Board of Zoning Appeals

CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 BUILDING DIVISION Telephone: 607.274.6508 Fax: 607.274.6521 RE: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of August 5, 2014 Board members present: Steven Beer, Gabriel Holbrow, Moriah Tebor, Marshall McCormick, Teresa Deschanes, & Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration. The following appeals were heard: APPEAL #2950 102 EAST CLINTON STREET The Board of Zoning Appeal considered the appeal of Ramsgard Architectural Design for TC3 Foundation, Inc. for three sign variances for the two proposed wall signs. The first wall sign needs a variance from the City’s Sign Ordinance, Section 272-6B (2), which states in part that wall signs in commercial districts shall not exceed 50 S.F. and Section 272-4A(1) which states wall signs and the supporting structure cannot project more than 18” from the attachment point of the wall. The second wall sign requires a variance from Section 272-4 A (1) which states wall signs and supporting structure cannot project more than 18” from the attachment point of the wall. TC3 is in the process of constructing a new culinary institute and restaurant, called Coltivare, which will be located on the main floor of 102 East Clinton. The applicant is requesting to install a sign for the new restaurant that is larger than the maximum 50 S.F. allotted for each wall sign permitted in a commercial district. 102 East Clinton Street is located in the CBD -100 and CBD-120 zoning district. The massive building at this location also contains 7- stories of public parking. The culinary institute and restaurant will have 135’-8” of building frontage on South Cayuga Street and 122’-8” of building frontage on East Clinton Street. While the Sign Ordinance allows commercial signs to be 1.5 times the length of the building’s frontage, it also restricts each wall sign to a maximum of 50 SF. For the sake of visibility and for the sign to be more proportionate with the size of the building, the applicant is seeking a variance for a sign that will be 146.4 SF in size. This sign also projects a total of 24” from the point of attachment. This is 6” more than allowed by Section 272-4A(1). The applicant would also like to erect another type of wall sign known as a projecting sign, which will be 26.90 SF in size. Section 272-4 A (1) allows signs to project a maximum of 18”. The second proposed wall sign and its supporting structure will project approximately 6’-10 ½” from the building wall. The property at 102 East Clinton Street is in the CBD-100 and CBD -120 zone where building signs are permitted. However, Sign Ordinance, Section 217-18, requires the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant the variances before the sign permits can be issued. Representatives from Ramsgard and a representative from TC3 spoke in regards to the variance. They showed a 3-D model of the building with the signs. Board members questioned the size and height and were told because the building is so large the size of the signs is needed and that the sign needs to be above the tree line. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5(12) and as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. A public Hearing was held with no persons in favor or opposed. A letter from JoAnn Cornish, Director of Planning, Building and Economic Development was read in favor of the sign variance. A motion was made by Mr. Holbrow to grant the Special Permit and a variance for parking with the following findings of fact: Ms. Tebor agreed with Ms. Cornish that the variance is substantial, but stated that good signage is essential. The Board felt that there was enough information to move the variance. Motion was made by Mr. Holbrow to grant the variance with the following findings of fact: 1. City of Ithaca Planning Board approves of the variance. 2. No detriment or undesirable change to nearby property will be caused by granting the sign variance. 3. The scale of the sign is justified. 4. It is believed that the sign will promote a more attractive economic and business climate. 5. It will improve communications within the community. The motion to grant the sign variance was second by Ms. Tebor with all in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer – yes Ms. Tebor – yes Mr. Holbrow – yes Ms. Deschanes – yes Mr. McCormick - yes APPEAL # 2951 121 CASCADILLA STREET Appeal of Amber Gilewski and Ducson Nguyen owners of 121 Cascadilla Street for a special permit as required under the Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-9 C (4) (g) to conduct a bed and breakfast home on their property. The applicants are also seeking variances from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section 325-8, Columns 4, 6, 10, 11.12, and 14/15, lot area, percentage of lot coverage, front yard, side yard, and rear yard respectively. The applicant proposes to convert their single family home located at 121 Cascadilla Street into a bed and breakfast home. Currently the building at 121 Cascadilla Street is a 4- bedroom house where the bedrooms are located on the second floor. The owners will occupy two of the bedrooms; one which will be used as an office and the other for a sleeping room. The other two bedrooms will be used for guest rooms. Each bedroom is allowed two persons, so the maximum occupancy in the building will be limited to six persons. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-20D (3) (b) requires one parking space for each bed and breakfast room. Section 325-8, Column 4, requires two spaces for the other two bedrooms existing in the house. The property at 121 Cascadilla has only two off-street parking spaces. The applicants are requesting a variance for the additional required parking space. The property at 121 Cascadilla Street is located in an R-2b zone where bed and breakfast homes are permitted. However, Section 325-39 requires that a special permit be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued. A Public Hearing was held with no one in favor or opposed to the variance. Mr. McCormick read letters from three neighbors that were all in favor of the B & B. