HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2014-06-25TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
Meeting of June 25, 2014
6:30 P.M. - 8:10 P.M.
Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine; 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: Pat Leary; Eva Hoffmann.
Minutes
1. Member Comments/Concerns
None
2. Consideration of Minutes from May 14th COC meeting
There was some question about pg. 2, 3rd bullet and whether the Committee changed the
"layout should be orderly" item. After discussion, the Committee decided to leave it as
stated in the minutes because they were going to look at and discuss the item again tonight.
Page 3, 41h line, change the sentence so it says "This is a judgment call by a majority of a
board to make it less arbitrary."
After correcting a few typos, the minutes were moved by Fred Wilcox and seconded by Eric
Levine. Unanimous.
3. 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 (left off
on #6 of the "Design Criteria Examples From Other Sign Laws")
The Committee began their discussion with the "Design Criteria Examples from Other Sign
Laws," starting with #6 on the list. Chris noted that #6 #7 and #9 dealt with sign materials,
which the Town hasn't regulated in the past, so the question was whether the Committee
wanted to regulate sign materials in the new law. Right now, we do regulate banner
materials, saying that they have to be of heavy material and contain slits and grommets, etc.
Regarding #6- "Sign materials and design should blend with surrounding natural
landscapes," Fred thought this was very subjective e.g. saying they should "blend with
natural landscapes"- what if there are no natural landscapes around? The Committee
agreed and decided not to add #6 to the design review criteria section of the law.
Regarding #7- "Wherever possible, natural material such as wood or iron should be utilized,"
the Committee mainly discussed the variety of materials available, noting that some
composites are very realistic looking. Eric noted that the term "wherever possible" means
use it unless it isn't possible and it is always possible without consideration to cost.
Discussion continued and Bill reminded the Committee that the criteria list is for those
signs coming in for review and that the bigger question would be whether it should apply
to all signs - if you are going to ban plastic, for example.
Bill continued that there is nothing in the current draft that would eliminate plastics; the
goal is to not have cheap looking plastic. The Town could ban plastic signs, but in talking it
through, he noted that the examples of some of the plastic or composite material signs that
look like wood are not bad. Chris showed two examples of plastic or composite signs, one
good, one ugly. The East Hill Professional Building sign in East Hill Plaza is composite but
looks like wood and the Veteran's Volunteer Fireman sign is the old-style plastic with
flashing lights. Chris went through a number of sign pictures as part of a PowerPoint
presentation prepared for the meeting and noted that many of the signs that were
attractive were also plastic or composite.
The discussion turned to which signs would be regulated, those that tripped the threshold
for review or all signs. Susan thought if the Committee wanted to regulate sign materials
then it should be across the board, not just those that trigger review. She also noted that
we have criteria in the revised #2 of the draft law that states it should be compatible with
its surroundings, so there is room for material suggestion there. The problem seems to be
trying to get what we want; attractive signs, which is very subjective, and how to spell out
terms that describe that. The Committee decided they did not want #7.
Regarding #9- "Sign materials should relate to building context and/or community
character," the Committee decided that this was similar to draft law criteria #2, which the
COC discussed at length, so they did not add #9.
Going back to #8, regarding permitting only certain sign shapes and sizes, Chris noted that
staff was not in favor of this one because it might eliminate some visually interesting signs.
The Committee agreed they did not want to add #8, to allow for creativity in sign design.
Chris used the THERM sign as an example of an odd -shaped but interesting sign.
Regarding #1027he Planning Board may require landscaping be used at the base of a
freestanding sign if such landscaping will make the sign more compatible with the
surrounding area," Sue asked if the standard "make the sign more compatible" was correct.
Fred responded that he believed that the standard would be to improve the overall
appearance of a sign. The Planning Board does look at landscaping now, but Fred
suggested changing the word "compatible" to "the overall appearance of the sign" and the
"Planning Board" should be changed to the "reviewing Board". The Committee agreed to
add #10 to the draft law and to the wording changes as well. Final wording: "The
reviewing Board may require that landscaping be used at the base of a freestanding sign if
such landscaping will improve the overall appearance of the sign."
The Committee returned to the draft Sign Law, Design Review Section and the existing
design criteria regarding signs having an "orderly and concise" layout. Discussion followed
and the Committee could not think of an example where a sign wasn't orderly. They
thought that the first criteria in our draft law might cover "orderly" because that item
mentions that signs should be "legible". The Committee decided that the word "orderly"
was up to interpretation and hard to define; and the word "concise" was subjective and
2
could be considered regulating content. The Committee asked Chris and Susan to
wordsmith something to add to the first criteria in the Design Review section to get the
"orderly layout" concept across.
The Committee moved on to "B" in the Design Review section of the draft law: §221-14.B.
Sign Review Board. The Committee liked the wording suggestion but Susan Brock thought
there should be something more there that would link the determination of sign
acceptability to an underlying sign application. Chris provided the following wording for
the second paragraph in B: "The reviewing Board shall determine the acceptability of
proposed signs as to design, materials, colors, illumination, placement, and size. Such
Board shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed
sign, using the following criteria." The COC liked this wording.
Moving on to §221-14.C. Computation of sign area. Chris noted that this was a big section
for the Committee to consider and that the main issue was whether to include supports or
not in the calculation of sign area. Chris added that measuring sign area has always been a
problem for all Town departments because the definition of "freestanding sign area" was so
subjective. The definition requires calculation "inclusive of decorative appendages, but
exclusive of supports," which has often left Codes and Planning staff confused as to what
constitutes a decorative appendage versus a support (e.g. would a lattice support be a
decorative appendage?)
Chris noted that the revised law contains graphics that will easily explain how sign area
should be measured and that the graphics could be modified to whatever the Committee
decided. Chris went back to the PowerPoint presentation and showed photos of examples
that raised questions regarding sign area, such as the Therm sign (do you measure the
arrow or not?), the old Turback's sign (do you measure the pretty lattice work or is it
considered part of the support?), Alterra (measure the base of stone/bricks or just the
sign?). Monument signs were also pictured in the presentation.
After a lengthy discussion on how we currently measure sign area and looking at examples
of signs, the Committee discussed possibly including supports in the computation of sign
area. Using Bella Vista as an example, the Committee entertained adding language to the
law allowing the support or appendage sizes to be no greater than 11/z or 2 times the
allowed sign area for the sign or possibly to 1/z the size of the maximum sign area allowed.
One example to explain the concept was, if 50' sq. ft. area was allowed for a sign, then the
supports or appendages could be no larger than 25' sq. ft. The Committee couldn't decide
on the ratio, but asked Chris to look at the sign permits for the signs that are currently in
the Town and see what the ratios would be on existing signs. Chris will provide more
information on this at the next meeting.
4. Other Business
Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for July 9, 2014.
3