Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2014-05-14TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of May 14,2014 6:30 P.M. - 8:30 P.M. Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Eva Hoffmann; Bill King; Fred Wilcox; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Sue Ritter, Director of Planning. Absent: None. Minutes 1. Member Comments/Concerns None 2. Consideration of Minutes from April 9th COC meeting Moved by Eric. Seconded by Eva. Minor changes made. Unanimously approved with changes. 3. Continued Discussion of Draft Regulations on Outdoor Camp Fires Bill reminded the group that they had discussed distances of 50 feet from a property line and 100 feet from an occupied structure for campfires and 200 feet from a property line for outdoor wood boilers. He wanted to get a consensus of the Committee so he could draft a law for review. He noted that the campfire and outdoor wood boiler topics would be separate laws and that since, campfire season was here, the Committee should decide what to do about the campfires first. Lengthy discussion followed focusing on whether having the 50/100 feet limitations would essentially prohibit campfires in most homes in the High Density and some Medium Density Residential Zones. State regulations were reviewed and they allow fires in approved containers 15 feet from an occupied structure and 25 feet from a property line. DEC regulations have height limits/definitions for recreational fires. Bill suggested that the law could reference those. Eric noted that campfires were not an everyday occurrence like a wood boiler and therefore not a constant nuisance to a neighbor (with the exception of one property on Coddington Road) and that the idea of regulating and possibly banning this traditional activity for a lot of people because a few people have bad neighbors is maybe not appropriate. The Committee discussed this at length and felt that having a regulation to fall back on for those instances where a neighbor is being offensive is worth having. An investigation or enforcement of the law would only be triggered by a complaint. The Committee returned to defining types of fires and the distances wanted. The differences between recreational fires, such as the decktop containers which are popular now and the traditional "on the ground" fires, were discussed. The new containers seemed to be the key because they are designed to allow air flow which reduces the smoke associated with the traditional on the ground fires. Grills and cooking outside were discussed at length but this is not the type of burning the Committee is looking to regulate since that is more often than not charcoal and not smoke -producing for any length of time; it is the open air, marshmallow - toasting type of fire that we are looking to regulate. Bruce noted that this is a hard thing to regulate and enforce and the weather plays a big part also. Basically it comes down to being a good neighbor and unfortunately, you can't regulate that. Eva noted that burning and the associated air -quality is a social issue that should be addressed. Talking about global issues is difficult but also must be done. We should not be burning anything and contributing to the pollution. The Committee decided on drafting language for recreational fires, defining "approved container" and requiring that an approved container can be no closer than 25' from the property line and 50'from a neighbors' occupied structure. The Committee also decided to require a 50' setback from the property line or 100' setback from occupied structures for uncontained fires. Bill G will draft a law for the Committee to review at the next COC meeting. 4. Continued Review of New and Improved Draft Sign Law, Redlined Draft Dated September 18,2013 Discussion of Revised Section 221-14 Design Review- 5/14/14 attached draft modification and materials related to design review criteria Chris included in the packets a draft revised Design Review section with yellow highlights and a list of design criteria examples from other sign laws. The question from the last meeting was whether the Committee wanted to have more criteria listed to help the reviewing board. There were other parts of the revised section that required the Committee's attention, but the Committee decided to focus on the list of criteria this time. The Committee started by comparing the existing Design Review criteria with the list of 10 criteria examples from other municipalities. They discussed combining the two lists but then went over each one individually to eliminate overlap. The Committee decided on the following changes to the existing/draft list in the Design Review section of the law: • Keep #1 as is (legible signs) • Keep #2 as previously changed (freestanding sign & building sign design) • Change #3 to "Layout should be orderly." (delete "and graphics concise") • Change #4 to "Illumination should be appropriate to the character of the surroundings..." (delete "sign and it's") • Re -word #5 to require full line sign areas on multi -tenant signs - no sharing lines. Add language to Section 221-9C, not in design list. Staff and Brock will work on wording for future draft The Committee then looked at the Examples sheet from other municipalities and discussed whether any of those should be incorporated into the draft Design Review list. Going one by one on the list, the Committee had the following comments: • Don't add #1 - Although it seemed interesting in concept, the Committee felt that the existing setback requirements would take care of interfering with views and other enterprises. • Don't add #2 - Multiple signs being combined into one. The Committee thought this is covered under Draft list #5. • Don't add #3 - Blending in and architectural features. Chris thought this might be covered under Draft list #2 but thought the Committee might like the way this one was written better. Fred did not like this one because it gave the reviewing board the authority to force the applicant to have a smaller sign than they could legally have applying all the other regulations. He was comfortable with a percentage, 2 such as giving the board the authority to require a sign be 20% smaller but not wide-open authority. Susan B stated that the point of design review is to make sure everything fits together and through this legislation you are being given that authority. This is a judgment call by a majority of the review board to make it less arbitrary. The Committee decided that #3 on Example was covered in #2 on Draft. • Add in #4 - Pole signs. The Committee thought this gave some leeway to ask for smaller or lower pole sign than the existing limits. Change the text to: "Pole signs should be as low to the ground as practical and monument signs are preferable to pole signs." Chris will add a definition of "monument" signs. • Don't add in #5 - The definition of "vivid" was discussed at length. This brought back the question of corporate colors - what was considered vivid? The bright blue in the Sherwin Williams logo? The pink and orange in the Dunkin' Donuts logo? Fred stated that the issue was that the sign needed to be in harmony with the neighborhood, building or site. Phosphorous and iridescent lighting and colors are already prohibited, so do we need to say more about colors? Pat thought about adding a statement about corporate logos being admissible, but Susan B said if you are looking at aesthetics then everyone should be treated the same. If the Town decided that vivid colors for corporations were not objectionable because of trademarking and logo identification, then how would we prohibit somebody else who wasn't a corporation? Ultimately, the Committee decided not to include #5. The Committee left off on #6 of the "Design Criteria Examples From Other Sign Laws" list and will pick up there at the next COC meeting. 5. Other Business Committee members had a conflict with the regularly scheduled meeting date. So the next COC meeting was rescheduled for June 2 S. 2014.