Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2015-01-14TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of January 14, 2015 6:34 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine, Pat Leary via FaceTime, Bill King and Eva Hoffmann Staff: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning, Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town. Guests: Two Ithaca High School government class students. Absent: Fred Wilcox. 1. Member Comments/Concerns. None. 2. Approval of November 12, 2014 COC Minutes. Minor changes were made to the draft. Moved by Eric, seconded by Pat. Eva abstained. Unanimous. 3. Review of Draft Updated Sign Law Containing All Modifications To Date (12/101m. Chris noted that she went through all of the previous committee meeting minutes, along with her notes and made all of the official modifications that the committee wanted. She noted that the highlighted areas in yellow on the proposed draft showed outstanding questions or decisions that the committee still needed to discuss or wanted to come back to. Susan Brock was able to review the draft through page 10 or so and concurred with Chris' changes and the December 10th draft reflects both Chris' and Susan's changes. Bill G. suggested that the committee go through the highlighted items first and then go back through the entire law section by section when all other questions have been answered. Highlighted Discussion Items: Pg. 2- §221-3. Interpretation. Chris stated that this section will have to be reworded if the town chooses to make the law part of the zoning code. Bill G. asked if staff had a recommendation on whether to leave the sign law as a stand-alone ordinance or incorporate it into the code. Chris responded that staff recommends the law become part of the zoning code, because it will be easier for both staff and applicants to find it, it is standard practice in the planning field and most municipalities usually incorporate sign regulations into their main zoning codes. She went on to say that the upcoming changes associated with the 2014 Comprehensive Plan include consolidating many of the town's laws and development regulations and guidelines into one "Unified Development Code." Chris added that the only downside she could see to adding the sign law to the zoning code was making sure all terminology was consistent throughout the code. She said she has been doing that as the committee has proceeded through the drafts and noted that most of the terms which were in question have been resolved by this committee. Susan was concerned about the enforcement provisions and if the ones in the zoning code would be sufficient to apply to the sign regulations. Discussion followed and it was decided that the general enforcement provisions within the zoning code should suffice, along with specific actions that could be required in certain scenarios and could be spelled out in the law. The committee agreed that the sign law should be incorporated into the zoning code. Pg. 2- §221-4. Prohibited signs and displays: I. All signs not expressly permitted by this chapter. Eva thought the committee wanted this statement at the end to catch any future signs or conditions that may come up that we haven't thought of and to help with enforcement. Sue agreed, saying she thought it was to be extremely clear and as a catch-all. Discussion followed on whether it should be moved to the beginning but the committee decided to keep it at the end. Pg. 3- §221-5. Exempt Signs C. Add language to exempt signs of a certain size from a public road right-of-way - Bill G. recommended that the COC talk about this in general. Bill G. recapped, thinking that this was rooted in the need for variances for the banners at Ithaca College and the no -smoking signs at the hospital. He added that some of the concerns will be addressed on page 4 and may also be addressed in the changes planned when we have an institutional and/or educational zone, but he was concerned that there are still other instances where there is no harm in having signs on a property when the sign is so far from the road and would still require a variance. A goal of this revision is to limit the need for a variance and the key should be the distance from the public roadway, not just the zone the sign is in. Chris asked if Bill G. was thinking this would be for all zones and he responded that he was and used the example of Ithaca Beer wanting a sign about a band playing on a certain weekend. Right now that property is in a planned development zone and they should be allowed without a variance. Discussion followed whether the distance from the public road should be the main factor in exempting signs or whether it should be if the sign was visible from the road, the latter of which seemed dependent on the size of the sign. Sue thought the bigger concern for a negative impact would be exempting signs in commercial zones and she suggested not exempting signs in commercial or industrial zones but allowing them elsewhere. To get an idea of the visual impact of signs of certain sizes and from certain distances, the committee asked staff to take pictures of 6 s.f. signs and other sizes from 50-feet and 100-feet away, to gauge the impacts of those signs. Staff will provide pictures for the committee to discuss at the February meeting. Pg. 3- §221-8. Residential Zoning Districts. Add Conservation Zones to this section of the law, in the title and anywhere residential zone is mentioned. Pg. 5- §221-9. Agricultural Zoning Districts. A. Freestanding, wall, projecting, awning, window, copy -change signs and banners and flags are permitted as specified below. The COC decided at their November 2014 meeting to further explore allowing off -premise signs within x feet of a business or enterprise in agricultural zones. Bill G. asked about allowing some off -premise signs by size, such as x number of signs with an aggregate area of x square feet. Discussion followed. 