Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2015-03-11TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of March 11, 2015 6:30 p.m. - 8:34 p.m. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Bill King; Fred Wilcox; Eva Hoffmann; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town and Chris Balestra, Planner. Absent: Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk. 1. Member comments/concerns. None 2. Approval of February 11, 2015 COC minutes. Minor correction made (typo). Moved by Fred, seconded by Eric. Unanimous, no abstentions. 3. Review of Revised draft Sign law, pages 11-19, prepared by Susan Brock, titled "SB Revisions to p.11-19 for March 11, 2015 COC mtg." Page 11, §221-14. C. Computation of sign area: Redlined changes were approved as proposed. Page 13, §221-16. Sign Permit. Susan referred the committee to Page 9, §221-13 Sign maintenance and removal; nonconforming signs, from last month's revised sign law handout ("All Modifications to Date," dated 12-10-14). She asked the committee to consider removing the reference to §221-13 in §221-16.A. because that section does not talk about sign permits. She suggested that the committee be very specific in §221-13 as to which signs do not need a permit. We should then spell out those activities in §221-16 that would not require a permit. For example, does the committee want to require a sign permit for someone who just re -paints a sign and returns it in place exactly as it was? Discussion followed. Bruce had concerns about how Codes staff would know a sign was changing if there wasn't a new permit associated with it. The committee was not in favor of requiring a new permit if the sign was simply being repaired or refurbished. Susan thought the committee should consider adding something to the design review section (§ 221-14) to clarify that a replacement -in -kind or a simple change in a sign that met the design review criteria would not need to go to a board for approval. She used the example of an East Hill Plaza building business name change -even if it was a color change, it would not need additional board approval as long as it met the design review criteria. Susan will review because she thought the law contained an affirmative statement somewhere else. Susan also suggested adding language to §221-16.A. as follows: "No sign requiring a permit pursuant to §221-6 shall be erected, moved or altered pursuant to §221-13 (except signs undergoing maintenance or repair may be removed and reinstalled in the same location)unless or until a sign permit has been obtained." Staff noted that §221-13 required clearer language. Susan recommended adding a new "B" after §221-16.A. to reference nonconforming signs in §221-13 E(3), which requires that signs be brought into compliance or receive a variance and new permit. Page 13, §221-17. Redlined changes removing this section were approved as proposed. Page 14, §221-18: Redlined changes removing this section were approved as proposed. Page 14, Terminology Section (to be incorporated into the Zoning Chapter): The committee discussed the remaining definitions that were left over from the last meeting. Specifically: • Luminous tubing - Chris reported that she had researched this and found that the description was really a matter of semantics. She provided the committee with a few options for definitions and the committee settled on "tube of light from sources such as neon, cold cathode, fiber optic, LED or other electric or gas -discharge source." • On -Premises sign - Susan suggested deleting definition, as it was unnecessary and too restrictive and delete the last sentence of the non -conforming sign definition that discusses on -premises signs. Committee agreed. • Owner - Committee agreed to delete. • Person - Committee agreed to delete. • Right-of-way, Public - This term is not defined in the Zoning Code, so Susan wanted to make sure it would fit throughout the code if it was going to be defined. Susan will research this one and will report back to the committee at the next meeting. Susan also noted that the Zoning Code uses street right-of-way in determining setbacks and that she will check to see if the terms are truly interchangeable. • Sign Symbol - Chris had researched this and found that the term was only used in the regulations around projecting and freestanding sign, both of which only allow two-sided signs. This brought up the question of barber poles and other three-dimensional signs that might be creative but have more than two sides (the barber pole was even used as an example in the sign symbol definition). The committee seemed in favor of allowing three- dimensional signs, but the computation of sign area section would need to be modified. Staff will research what changes in other sections would be needed and will report back at the next meeting. Street - This definition might depend on the outcome of the right-of-way research above. Committee will re -visit. • Sign Support - Committee agreed to delete the sentence "Sign supports may also be an integral part of the design of a building" so there is no mistake that any part of the building is considered as part of the area of the sign and delete the phrase "or the like" in the first sentence. • Window Sign - Susan suggested adding the criteria that a window sign must be visible from the exterior of the window. This started a conversation about distances from which an observer could see a window sign. Susan stated that the law doesn't regulate them much, except to meet the Fire Code, so the definition should be good as modified. Committee agreed to adding "and visible from the exterior of the window" after the second "window" and before "but not including..." Bill noted that the COC still needs to discuss murals. This will happen at the next meeting. 