Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2014-09-10TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE Meeting of September 10, 2014 6:32 P.M. -8:40 P.M. Minutes Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Eric Levine; Pat Leary via FaceTime; Bill King; Fred Wilcox; Eva Hoffmann; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk. Absent: None. 1. Member Comments/Concerns Bill G - Reported that the Comprehensive Plan is adopted! 2. Approval of August 13, 2014 COC Minutes Two changes were made. Motion made by Fred Wilcox to accept the minutes as amended and Eva Hoffmann seconded. Unanimous 3. Continued Review of New and Improved Draft Sign Law, Redlined Draft Dated September 18, 2013. Discussion of §221-19 -Terminology (updated version attached) Continued Discussion of §221-15 - Enforcement (copy of Town Code Chapter 205, Property Maintenance attached) The Committee started with the topic of enforcement, with Susan reviewing the research she was tasked with from the last meeting. Susan B. distributed the Town's Storm Sewer and Surface Water Protection Law, a.k.a. the Illicit Discharge Law, including its enforcement clauses. Comparing it to the Town's Property Maintenance Law, Susan noticed that it was less onerous, but had due process built in. Susan stated that there was some difference in the level of due process because the Illicit Discharge issue would be an imminent threat type of situation where the removal of a sign would not be. She thought if the Committee liked the enforcement provisions in the Illicit Discharge Law, then she could look into the history of it and see if there were any limitations to using it for the Sign Law. Bill G. gave an overview of past discussions regarding enforcement in the Sign Law, and noted that the Town was looking for something stronger because there was no due process in the current, law especially for the larger, more permanent types of signs. Bill G. asked if staff would have to go through all that process for the simple "xxx cleaning" signs that staff pulls from the Town road right-of-ways. Susan B. stated that staff would not need to go through the process in the cases of signs in the Town right-of-ways but that there were county and state roads to consider too. Discussion followed. The Committee wasn't as concerned with the smaller, simpler signs and didn't think there would be any push back on those, but the larger signs, such as the Resnick Mattress type of sign, which was out of business for years, was the focus. Approved Minutes pgl Bruce thought that the Property Maintenance format would force sign owners to take the Town to court instead of the other way around. Bill G. thought it was better to keep the enforcement of the Sign Law simpler. He summarized that currently there was no due process in the Sign Law; and the Town needs to have provisions for that for the larger signs the Town wants removed or repaired. Discussion followed. Susan B. suggested that she refine the Illicit Discharge Law format for the Sign Law and see where that goes. The difficulty will be with right-of-ways and use -by -rights and the difference between those and ownership of the property. The Committee then went into a lengthy discussion on the difference between the types of courts that signs in violation would go through and the associated costs. The Committee ultimately decided that a shorter enforcement section would be better. Susan B. will work on adapting the Illicit Discharge format to the Sign Law and will provide something for the Committee to consider at the next meeting Discussion of §221-19 Terminology (Updated version for /10/2014) The updated definitions for consideration included pictures to show some of the types of signs. The Committee liked the addition of the pictures, but Paulette wasn't sure if General Code could publish them. She will check with General Code about the pictures and diagrams and will report back to the Committee at the next meeting. The Committee reviewed the revised terminology section in order and provided the following comments: Section C. Certain words imply and include other words as follows: C. 2. Building: This brought up the question of whether the Sign Law was going to be incorporated into the Zoning Code, and if so, words that were defined in the Zoning Code should not be duplicated in the Sign Law. Staff will need to compare the Sign Law definitions with the Zoning Code definitions and take those that are in the Zoning Code out from the Sign Law. C. 4 - Erect: The Committee noticed that "alter" was in the list as being similar to "erect" or "build." They questioned whether alter really meant erect or build and directed staff to look through the Sign Law and see where and how the various words were used. Chris will do this for the next meeting. Awning - Suggested definition: "Afixed or movable roof -like frame structure that is entirely supported from a building and projects over doors, windows or storefronts and provides protection from the sun and rain." Susan thought this definition was restrictive because an awning could project from other places than "storefronts" and it didn't always protect from the sun, etc. Lengthy discussion followed with Susan noting that the actual awning structure itself was being defined, which may or may not have a sign put on it. It's simply defining the structure itself, so the definition should be broad. Discussion followed around the terms "fixed" or "movable" in the awning definition, which led to the question of how an awning differed from a marquee. The Committee recommended Approved Minutes pg2 narrowing the definition of a marquee by saying that a marquee "extended perpendicularly to the surface." Then anything else would be an awning. The Committee therefore changed the awning definition to: "A fixed or movable roof -like frame structure that is entirely supported from a building and projects over doors, windows, or other portions of the building exterior." Banner - Suggested definition: "A type of flag, not an emblem of a government or institution, with graphics that are purely decorative or that identify, advertise and/or convey commercial, institutional or community event information. All corners of a banner must be attached to poles by grommets or pole pockets and must be made of heavyweight fabric or have air slits." Susan noted that we do not have another definition of banner in the whole Code right now. She thought the Committee should really describe what it is and not what could be on it. She also wanted the definition to be clear about the difference between a banner and a flag, in that banners have to be made of heavy weight material, have air slits and attach by grommets or pole pockets, where flags do not. A banner is more rigid and a flag drapes and flows. Lengthy discussion followed on flags that may have content on them. The Committee also talked about banners that are attached to fences, not