2 Chris provided some sample language that included "Off -premise signs should be no larger than x square feet each and no larger than x square feet in the aggregate. Such signs shall be located no further than x feet from the premises where the products are grown or the business is conducted, and only x type of off -premise sign is permitted." Her original idea was to state that only agricultural products would be allowed, but Susan noted that that would be content -based. So Chris modified the language to be broader and allow other businesses and business products. Bill G. noted that then any business in an agricultural zone could have an off -premise sign. Sue mentioned that there are limited agricultural zones, but some would be ideal places for off - premise signs and especially attractive for billboards. Sue asked about adding the seasonal component or a time limit on off -premise signs. Susan said that might work if the town could state that those restrictions meet the purpose of our law and that the law would have to be crafted to meet that purpose. Susan reported on a related case that was just argued at the Supreme Court where a church in Arizona sued a town over their sign law because the town had regulations on temporary signs but then classified them by the kind of sign they were and the content of the sign. That town's law stated that political signs could be as large as 32 s.£, remain in place for months and were generally unlimited in number, while signs such as the ones announcing church services and similar events could be no larger than 6 s.£, only be displayed right before and right after events and must be limited to four per property. The church sued and said the town was drawing distinctions on temporary signs based on their content. Susan summarized the Supreme Court's discussion, stating that the court appeared to be saying that towns could treat signs differently for different groups, such as churches. She was very surprised by the discussion, as it was a complete turnaround from previous decisions which pushed for content -neutrality in sign laws. Susan said that the town should go with what has been litigated before, being content -neutral. She added that if the Supreme Court does rule similar to the decision discussed on the SCOTUS blog it would make it easier for us to allow off premise signs in agricultural districts and specify that the signs could be used only for agricultural/agri-tourism purposes. Susan turned back to the topic at hand and asked the committee to verbalize what the rationale was for allowing the agricultural off -premise signs a certain distance from the roadway and why they should be singled out. Bruce stated that we are trying to control clutter so we are limiting size, distance and total in aggregate and, given the agricultural nature and the amount of land available, the criteria have to be different to ensure that. Susan explained that if a billboard company wanted a billboard they would attempt to strike down the law by finding any defect anywhere in the law to invalidate it. Chris mentioned that the larger billboard companies have been very aggressive about this in some municipalities. The committee asked Susan to look into it more to see if there is case law that would allow the restrictions and effect the committee wants and report at the next meeting. This will determine if the committee can move forward with crafting criteria and regulations specific to agricultural zones. Bill G. will also talk to the Agricultural Committee and get their comments. Eva added that maybe something could be in another area of the law to protect scenic views and that could bolster this section also. Bill G. commented that although the committee hadn't addressed this specifically, any farmer would have to get permission from the landowner they wanted to place a sign on and that landowner would have to abide by the aggregate size and 3 amount for all signs on their property, e.g. if George Sheldrake agreed to have the sound maze directional sign on his land for his neighbor, that maze sign would count toward the aggregate number and sizes of signs that he could have. Therefore, the law would not be creating more signage. Sue added that these same farmers who want the signs are the ones that are providing us with the scenic views. Eva thought that wasn't always the case but understood this point. She noted that the pig houses that were constructed in the East Hill area seemed small on paper but block the scenic view now. The committee moved to a general discussion on how to incorporate scenic view protection into the law, while keeping in mind that they are talking about seasonal crops and such like strawberries or pumpkins. Susan noted that there are other businesses out there that would fall under this section. Bill G used the winery signs as an example of a fairly good number of way - finding signs that are out there and he didn't think they were objectionable. The committee will wait on the results from Susan's research before they move forward with new language for this section. Pg. 6- §221-9. Agricultural Zoning Districts. I. Copy change