HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2014-04-09TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
Meeting of April 9, 2014
6:30 P.M. - 8:30 P.M.
Minutes
Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Eva Hoffmann; Bill King; Bruce Bates, Director
of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner.
Absent: Fred Wilcox; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Sue
Ritter, Director of Planning.
1. Member Comments/Concerns
Bill G mentioned that the Town's Agricultural Committee met and discussed some of the initial
proposed changes to the Sign Law. They will provide the COC with their comments soon.
Bruce asked about the COC Work Plan, noting that he thought the topic of defining a basement had
been moved up. He asked that defining "grade" be added to the title because developers are
pushing dirt up to a building and calling it grade to get around certain requirements. Committee
agreed to the change.
2. Consideration of Minutes from February 12th COC meeting
Bruce had changes to the description of the basement topic in the minutes. Lengthy discussion
followed on what was allowed and what wasn't and there remained some confusion. This will be
covered and explained during the review and revisions requested to stop developers from getting
around the intent of the law. Minutes approved with changes.
3. Discussion of Modified Town Code Section 270-219.1, pertaining to rooftop solar
arrays
Bill G reminded the group that this modification would allow people to add solar panels without
having to go back to the Planning Board for site plan modification triggered by the cost of the
improvement or change; but that building permits would still be required. Discussion followed
with some members expressing concerns that developers might take advantage of not needing a
review and installing unreasonable arrays that may bother neighbors, etc. Bill G noted that this
would apply only to developments that have an associated site plan review, and only to rooftop
arrays. Chris added that Planning staff isn't concerned about developers abusing this law. Staff
believes most will be homeowners within established developments who have come up against the
stumbling block of the cost threshold triggering a site plan modification review by the Planning
Board.
Ground -mounted or free standing collectors that exceeded the cost threshold would still have to
come in for review but rooftop ones would not, regardless of the price. Pat Leary moved send the
local law to the Town Board, Bill King seconded. Eva was still concerned - she used the example of
an applicant coming in for site plan approval and after receiving it, coming back a month later
wanting a change and then another month later another change, thereby making it difficult for the
Planning Board to deny the applicant, as the changes would build on each other. Bill G stated that
he would convey her concerns to the Town Board.
4. Continued Review of New and Improved Draft Sign Law, Redlined Draft Dated
September 18, 2013
Discussion of Section 221-11 Sign Illumination - draft dated 3/12/14
Chris showed examples of illuminated signs around the City and Town of Ithaca, including the
Northeast Pediatric sign on Trumansburg Road. It was noted that this sign was actually illegal
because it is a self -illuminated sign in a residential zone, which is not permitted by our current Sign
Law. Chris went on to say that the sign received Planning and Zoning Board approvals to be larger
than what is permitted by Code, but that the illumination that was approved was for top -mounted
external lighting that complied with the Sign and Outdoor Lighting Laws. Code staff will need to
follow up on this sign.
The Town's Outdoor Lighting Law states that self -illuminated signs with dark backgrounds and
light letters were preferred. Staff suggested that the revised Sign Law take that provision one step
further and require dark backgrounds with light lettering, instead of just `preferring' them. Chris
showed a few local examples of signs with dark background and light lettering, including the Ithaca
Foreign Auto business, which has a blue background with white lettering, and the Verizon sign on
Elmira Road, which is a black sign with white and red lettering and details (photo examples of signs
are attached to these minutes).
By contrast, Chris showed the Committee examples of signs with white or bright -colored
backgrounds and dark lettering, such as the Rite -Aid, FEDEX, and Tompkins Trust Company, and
Elmira Savings Bank signs on Elmira Road. She noted that the Mickey Roof jewelry business on
Buffalo Street had three types of signs with different lighting styles. One of the signs was self -
illuminated, with a white background and black lettering and details. The second sign, below the
first, was "up lit" (lighting on the ground, tilted upward to light the sign); and the third sign was a
self -illuminated copy -change sign with white background and black lettering. The Committee
agreed to require dark backgrounds with light lettering. Chris recommended revising the Outdoor
Lighting Law to be consistent with the Sign Law.
The photo examples also showed "channeled letter" illuminated signs, typically found against
buildings, including the Michael's, Hallmark and Barnes and Noble signs on Elmira Road. This led to
a discussion on the draft illumination section of the Sign Law that the Committee received in their
packets (Section 221-11):
A-1. Internally -lit signs (e.g. self -illuminated) - Staff language suggestion: "Internally illuminated
signs must be constructed with an opaque or dark -colored background and translucent or light-
colored text and symbols." The Committee agreed with the suggestion.
A-2. Time limits for illumination - Staff language suggestion: "Illumination for all internally -lit signs
shall be turned off when the business activities or special events cease." Discussion focused on
those that use signs as advertisement also and not necessarily only to show they are open. The
Committee decided to modify staffs suggestion to have a set time rather than only saying signs
should be turned off when the business was closed or events ceased. The consensus seemed to be
that 10p.m. was a good time to allow businesses to get their advertising benefit if they closed earlier
than that. So the Committee started out agreeing on "by 10:00 p.m. or when business activities or
special events cease, whichever is later." But then one member noted that perhaps the law should
state an acceptable morning time for a sign to be lit, especially in the winter, when the sun isn't up
until 7:30am or so.
After another brief discussion, the Committee decided on the following language "Illumination for
2
all internally -lit signs shall be turned off between 9p.m. and Sa.m., unless the business is open or the
activities are happening during those hours."