4. Discussion of staff memo, dated March 5, 2015, titled "Proposed Ideas for Handling Sign Law Definitions." along with examples showing choices #4 and #5 noted on memo. Page 14, §221-19 Terminology: Bill G. recapped the question "where does the committee want to put the definitions and pictures associated with sign law, since this law will be incorporated into the Zoning chapter which has a definition section already?" Chris provided a memo in the committee mail out that contained five possibilities, three that were discussed at the last meeting and two new suggestions. The three previously -discussed options included: 1) Locating the definitions - with photos - to the Zoning Chapter definitions and eliminating the definition section at the end of the Sign Law, 2) Locating the definitions - without photos - in the Zoning Chapter definitions, and locating definitions with photos at the end of the Sign Law, 3) Locating the definitions - with photos - in the Zoning Chapter definitions, and locating definitions with photos at the end of the Sign Law, but possibly referring to the section in the Sign Law as an appendix. The two new suggestions included: 4) Locating the definitions - without photos - to the Zoning Chapter definitions, and creating a new section within the Sign Law that shows pictures of the types of signs that would be found in the law, with reference to the definitions in the Zoning Chapter, 5) Locating the definitions - without photos - in the Zoning Chapter definitions, and incorporating the photos into the body of the Sign Law itself. For example, in Residential Zoning Districts, show a photo of a freestanding sign amongst the language regulating freestanding signs; show a photo of a banner amongst the language regulating banners, etc. Chris thought the good thing about option #5 was that it would break up the monotony of the text and would allow the different photos for the different types of zones e.g. Residential, Commercial, Agricultural, etc. She added that the Residential and Agricultural Zones basically said the same thing, so the photos would be repeated in those instances, but she could find more agriculturally -related photos for the Agricultural Zone. Discussion followed. Eva liked inserting the photos throughout the law, thinking that it was very user friendly. Susan was concerned in general about possible copyright infringements of photos included in the law. Bill G. thought that they might be fine if we were using them as examples and not for commercial purposes. Susan will look into this issue and report back to the committee at the next meeting. Susan preferred option #4, where the photos were all in one spot and not throughout. She thought that the photos would be confusing to someone who was used to reading text and noted that the one page option was elegant and easy to understand. Bruce also liked option #4 as a quick reference, which he thought made it very user friendly for handing out to applicants and for professional designers to have a reference tool all in one spot. Bill K. thought the photos might be better if they were a little bigger, and that he was leaning toward the option #4, rather than having photos throughout the law. Eric also preferred option #4, while Pat preferred #5 because then one wouldn't have to flip back and forth through the law. Eva asked who the target audience was, and if it was the public, then the committee should consider what was more useful for the public. Bruce responded that the target audience was usually staff or contractors, and having the photos in one spot would be more user-friendly for that audience as a reference tool. Bill G. thought that since we were providing an example of all the different types of signs at the beginning of the law, he was leaning towards having the photos in one place instead of throughout the law. Pat added that it should be made very clear that the photos were examples only. Bill G. stated that the majority of the committee seemed to prefer the single location (option #4), so that should be used for the next iteration of the law. 5. Discussion of proposal to exempt signs up to 6 square feet in area that are located 100 feet from a public road right-of-way in all Residential, Conservation, and Office Park Commercial Zones. Bill G. noted the time and stated that agenda item #5 would be moved to the next meeting. Eva stated that she would also like to talk about wall signs and the required height, which might need some clarification from where the height measurement is started. The committee will also discuss at the next meeting an email that Susan Brock provided earlier in the day that staff copied and distributed for this meeting. Susan had comments on parts of the sign law that were still not finalized. 6. Other Business. Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for April 8, 2015. COC-' 3 - � � -2 0 � 7 pg 5