poles. Staff noted that those were the type the Town wanted to restrict. Bill also thought the word "flag" should not be in the definition of "banner," explaining that the main idea of a banner was that it could be displayed from a pole or attached to a building. Bill K. thought that "pole" didn't belong in the definition of a banner because a banner could be strung from other things, such as a corner of a building to another, etc. Chris reminded the Committee that those were the types of banners that the Committee previously decided they did not want to see. Bill K. asked about the sail -type banners that are popular now. Chris responded that they are illegal because they are considered a fluttering sign, which the Town does not allow. The Committee made many changes to the suggested definition, and agreed upon the following: "A type ofsign made of flexible material that has all corners attached to poles by grommets or pole pockets." Backlit Sign - replace "text" with "graphics" in both instances. Chris will do a word -search in the current Sign Law to see where this word shows up. Building face- The Committee wondered where this showed up in the Sign Law, so Chris will do a word search and let the Committee know at the next meeting. Building frontage - Susan wanted the Committee to think about the "public place" part of the definition and whether the Committee wanted to regulate internal signs, such as those found in courtyards. Chris will do a word search to see if the term is used anywhere in the law. Bill noted that the "no smoking" signs that were located throughout the hospital campus were regulated. Bruce noted that the South Hill Business Campus also had to get permitted signs that are on their campus that the public didn't see. Discussion followed on whether the Committee really wanted to regulate these internal signs, or have a buffer zone from public throughways. Canopy - Suggested definition: "A fixed or movable roof -like frame structure that is supported by the exterior wall of a building and on columns or poles or self -supported wholly on columns or Approved Minutes pg3 poles. Canopies also provide protection from the sun and rain. A canopy differs from an awning because it is not entirely supported from the building." Susan started with grammatical changes to the proposed definition and also recommended dropping the end sentences. The Committee discussed whether a canopy was a structure that needed a building permit. Susan again noted that the definition was defining the structure itself, and would be referred to when an applicant was looking to put a sign on a canopy and then the regulations would apply as far as design, size, etc. The Committee revised the definition as such: "A roof -like frame structure that is a) supported by the exterior wall of a building and on columns or poles, or b) self -supported wholly on columns or poles. A canopy differs from an awning because it is not entirely supported by the building." Copy Change - There was some discussion on the term "periodically changed, replaced or covered over manually," which implied that one could just paint over an existing sign. Chris iterated that copy -change refers to the type of sign where one physically changed the letters/ numbers to change the content of the sign. This was the only kind of copy -change sign the Town was allowing. With that in mind, the definition was changed to 'A sign that is designed such that the visual message may be physically removed and changed on a periodic basis." Enforcement Official - The Committee decided to delete this definition, as it is not being used in this law and the new law will instead use the term "Code Enforcement Officer". Exempt Sign - Suggested definition: "A sign which may be erected or placed without a sign permit under the provisions of this chapter." Proposed from Susan and agreed upon by the Committee: "A sign described in section (insert appropriate section of the law where exempt signs will be addressed) that is exempt from the provisions of this chapter." Flashing Sign - Chris explained that this definition was not in the Sign Law or the Outdoor Lighting Law, but that she found it in the Zoning Code. She wasn't sure where or why it showed up in the Zoning Code, so she will do a word search and recommend deleting it in both laws if the term isn't used anywhere. Flag - Previously suggested definition: "Any fabric or other flexible material attached to or designed to be flown from a flagpole or similar device." The Committee engaged in along discussion around pennant -type flags that are used as a display but don't have any written message on it. Chris stated that those were considered fluttering signs and not allowed and acknowledged that some do not have any message on them e.g. the multi -colored little pennants flown along the frontage of a used car lot. Susan thought adding the word "sign" in the definition suggested that a message needed to be on it to be regulated under the law, but then realized that the Committee addressed this under the beginning of the law by saying signs or "displays." The prayer flags and Eruv's were then discussed. Members decided that these types of things had to be addressed under the definition of a "sign" because a sign "conveys a message to the general public." The Committee changed the definition of flag to: "A type of sign made of fabric or other flexible material attached to or designed to be flown from a flagpole or similar device." Approved Minutes pg4 Flagpole - Previously suggested definition: "A freestanding structure or a structure attached to a building, to the roof of a building or on a parcel and used for the sole purpose of displaying flags." Chris noted that this definition was chosen by the Committee a while ago from a number of options. Discussion followed focusing on the word "parcel" and what that meant and whether the word "sole" was necessary in the definition. The Committee modified the definition as such: "A freestanding structure or a structure attached to a building and used for the primary purpose of displaying flags." The Committee continued to debate the definition, particularly in regards to the word "sole," although it was agreed upon to change it to "primary." Members argued that the purpose of defining a flagpole seemed to be centered around the definition of a flag. If someone flew a piece of material from a telephone pole, would the telephone pole be considered a flagpole? Would the piece of material be considered a flag? Bill asked the Committee to think about this topic for the next meeting. The Committee left off at the top of page 3 of the Updated Definitions for the 9/10/14 Meeting and will resume their discussion of "flagpole" at the next meeting. 4. Other Business Next meeting date tentatively scheduled for October 8, 2014. The Committee will anticipate going until 9pm to complete the review of the Sign Law. Approved Minutes pg5