HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2015-05-13TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
Meeting of May 13, 2015
6:30 p.m. - 8:35 p.m.
Minutes
Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Bill King; Eva Hoffmann; Susan Ritter, Director of
Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town and Paulette Terwilliger, Town
Clerk.
Absent: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement
Guests: Yvonne Fogarty, Planning Board Member
1. Member comments/concerns. Bill G. introduced Yvonne Fogarty, Planning Board member
who was sitting in on the meeting to observe because she may be the new representative from that
board. Bill G. also distributed a copy of an email he received from Christianne McMillan White
regarding agricultural signs.
2. Approval of April 8, 2015 COC minutes. Changes made. Motion to approve made by Eric,
seconded by Pat. Unanimous
3. Discuss Murals - Regulate in the Sign Law, exempt from the Sign Law or create a
separate law to regulate them? Chris gave an overview of her handout with two potential mural
definitions, one from the City of Ithaca and another from the City of Los Angeles, noting that the
Ithaca definition was rather lengthy, but seemed to cover everything. The committee had also
discussed making murals a separate law and Susan added that that would take some time and she
would suggest that we pass the sign law as drafted with no mention of murals and then work on it
separately. She added that there has only been one request for a mural in anyone's memory.
Susan also reported that she did a lot of research on whether any courts had dealt with murals and
how they were ruled. She found a couple cases. One case involved a bait shop with an ocean scene
and another case involved a cigar shop depicting a man smoking a cigar. The cigar shop case was
considered a sign, so owner changed the cigar to a blue whale and that was determined art. Susan
explained the two kinds of tests that the courts use. One test is strict scrutiny and nothing can pass
that; but the other test that circuit courts use is an intermediate scrutiny. If the town uses either of
the sample definitions, both of which say "no commercial advertising," then a court would likely say
that it is content discrimination and would apply strict scrutiny. However, some courts in Federal
circuits might test the municipality's intent e.g. did they intend to censor one point of view versus
another. If the law is well written, that intermediate scrutiny test could be survived.
Susan stated the recommendation from the writer of one article/review she read was to have a
separate law for murals regulating just time, place and manner, because that is completely content
neutral. It may be possible to limit the amount of text to a percentage of the area on the mural, but
that would not cover corporate logos e.g. the Nike swoosh. Susan then stated that if we don't
mention murals and move forward as we are with our sign law, we can look at murals separately
later if we think we need to. It seems the committee wants to allow public art and the division
comes in the interpretation of what that would be.
Pat stated that she liked the City of Ithaca (COI) definition. She didn't want to discourage public art
and something artistic that related to the business was ok; it'd be part of the building and
decoration, whereas a billboard would be a free standing sign. She thought the word "overtly" ruled
out the corporate logos and provided a nice balance.
Eric stated that he was not averse to taking a little bit of legal risk but added that we could go with
what we have and amend the sign law regarding murals at a later date. He was concerned people
wouldn't know where to look for regulations on murals if they weren't placed in the sign law.
Eva stated that if we put something in the law to prohibit something, we'd have to prohibit it from
everybody, even those that can do it in an artistic fashion.
Susan suggested that if the committee wanted to go forward with using a definition and regulating
murals, the first line of the City of Los Angeles that defined a mural as hand -painted, not mass
produced or digitally printed, would solve the national companies printing billboard type murals.
Pat and Eva disagreed, stating that modern science should be allowed because that could be just as
artistic and one -of -a -kind type of work.
Bill G. stated that the COI definition was interesting, but way too long, and reminded the committee
that the goal was to try and figure out a way to allow small businesses to have something artistic
and one -of -a -kind while being content neutral. He asked if we did nothing right now in the sign law
and Six Mile Creek came back asking to do their mural, what would they be able to do? Chris
responded that the Planning Board recommended they be allowed to have their mural, but the
Zoning Board denied it.
Pat stated that she was trying to edit the COI definition and the second half was the wordy part
where it got confusing. She suggested simplifying it to read "Murals shall not be considered signs
for the purpose of this Chapter, if the design of the mural does not overtly represent goods, services
or activities offered for sale." Bill G. responded that we would still have to define murals and Pat
responded that would be "a picture, design or decorative treatment painted on or otherwise affixed
to and covering a large portion of a wall surface."
Some discussion followed regarding what kind of distraction murals might cause for drivers, but the
committee seemed in favor of allowing murals overall. Bill G. stated that it seemed the committee
would like to address murals and allow them by using the COI's definition and rewriting it to make
it clearer but briefer, plus the committee liked the term one -of -a -kind to help with commercial uses.
He suggested crafting the mural definition so it was exempt from the sign law. Susan asked if there
should be any restrictions and Bill G. responded no because they would not be considered signs, so
no restrictions should apply. Susan had an idea to use a part of a Portland, Oregon definition,
combined with the Los Angeles definition, noting that "generalized depiction" would be subtly
subjective while "overtly" would be very subjective. She used the example of McDonalds painting a
big hamburger on the side of their building, with no logo, as being considered a mural.
Bill G. suggested that the committee decide if murals would require any review at all, explaining
that there wouldn't be any review if they were exempt from the sign law. Alternately, does the
committee want to regulate murals somehow? Bill G. summarized that a number of members would
like to find a way to define a mural in a manner that would be clear enough without being too
content specific and not allow corporate logos or specific items that are for sale and yet allow
certain murals that wouldn't be restricted by our sign law.
2
Bill G. suggested that in order to move forward, Susan should re -craft the definition of mural, given
the guidance from COI, Los Angeles and Oregon, and the committee would vote on it at the next
meeting. Susan asked if there should be a limit on their size or height and Bill G. responded no, if
they are exempt there are no restrictions.
4. Discuss 3D signs and sign symbols - How to measure them? How large should they be?
Chris started by reminding the committee that this subject spilled over from the last meeting when
she was asked to look at the standard size of a barber pole and then how to measure that shape. Bill
G. added that the committee seemed to be in favor of smaller 3D or sculpture like items hanging
from a building but not the freestanding type. Chris stated that 3D signs could be measured using
surface area or volume calculations and Bill G. asked how that would affect our aggregate limits.
Discussion followed on a sample 3D sign definition from COI that considers 3D signs as a 2D item
and takes the largest dimension as the measurement (length times width of the largest visible
surface area). The end result would be the box drawn around the largest dimension of the object as
if a box were drawn around a picture taken of it. This would be similar to signs that have
appendages or different sizes. Lengthy discussion followed and Susan thought the City's definition
was confusing.
The other way to measure 3D signs would be to consider the volume measurement (length times
width times height). Bill K. noted that one could measure volume by computing the area of the
imaginary box around the 3D symbol, which won't actually be the volume but could be the standard
measuring tool used.
Chris was asked to go out and measure barber poles in the area and to use them in pictures that
show the difference between measuring via volume and via largest viewable surface area.
Bill K. suggested that the committee limit the maximum size of a 3D symbol to 3 cubic feet and Bill
G. responded that he would like to first see the measurements of the existing barber poles before
the committee decided on limits. Susan stated that she was fine with allowing the 3 cubic feet and
not deal with the aggregate to make it simpler. The committee will discuss and decide when the
samples are provided at the next meeting.
Bill G. stated that the committee will look also at the enforcement portion, including sign removal
provisions, and review Christianne's email on agricultural signs at the next meeting.
Susan reminded the committee that the Supreme Court was deciding a case on content -neutrality
which should be out by June and might allow the committee to make some changes to the draft sign
law.
5. Other Business.
Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for June 10, 2015.
3