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5(12) and as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. A motion was made by Mr. Holbrow to grant the Special Permit and a variance for parking with the following findings of fact: 1. There will be no negative impact on municipal services. 2. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. 3. The variance is self created, but is reasonable in the context of the Special Permit. 4. There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. It is understood that there is additional parking in the driveway and parking on the street. 5. City Planning supports the concept of the Bed & Breakfast. The motion was second for a Special Permit for a Bed & Breakfast and the variance for parking by Ms. Tebor with all in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer – yes Ms. Tebor – yes Mr. Holbrow – yes Ms. Deschanes – yes Mr. McCormick – yes APPEAL #2952 601 FIRST STREET SCIENCENTER Appeal of Charlie Trautmann, Director for the Sciencenter, at 601 First Street, for a variance from the regulations of the City’s Sign Ordinance Section 272-6B(2), which allows only one free standing sign per business; and Section 272-9 A, which states in part that signs must be set back 10- feet from the public right-of-way. The applicant proposes to erect a new monument sign, a type of freestanding sign. This will be the second freestanding sign on the premise. The other freestanding sign is located along Route 13. The proposed sign structure for this monument sign will be constructed of Lenroc stones laid to a height of three-feet and it will be approximately 20.5 feet long. The name the “Sciencenter” will be added to the face of the stone in 12” tall acrylic letters. On top of the capstones, there will be five sets of aluminum posts that will hold five 3 ft. wide x 3 feet tall, acrylic signboards used for information purposes. Only the signboard with the Sciencenter logo is calculated as part of the total sign area. The total area of the signage mounted on the monument structure will be 21 SF. The applicant proposes to locate the sign in the public right-of way at the corner of First and Franklin. Section 272-9 A. requires signs to be set back 10- feet from a public right-of- way. To locate the sign in this area, the applicant also needs an easement form the Board of Public Works. There are also two existing building signs at the 601 First Street location. One building sign is over the main doors of the building. The other is a roof sign at the corner of First and Franklin Street. The applicant proposes to remove the roof sign because of visibility issues and believes that the 1’ x 12’ ground level sign located at the corner of Franklin and First Street will be better suited to help visitors find the museum. The Sciencenter at 601 First Street is located in a P-1 zoning district. Sign Ordinance, Section 272-18 requires that variances be granted for the proposed signs before assign permit can be issued. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5(12) and as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. The applicant was reminded that a City easement from the Board of Public Works is required to place the sign in the city right of way. Short discussion with Deputy Director Tim Scott of the Sciencenter, he mentioned that the roof sign had been removed when a new roof was put on and won’t be replaced. There will be one monument sign on Route 13 and one at the corner of Franklin and First at ground level. A Public Hearing was held with no one in favor or opposed to the signs. A motion was made by Mr. Holbrow to grant the sign variance with the following findings of fact: 1. The City of Ithaca Planning Board supports the appeal. 2. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. 3. It is in the public interest to have the sign at the corner of First and Franklin so there is better visibility to the building. 4. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some other method. 5. There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The appeal for an additional sign at the Sciencenter was approved with a second by Teresa Deschanes with all board members in favor and none opposed, Mr. Beer – yes Ms. Tebor – yes Mr. Holbrow – yes Ms. Deschanes – yes Mr. McCormick - yes APPEAL #2953 1108 NORTH CAYUGA STREET Appeal of Charles Izzo, owner of 1108 North Cayuga Street, for an area variance from Section 325-8 Columns, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13, lot width, percentage of lot coverage, front yard ,side yard, and other side yard, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a 27’ x 22’ family room addition and enclosed entryway in the rear yard of 1108 North Cayuga Street. To make sufficient room for this addition, the applicant will remove an existing one story addition and deck from the rear yard. The new addition will increase the property’s current deficient side yards. On the south side of 1108 North Cayuga Street, the existing house has a side yard setback of 8.2 feet; the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10-foot side yard setback. The “L “shaped addition will positioned at the 8.2 foot setback and extend an additional 16 feet along the side yard. On the north side of 1108 North Cayuga Street, the existing building’s other side yard is approximately 2 feet deep. The Zoning Ordinance requires this other side yard to have a 5- foot setback. On this side, the applicant proposes to have the addition setback 3.5 feet for the length of the addition, which, on the north side is approximately 26 feet. The current lot coverage for the building at 1108 north Cayuga street is 31%. The maximum allowed lot coverage is 35%. The proposed addition will increase the lot coverage to 38%. The property has two existing area deficiencies that will not be increased by this proposal. The existing street frontage is 32.88 feet; the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum street frontage of 35 feet. The front yard is only 3.5’ deep; required is a front yard setback of 10 feet. The property at 1108 North Cayuga street is in an R2b use district where the proposed addition is permitted; however, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a building permit can be issued. