Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2015-02-11TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of February 11, 2015 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine; Pat Leary via FaceTime; Bill King; Fred Wilcox; Eva Hoffmann; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town. Absent: Chris Balestra, Planner. 1. Member Comments/Concerns. None 2. Approval of January 14, 2015 COC Minutes. Changes were made to the draft. Moved by Eric, seconded by Eva, unanimous 3. Review of Draft Updated Sign Law Containing All Modifications To Date (12/10/14l. The committee reviewed the highlighted areas on the new draft. Discussion and decisions: Back to Pg.3 221-5 Exempt Signs New proposed "C": Add language to exempt signs of a certain size and a minimum distance from a public road right-of-way Sue gave a slide show of pictures where Chris and Mike went out in the field with a prototype sign measuring 6 square feet in area. Chris also photo -shopped the images to show a sign measuring 12 square feet in area. All pictures showed the signs at 50 feet from the side of the road and again at 60 feet from the center of the road. The committee asked staff to take these pictures to show what a 6 and 12 square foot sign looked like from a certain distance off the road. The background on the question stemmed from a previous COC discussion about the need for variances for the Ithaca College Banners, the multiple hospital signs for their "tobacco -free campus," the South Hill Business campus signs behind their building, and others. The committee explored the idea of limiting the need for so many variances for signs that would not really be visible from the public right-of-way, with the key being the distance from the public roadway, not just the zone the signs are in. Discussion followed. The committee tentatively decided that non -illuminated signs less than 6 square feet in area and placed at least 100 feet from the public road right-of-way and from the lot line of any adjoining owner would be exempt without limit in Residential, Conservation, and Office Park Commercial Zones. Susan will work on language and placement in the law. The committee then discussed the need to look at the Planned Development Zones in the town and see how they address signs; are they linked to the residential zone standards or do they have regulations regarding signs incorporated into the PDZ language? Sue and Chris will follow up on this at the next COC meeting. 1 Pg. 11 221-14 Design Review C-2 Susan will reword C.2 to limit sign additions to shingles that are smaller than and hang below the main sign, and to prohibit pop -ups and cut-outs. Susan will reword the first sentence in C.3 to read "The cumulative area of sign bases, supports, and decorative elements shall not exceed 1.5 times the maximum allowable sign area for the zoning district in which the sign is placed." Pg. 13 221-15 Enforcement Official This section will be removed now that the decision to incorporate the law into the Zoning Chapter has been decided. 221-16 Sign Permit A, D and F A. Chris' note about content is probably a holdover from the Committee's discussion in January 2015 about whether a change in content should require a new review by the Planning Board or ZBA, where either of those boards had approved the initial sign. The Committee decided in January 2015 that a change in content by itself should not trigger the need to go back to those Boards. But the Committee had not previously discussed whether a change in sign content only should trigger the need for a new sign permit, so it discussed that question now. The Committee decided a change in content only should require a new sign permit so staff could make sure the change in content meets the sign law's requirements (no graphics that impair traffic by design or color, no phosphorescent, fluorescent, or reflective paint, etc.). Committee decided to remove parenthesis and keep only the word "except" so the phrase reads "except as required by §221- 13". Susan will reword this sentence slightly because it is a little awkward with its two uses of the word "except" in the same sentence. D. Revise language so it refers to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals by their full names. F. Add the words "or alteration" after the word "installation" to address those instances where the contents or coloring is the only thing being altered but nothing is being installed. Example used was East Hill Plaza card shop going to a bagel shop. A permit is still required so the town can review and inspect. Refer to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals by their full names. 221-17 Appeals Delete this section, because the sign provisions are being incorporated into the Zoning Chapter, and Zoning Chapter §270-235 discusses the ZBA and its actions. Deletion of §221-17 means that the sentence "A variance from the requirements of this chapter is an area variance" will be deleted. Susan said that sentence will not be needed because with the addition of the sign provisions to the Zoning Chapter, it will be clear that a variance of a sign provision is a zoning variance. Also, Susan reported her research of NY case law shows that courts treat variances of sign dimensional requirements and locations in required setbacks as area variances. 221-18 Penalties for Offenses Susan reported that A-D will be deleted because we are incorporating the sign provisions into the Zoning Chapter, which deals with enforcement in §270-239 Violations. In reviewing the sign enforcement provisions that will be deleted, she noted that they state each day is a separate violation, but NYS Town Law §268 states "each week," so that is the applicable standard (and that is what Zoning Chapter §270-239 says, too). NYS Town Law §268 also provides a sliding 2 scale for penalties that start lower than the $500 per violation in the wording that will be deleted, but §268 increases the penalty range for multiple violations within a 5-year period. Susan also will revise Zoning Chapter §270-239 Violations to add verbiage regarding injunctive relief. It is not in there now, although NYS Town Law §268 does provide for injunctive relief, but it would be cleaner to have it spelled out right in the Zoning Chapter. Susan added that E and F would still be needed to cover the removal of the signs and she will draft verbiage for that with a new title. 221-19 Terminology Delete A, B and the introductory words in C, because they are already covered in Zoning Chapter, §270-5 Definitions. All definitions from the sign provisions will be inserted into §270-5 Definitions. (The Committee returned to this later --see below for more discussion on this.) The Committee decided to delete items 1-6 (affix, enterprise, erect, placement, street, and used) because they are common words that are well understood and the definitions do not add anything. Pg.17- Projecting sign picture choices are Johnny's and the cupcake. The State Theatre sign picture should not be used because the sign projects above the roof, which is not allowed by our sign provisions. Discussion turned to where the pictures would go which then brought up whether the definitions and pictures should be left in the Sign provisions as well as be added to the Definitions section. While everyone agreed the sign definitions must go into Zoning Chapter §270-5 Definitions, some felt the definitions and pictures should be duplicated in the sign provisions as well, because they are more likely to be seen by the public if they are placed with the sign provisions. Options are putting the words in the Zoning Chapter's definition section with the pictures, and putting the words in the Zoning Chapter's definition section with or without the pictures and leaving the entire section with all the definitions and pictures in the sign provisions for easy access as an appendix or a last section of the sign provisions, called something other than definitions. Bill G. asked staff to come up with a proposed solution. Bill G suggested going through of all provisions one last time in March. Susan will make redlined changes to pages 11-18 for the committee to review because the committee made a number of changes to those pages, and she had some proposed changes to definitions that the committee did not get to at this meeting. The sign provisions will then go on to the Town Board in April or SO. 4. Discussion of Draft Proposed 2015 COC Work Plan. Bill G reviewed the list prepared by Chris and suggested finishing up the items at the top that are nearing completion. Discussion followed with the committee touching on most of the list and Bruce requesting that the committee think about moving the items that were referred by the Town Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals to the front since they continue to get questions about them. 5. Other Business. ❖ Next meeting tentatively scheduled for March 11, 2015.