B-1. Externally -lit signs (e.g. direct illumination) - Chris explained that there are some discrepancies
between the existing Sign Law and the Outdoor Lighting Law. Staff suggests following the Outdoor
Lighting Law, which states "top -mounted fixtures are required. Lighting fixtures used to illuminate
an outdoor sign shall be mounted on the top of the sign structure. All such fixtures shall comply
with the shielding requirements of §173-6 of the Outdoor Lighting Law." The Committee agreed
with the suggestion.
There was a bit of discussion on regulating incandescent bulbs, but the Committee decided that this
type of lighting would phase out as improvements in lighting technology occurred. One Committee
member asked why the Law measured lighting intensity using "lumens" rather than footcandles.
Chris explained that using lumens in the Sign Law would be consistent with the Outdoor Lighting
Law language, and that lumens were chosen because foot candle measurements would be difficult
to enforce, and they required a special measuring device for enforcement.
B-2. Time limits for illumination- The Committee decided on the following language: "Illumination
for all externally -lit signs in the Commercial and Industrial Districts shall be turned off between
9p.m. and Sa.m., unless the business is open during those hours." For Residential and Agricultural
Zones, the illumination "shall be turned off when an activity or special event ceases." The
Committee agreed with the suggested language.
Staff mentioned that the existing Sign Law required white or amber -colored Illumination for signs
in the Agricultural and Residential Zones. Staff did not know why this requirement was in the law,
but noted it for the Committee to consider, also mentioning that the Outdoor Lighting Law did not
specify permitted illumination colors. The Committee decided not to require specific colors.
Discussion of Section 221-14 Design Review - 3/12/14 attached draft modification
related to the Sign Review Board and Criteria
Susan Brock submitted suggested changes to staffs draft Design Review section that was included
in the Committee's packet. Susan's changes were distributed at the meeting and the Committee
followed along with her draft.
A. Purpose- Susan highlighted three words in the Purpose section: graphic design, colors, and street
graphics. Susan questioned whether the COC wanted the Planning and Zoning Boards to review
those items. If so, then she recommended more guidance or criteria for the Boards to follow as to
what are acceptable graphic designs, colors, and street graphics. Chris noted that this language was
added based on another staff member's suggestion and that it would probably be fine to just delete
those words. The Committee decided to re -visit this item at the next meeting.
B. Sign Review- Susan recommended adding the word "Criteria" in the title and had other redlined
changes that the Committee agreed to. She realized that, in making the changes from the last
meeting, where the Committee suggested having the "Sign Review Board" be whichever Board
needed to look at the sign, there was still the instance where a sign could be reviewed at the site
plan stage by the Planning Board, yet still need a variance from the Zoning Board. She felt that
staff s draft didn't clarify who the controlling authority would be in that case. Discussion followed.
The key was to eliminate Planning Board review of those signs which needed a variance but are not
in any other way going through an approval process with the Planning Board.
After a bit more discussion, the Committee came up with the following language for "B": "The
Planning Board shall review signs associated with site plans, special permits, and subdivisions, and
3
the Zoning Board of Appeals shall review signs that require variances or are associated with special
approvals but were not part of a site plan, special permit, or subdivision application. The Planning
Department may make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for any signs that require
variances or are associated with special approvals, but were not part of a site plan, special permit,
or subdivision application." All agreed.
Susan iterated that the Planning Board and Zoning Boards have also requested that criteria be
developed which they can apply, so determinations and rulings are less arbitrary and subjective.
Chris recommended that the list of guidelines in "B" could be applied to both Boards. The
Committee then reviewed the suggested criteria listed and made the following changes:
#2 and #3- were combined and made more specific between freestanding signs and signs on
buildings. New language: "Freestanding signs should be designed to be compatible with their
surroundings and appropriate to the architectural character of the buildings on or near which they
are placed. Sign panels and graphics on buildings should relate with and not cover architectural
features or details, and should be sized in proportion to them." Chris will fine tune wording.
#4 - was deleted.
#5 Layout should be orderly and graphics concise -Committee thought this was subjective. They will
revisit at the next meeting.
#6 - was deleted.
#7Illumination should be appropriate with the character of the sign and its surroundings and shall be
in accordance with the Town's Outdoor Lighting Law - The Committee thought this was covered by
the Illumination section and also the lighting law. Chris noted that this came up regarding the
Dunkin Donuts project that was approved for an illuminated box sign, and although it complies with
the law, it doesn't fit in with the rest of the signs in the area. Eva thought it was helpful to have a
criteria list for Boards to go through even if it is listed somewhere else. Committee will revisit this
at the next meeting.
#8 Multiple facility or multi -tenant signs... delete the "should express uniformity and" part of the
sentence. Discussion followed. The Committee noted that some signs are larger than others; some
have different colors and trademarks, so they can't be called "uniform." After more discussion, Bill
G suggested deleting the words regarding uniformity and relying on the other criteria to naturally
take care of the aesthetic part of uniformity. The Committee really wanted the readability aspect of
signs to be listed, moreso than the uniformity. Bruce added that there were new ADA requirements
which may take care of some of these concerns. He will find them and bring them to the next
meeting for consideration.
Bill G asked members to think of new things that they would like to see on a criteria list, along with
the ones discussed, and to bring ideas to the next meeting.
S. Other Business. None.
Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for May 14, 2014
0