Loading...
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°