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5(12) and as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. A Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor and none opposed. In the discussion with the owners it came up that they would like to change the appeal and add an additional two (2) feet to the north side of the project. A motion was made by Mr. Holbrow to grant the appeal as it was written with the following findings of fact: 1. The City of Ithaca Planning Board approved this appeal. 2. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. 3. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some other method. 4. The requested variance is not substantial. 5. There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. The appeal might be self-created but it doesn’t preclude the granting of the area variance. The motion was second by Mr. Marshall and approved as written with all in favor. Mr. Beer – yes Ms. Tebor – yes Mr. Holbrow – yes Ms. Deschanes – Yes Mr. McCormiock – yes Mr. Holbrow made a motion to consider adding the additional two (2) feet to the side yard of the appeal. This motion was second by Mr. McCormick. This motion was withdrawn. A motion by Mr. Holbrow was made to correct an omission from the original appeal to add the additional two (2) feet. A second was made by Ms. Tebor. Mr. Isso was asked by the Board members why he would want the Board to revise the appeal, he andwered, “we feel the design is deficient and will leave us with insufficient space.” A Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor or opposed. Ms. Tebor made a motion to the Board to take 62 days in order for Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration to speak to the City Attorney, Ari Lavine, and re- advertise the variance. The motion was second by Ms. Deschanes with all in favor. Ms. Radke, Director of Zoning Administrativion, suggested the applicant re-advertise and provide notice to the neighbors about the revised variance request and impact on district regulations so that the amendment can be voted on first at the September hearing. Board members and applicant were in favor of the applicant simply re-advertising, instead of waiting for the Attorney’s opinion. The appeal was granted with all in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer – yes Ms. Tebor – yes Mr. Holbrow – yes Ms. Deschanes – Yes Mr. McCormiock – yes APPEAL #2954 441 NORTH AURORA STREET Appeal of Norbert Nolte for Meryl and Bailey Phipps owners of 441 North Aurora Street, for area variance from Section 325-8 Column 4, 11, 12, and 13, off-street parking, front yard, side yard, and other side yard respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to remove approximately 98 SF from the front porch at 441 North Aurora Street, a 4-bedroom single family home. This will allow an 11- foot wide x 19’-7” deep parking area at the southwest corner of the property. According to Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-20 D. (5) (a), the minimum dimensions of a parking space is 8 feet x 18 feet. Currently the four bedroom home has no parking spaces. The Zoning Ordinance requires two spaces for dwellings with 4 to 5 bedrooms. The property also has existing front and side yard deficiencies. The front yard is setback .5 feet from the front yard property line; required is a 10- foot front yard. The side yard is 2 feet deep and the other side yard is .65 feet; required are side yards of 10 feet and 5 feet. The property at 411 North Aurora Street is located in the R2b zoning district where accessory parking is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that zoning variances be granted before a building permit can be issued. This is a Type 2 action under City Environmental Quality Review Part, 176-5(12) and as such, does not have a significant impact on the environment and is otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8. In declaring this a Type 2 action, the BZA has no further responsibilities under the City Environmental Quality Review Ordinance. Mr. Nolte has modified the appeal for 441 North Aurora Street from last month’s appeal. He will replace the stone work around the foundation, and would like to take the porch back to what it was. Mr. McCormick is in favor of the off street parking area in front of the house. A Public Hearing was held with no persons in favor or opposed. There were two letters from neighbors in support of the project. The owners spoke on how it would be a huge burden for them to enlarge the front porch right now, but would be a possibility in the future. A motion was made by Mr. Holbrow to grant the variance with the following findings of fact: 1. The Planning Board supports the granting of this appeal with the following conditions. a. Enlarge the covered porch to replace the removed portion. b. Construct a grassed center strip for the driveway. c. Replace street tree under guidance of City Forester. 2. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or nearby properties. 3. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any other feasible method. 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty was self-created but does not preclude the granting of the area variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals does not adopt the Planning Boards conditions. Mr. McCormick second the motion with the following conditions. 1. Place a concrete apron around the driveway with a grass strip. The appeal for 441 North Aurora Street was granted with a vote of five (5) in favor and none opposed. Mr. Beer – yes Ms. Tebor – yes Mr. Holbrow – yes Ms. Deschanes – Yes Mr. McCormiock – yes Respectfully submitted Margaret Head City of Ithaca Building Division