signs: COC said it would consider prohibiting wheeled copy -change signs. The discussion comes from the wish to prevent those plastic, backlit, large signs with the plastic letters and numbers that are generally on wheels, like the one in front of Mickey Roof Jewelers. The draft law prohibits copy change signs, but the committee had talked about allowing them only in the agricultural zones to accommodate farmers who have seasonal products available that can change by the week. The committee wanted to allow a sign like the Indian Creek Farm sign, which is made of wood or a material that looks like wood, is dark purple with white copy - change lettering. The sign contains whatever fruit or product is available that week. Bill G. had no problem prohibiting the wheeled variety, becasue they are generally considered unattractive. Bill K. noted that if the problem was the large white background plastic type, then the issue wasn't with the wheels, it was with the sign itself. Chris noted that the law will require signs to be lit with dark backgrounds and light lettering, but that the committee did not limit the type of materials, so they could still be plastic. Chris noted that the committee had discussed limiting the type of material the copy change sign could be made of but they did not want to do that because there are some very nice plastics out there that look like natural wood. The committee decided to not prohibit the wheeled copy -change signs. In looking at the restrictions regarding lighting, combined with the size restrictions, the wheeled type of sign would be prohibited anyway, even if the user didn't use the lighting feature. Pg. 7- §221-10. Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts. Window signs: Window signs are permitted, provided that they meet the standards of the NYS Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code. Staff wanted to know from Bruce if there was a specific section of the code that should be referenced. After some discussion, the committee decided that the sentence should say "Window signs are permitted, provided that they meet the standards of the applicable New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code." 21 Related to this, the committee decided to be consistent and remove the term "the latest edition" in §221-12.A. Sign Construction (on page 8) and replace it with "applicable." Pg. 7- §221-10. Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts. Staff still needs to see if the subsections that are mentioned in 221-10.5.b are correctly referenced. Pg. 9- §221-13. Sign maintenance and removal; nonconforming signs. Susan and Chris still need to work on removal provisions and language for this section. Pg. 10- §221-13.E.4. Sign maintenance and removal; nonconforming signs. #4 states "Abandonment or discontinuance of the use for which any nonconforming sign has been maintained for a period of more than 30 days, as shall be determined by the Code Enforcement Officer, shall terminate the use of such sign. No nonconforming sign shall be reinstated except by variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals." Staff flagged this language because it is very unclear. Susan explained that the question seems to be whether to apply the same rules for a legally non -conforming sign if the use is no longer there, unless the code officer determines it could be used by a future occupant. Bill G. asked if it is covered under section B and Susan suggested referencing B or restating it here. Eva thought if a sign was non -conforming for the 30 days, it should come down unless a variance is received. Susan will draft new language to make this section clearer. Pg. 10- §221-14. Design review A. Purpose. Staff was unsure if the committee wanted to keep the words "graphic design," "colors," or "street graphics." Chris noted that the term "street graphics" was new and was not used anywhere in the law. The committee discussed limiting colors and changing the words "graphic design" and "street graphics." Bill G. recalled that the committee had talked about the term "graphic design" as being too subjective, dependent on a person's personal taste. That is why the discussion was tabled before. The committee looked at other areas where graphics were discussed. Susan suggested removing it if there were no criteria attached to it. Bill G. thought it referred back to legibility and being able to say that a particular graphic design is not legible and Pat thought we wanted it in there to control compatibility with other signs in the area, especially multi -tenant instances. Eva thought the reference to color also had to stay in to bolster other sections. Bill G. noted that Fred's concern in the past was that he did not want the Planning Board to have to make these subjective calls. The committee decided to delete "street graphics," keep "graphic design" and wait for the next meeting to get Fred's opinion about "colors." Bill G. suggested the committee stop at the bottom of page 10 and allow Chris and Susan to work through the rest of the law for the next meeting. 4. Other Business. Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for February 11, 2015. Bill G. wanted to finish the sign law at the next meeting and then take a look at the COC Work Plan for 2015. 5 The 2015 schedule will remain the second Wednesday of the month. Bill G. reiterated that this started last year and alleviated some heavy meeting weeks. The committee tentatively changed the November meeting to the 4th instead of the 11th, due to the Veteran's Day holiday. C41