HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC minutes 2014-07-09TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
Meeting of July 9, 2014
6:30 P.M. — 8:00 P.M.
Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine; Bill King; Fred Wilcox; Pat Leary via FaceTime;
Eva Hoffmann; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan
Brock, Attorney for the Town; Sue Ritter, Director of Planning.
Absent: Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk.
Minutes
1. Member Comments/Concerns
None
2. Consideration of Minutes from June 25th COC meeting
Minutes from the June 25th meeting will be available at the August meeting.
3. Continued Review of New and Improved Draft Sign Law, Redlined Draft Dated
September 18,2013
- Discussion of Revised Section 221-14.C. Computation of Sign Area
Chris presented a PowerPoint slideshow of 18 local signs, mainly monument type signs
with base supports and freestanding type signs with side supports (Attachment 1,
PowerPoint Pictures of Signs). The slides included measurements for the various parts of
the signs, from the sign face to the height to the support areas. Chris reiterated from the
last meeting that the biggest issue the Boards and staff have had to deal with is how sign
area is currently computed and the definition of what encompasses "sign area." The way
the existing law is written leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Staff grapples with what
is considered a decorative appendage and what is considered a support; and would like
clarification on what should be computed into the area of the sign. Chris noted that the
revised draft does not differentiate between "support" and "decorative appendages," but
has pictures and diagrams that illustrate how a sign is measured instead.
The Committee reviewed and discussed each sign in the slideshow and followed along with
a chart that Chris prepared that described the signs and their sign face, supports, and
overall area dimensions (Attachment 2, Chart of Measurements).
Some Committee members had concerns that if the supports or appendages were counted
in the overall sign area computation, then people would put skinny supports for a big sign
(which might look off -balanced) because they wouldn't want to use up their area allowance
with supports. Conversely, some members did not want overly large supports that would
increase the mass of a sign while not being counted in the overall sign area. The Committee
then discussed measuring the supports and appendages separately, possibly allowing them
to be between 1.5 and 2 times larger than the allowed area for the actual sign or sign face in
a zone.
The discussion then turned to landscaping and terracing on some of the example signs. The
Committee agreed that landscaping makes them all more attractive. The Committee also
agreed that some properties have topography issues that require terracing, which results
in the perception of increased sign size (especially height) on a terrace. Since the terracing
needs and styles would vary greatly, the Committee decided that the height of a sign should
be measured from the highest natural grade to the top of the sign, regardless of whether
there was terracing or landscaping boxes there.
The Committee talked more about whether additions such as hanging shingles below a sign
were considered part of the overall sign calculation and/or if the "empty" area between the
main sign face and the hanging shingles should be included in the area computation, The
Committee did not want people to have to make a larger rectangle to add the information
that could be on a smaller, hanging sign. If a hanging shingle or informational piece was
supported from the main sign, then that should be measured as a separate piece and added
to the whole. The Committee decided that the empty space should not be measured but the
area of each shingle or hanging object below a sign face should be measured and added to
the total area of the allowed sign. The COC also decided restrict the location of an addition
or hanging piece to only extend below a sign.
Chris read the proposed changes considered by the Committee. The Committee looked at
the examples again and decided that most, as presented, were within the proposed
measuring protocols they were contemplating. Chris stated that parts of the draft law
coincided with the Committee's decisions and that she'd add and revise the diagrams to
clarify. Fred asked Chris to look at the diagrams to make sure all the measuring
parameters were accurate.
After all of the discussion, to recap, the Committee agreed on the following:
• NOT include supports in the overall sign area calculations.
• Create separate limits for base/side supports and decorative appendages that allow
them to be no larger than 11/2 times the maximum size allowed for the sign in a zone.
• Smaller hanging signs are not appendages, but a continuation of the sign. As such,
they will be measured separately and added to the sign area. Do NOT include the
empty space between the main sign and the hanging sign in the area calculation.
• Come up with a different term for "appendage."
• Define "support" and state that supports only include those parts of a sign that
structurally hold the sign up. Terracing or other additional stonework not
structurally integral to the sign is not counted as the support.
• Add a graphic in the law that shows a monument sign and depict where the sign
area shall be measured on the graphic.
• Include a statement in the law about height of supports. The height of supports
shall be measured from the highest point of the natural grade to the top of the sign.
Bill noted that the next four sections of the law were administrative in nature, and then
there was the definition section. Susan Brock indicated that she'd like the law to spell out
the criteria for sign variances and that the ZBA currently used the area variance criteria
when there were sign variances to consider. The Committee left off on page 13, §221-15
Enforcement Official and will pick up there at the next COC meeting.
4. Other Business
.. Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for August 13. 2014.
w0g, t
IRS'
� . \' �.
� /.� . ���`��� �^/
4 !� \ \ ` \ \ MY
\ \ ;
\��� : /`�6�»�, ° �«
w < \ .� y§Z\� � /<
WAR W�?//
■
� \ <
s
El
Im
1,,Iltag°'kl * III
F-J
rt
N
CrQ
!U
m
0)
.-,
A
CL
Be
QrQ
i
O
N
out
N
01
�J
VJ
r+
rt
fD
log
W
�.
xW-M
o
°
b
b
a
°o
ww
w
ro
m
ro
n
°�
ro
n
y
CfQ
W
t!Q
ro
can
R"
(A
I�1
0O
Ln
rn
cn
V
N
N
�
Z
W
JC >G
JG
>C
G
�
C W
�o Ln
�o
0o
V
N
Cn
W
�
�
Gn
N
N
`�'
O
'�'
C10
N
O
O
�C
N
Ch
,{p►
ONd
i1.
n (D
CD
fD {p
Iy
!A
w
CA
Al
fA
w
CA
N
fA
fA
SU
y
>u
vy
w
y
a
II II
it
II II
CD
II
(D
m
tD
CD
fD
CD
(D
m
cr
N �-'
�,
W
II
II
II
11
II
ii
II
tl
II
°o,, a
z
.P
W
.?
x
bo
�
'•GC
Ci
rn
cT
;P
y ;A
w
in
Ln p
v
x
N
1V x
x
x x
N
W
N
N
bo
N
rx+
:� w
V
Ln
.�
"
S C?
o
:
C+
rri cn
9
Ul
W
II
F+
II
II
N
W
pp
II
w
n l�
n n
m
Ln
W
o
V
V
CO
.p
% m
= n
_
=
a
w
CO
,Np
S
'P
m
Ln
co
to
,tea
rryo
V N
W
N F,
U7
N
W
V
MP
N
«P
N
W
Ui
W
CT it
CT
00 W
00
V
V
CS
)->'
V
%0
CT
CT
ON
too
+
+
♦ +
+
r°