wall” would technically be infinite. Moving on to the redlined question for the committee, the law regulates the height and depth of a mural, but should we consider limiting the length or width of a mural as well? A short discussion followed, with the committee deciding that there should be no limit on the width or length of murals. Page 1, Section 3. Prohibited art murals - Susan noted that the Portland law contained a clause that prohibits art murals on certain buildings. She wasn’t sure the committee wanted this restriction, but added the section anyway. The section prohibits murals on residential structures with fewer than 5 Pg. 2 units, historic buildings and other locations. Discussion focused first on prohibiting murals on residential structures. Staff pointed out that murals on residences are creative expressions that are often quite tasteful, using, as an example, the home on East Shore Drive that has been painted with vines and leaves on it. The group did not want to restrict murals on residential structures, so they deleted 3.A from the list of prohibited murals. The committee then brought their attention to the proposed prohibition of murals on any historic buildings (3.B). Susan asked the COC if they wanted to prohibit murals on historic buildings and also to expand that prohibition to include buildings that were eligible for listing on the State and National Register. Chris explained that the town did not have a lot of properties that were actually listed on the Register, so that would be a short list to include. But in terms of properties that were eligible for listing, staff would need to review each of the structures in the town’s historic resources survey to see if they would actually be eligible for listing on the registers; then we’d need to see if the property owners would want to register the structures, noting that the process would not be easy or quick. Ultimately, the group decided to delete the words “structure, facility, site or district or prehistoric site” so the restriction would only apply to properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Page 2, 3.D prohibition on art murals in a public right-of-way - Some discussion on public art e.g. the electrical boxes and bridge abutments in the city of Ithaca. The COC decided that there is little chance of this happening in the town and that if it comes up, the person or entity can seek a variance from the ZBA. Page 2, 3.G Illumination - Should we prohibit illumination on murals or regulate illumination? Should we prohibit animated/changing image murals or murals containing mechanical or electrical components? After a long discussion, the group decided to: (1) regulate illuminated murals by adding the same provisions for external lighting as were drafted for the new sign law, and (2) add “moving and mechanical components” to the prohibition list. Page 3, 4.F Art mural permit - The group decided that F wasn’t needed (pertaining to nonconforming murals), so it was struck from the draft law. Page 3, definition of mural - Susan explained that she was wavering on whether to treat murals as signs because the committee had previously decided that murals were not signs, in that they have different purposes and benefits than signs. To that end, Susan would like to change the definition of a mural and also change the definition of a sign in the Sign Law. Susan also felt that the “one-of-a-kind image” statement in the draft law could gather more items in it than intended, e.g. mosaic plaques for house numbers (strictly speaking, that would be a mural). She proposed a change to the definition to say something that makes it clear that if one meets the definition of a mural, then it is a mural; if not, then it is a sign. Further, if one meets the definition of a mural but can’t meet all the requirements, one can ask that the work be treated as a sign. Discussion followed and the definition of mural was changed to read: A one-of-a-kind work of visual art that is hand-painted, hand-tiled or digitally printed directly on, or affixed directly to, an exterior wall of a building. The group discussed different applications of the concept of “one-of-a-kind work of visual art,” considering the potential of the McDonald’s “golden arches” logo, which technically could be a one-of- a-kind painting if painted on the side of the commercial building and crafted in the abstract or some other creative, artistic way than the corporate logo. The group decided the likelihood of this occurrence was not probable. Bill G. suggested that staff revise the mural law as above and move it on to the Town Board for consideration of adoption. Committee agreed. 4. Draft Sign Law: Remaining Discussion Items and Questions. Chris provided the committee with a list of items that came up as questions or concerns when the draft law was forwarded for Pg. 3 review by the Town Board, Planning Board, Zoning Board, Conservation Board and Agricultural Committee. The Town Board decided to have the COC discuss the list and provide final decisions. The list of remaining discussion items included: 1. Outdoor projected lighting e.g. laser technology to project holiday light decorations onto the side of a house: Are these signs? Are they murals? Should the town regulate them? The committee discussed and decided that this type of lighting was not a mural or a sign. The committee also decided that the town should not regulate them. 2. Are awnings allowed to have graphics and symbols? Law is not clear: Chris read the section of the sign law that pertained to lettering on awnings - “Lettering should be in a single line and no larger than 6 inches tall.” The committee decided that graphics, even monogrammed letters, are not considered letters but that awnings should be allowed to contain graphics. The COC further decided that the law should continue to regulate the size of letters, but should not regulate the size of graphics. The language in the law was modified to read: “Awning graphics, including symbols and lettering, may be painted or affixed flat to the surface of the front or sides. Any lettering shall be a single line of lettering with a maximum height of 6” inches.” 3. Why aren’t freestanding signs in commercial zones allowed in any other yard besides the front yard?: The committee talked about corner lots and other restrictions that would limit the number of signs if a company decided they wanted a freestanding in a side yard. The committee decided to remove the restriction so freestanding signs could be in whatever yard the applicant wanted, subject to all the other restrictions noted in the law. The language in the law was revised to read “Freestanding signs shall be located outside of the public right-of-way, and shall be no closer than 15 feet from a side lot line.” 4. The nonconforming sign section is contradictory and confusing. Please consider rewording: The group re-read the section together and thought the confusion might be where it says in #1 that nonstructural signs must conform within 90 days and #2 says the signs can remain. The COC determined that #2 needs to be clarified to explain that it means any structural, nonconforming signs can remain. Susan and staff will work on revising the language. 5. Both the individual sign size limit (12s.f.) and the aggregate sign size limit (24s.f.) in the AG Zone are not large enough if the goal is to limit ZBA appearances: Bill G. stated that the Town Board did want to increase these limits to something larger. This increase would only apply to the AG Zone. One committee member pointed out that there is a number of non-farm, residential uses in the AG Zone, and it seemed weird to allow them larger signs. Discussion followed. Susan suggested limiting the increased signage to lots that are 5 acres and larger in size. The committee agreed to this change. The committee also agreed to increase the individual sign size in the AG Zone to 24s.f. and the aggregate to 36s.f. The law will be revised to reflect the new language. 6. Window signs should count toward the aggregate s.f. of signage permitted in all of the zones that allow signs: The committee stated that they have discussed this in depth and prefer to rely upon the NYS Building Code, adding that there are enough restrictions in residential zones to offer some control. No changes to the law. Bill G. suggested that staff revise the Sign Law as above and move it on to the Town Board for consideration of adoption. Committee agreed. 5. Other Business. ❖ Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for October 12, 2016.