Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Schenectady Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes October 4, 2017 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Gleason called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Prior to taking the first item on the agenda, Mr. Gleason explained to the members of the public present how the consideration of the applications would proceed. He stated that the applicants would have an opportunity to make their presentation to the Board, followed by any members of the public who would like to speak in favor of the application. Next any members of the public in opposition to the application would be invited to speak, followed by any further discussion or questions the Board Members wished to put forth prior to the vote. II. ATTENDANCE PRESENT: James Gleason, Chair; Fred Clark; David V. Connelly, Jr.; Mary D’Alessandro-Gilmore; Brendan Keller, Helene Lester; Avi Epstein, Zoning Officer; Krystina Smith, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Jennifer Mills, Secretary III. CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHECK None. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES None. V. NEW BUSINESS A. BONNIE NOVELLA requests Area Variances for 764½ Eastern Ave, located in an R-2 District, to allow for a restaurant and residential unit to be established on 2,950 square feet where 7,250 square feet is required and 9 parking spots where 12 is required pursuant to Section 264-44B. Bonnie Novella presented the application. Ms. Novella explained that it became evident at last month’s meeting, where she was granted a variance allowing for commercial use of the building, that she would need an additional area variance to allow for the square footage that she has. She presented updated photos of the work in the building and noted that the commercial tenant had informed her that he might be interested in leasing the entire building for his business, thus eliminating the residential portion of the property. She explained that he would like to use the additional space for corporate events and catering, and that she believes that a totally commercial use would be best for this building, which is on a very busy corner.  Mr. Gleason asked Zoning Officer Epstein if the total commercial use would change the parking requirements. Mr. Epstein stated that the requirements would be less, because the restaurant use requires a static amount of spaces while the residential unit would additional spaces. Ms. Novella briefly reviewed the site plan and explained where the parking will be located. She commented that there is also street parking available, and she is hopeful that the no parking area on the corner might be eliminated now that the building is commercial. Counselor Smith stated that she would not advise her to count on using those spaces or that the parking restriction would be changed. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. Seeing no members of the public wishing to speak Mr. Gleason closed the public comment portion of the meeting. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Keller commented that he believes that the proposal should be considered as written, so as not to restrict the applicant to only using the building for commercial space. The other Board Members agreed. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore, to approve the Area Variances based on the following findings of fact: 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method. 3. The variance is not substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Motion carried unanimously. B. WILLIAM SUDDUTH requests an Area Variance for 15 Nott Terrace Heights located in the C-4 Downtown District to allow for an observatory set back 50 feet where 60 is required pursuant to Section 264-29D.2(a). William Sudduth, President of The Schenectady Museum Association, presented the application. 2  Mr. Sudduth reviewed the plans for the observatory and explained that it will allow for the use of a large telescope that will permit the Museum to expand its educational programs for students and families. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Sudduth if they had considered any other locations for the observatory. Mr. Sudduth replied that they had looked at many different sites, but the only other ones that would be acceptable locations for the telescope involved cutting down about forty trees on the property. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR Dr. Francis Wilkin, Professor of Astronomy at Union College, expressed his support for the proposal. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION None. Seeing no members of the public wishing to speak Mr. Gleason closed the public comment portion of the meeting. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Gleason stated that he believes that the observatory will be a great addition to the community and that the Museum had demonstrated that this will be the best place to locate it. The other Board Members agreed. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Ms. D’Alessandro, to approve the Area Variance based on the following findings of fact: 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method. 3. The variance is not substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Motion carried unanimously. C. PAUL FALLATI requests Area Variances for the corner of Mohawk Harbor Way and Erie Boulevard located in the C-3 Waterfront District to allow for a 73-square foot monument sign with a height of 10 feet, set back 15 feet from the corner, where a 25-square foot sign with a height of 7 feet and a corner setback of 20 feet is allowed pursuant to Section 264- 61, Schedule I and 264-34. Paul Fallati of the Galesi Group, Dan Hershberg of Hershberg & Hershberg Engineers, and Pat Boni of Saxton Sign Company presented the application. 3 Mr. Fallati distributed drawings of the monument sign and Mr. Hershberg briefly reviewed the site plan. Mr. Hershberg explained that substantial trees had been added behind the sign, as well as significant landscaping in front of it, to help mitigate the size of the structure and ground it in this location. He stated that the applicants had worked with the City Engineer regarding the proper placement of the sign and that the Planning Commission had approved the final design. Mr. Connelly asked how the sign will be lit. Mr. Boni stated that the Mohawk Harbor letters will use internal LED lights. Mr. Keller asked why the sign could not be constructed within the size restrictions allowed by the Code. Mr. Hershberg stated that the sign would then be out of proportion with the surroundings. He explained that because traffic moves fast along Erie Boulevard it is important that the sign be large enough to be quickly seen by drivers to allow them to identify Mohawk Harbor. He noted that the secondary purpose of the sign is also to screen the STS Steel business, which it will effectively accomplish using the enhanced landscaping. Mr. Gleason stated that the Board had approved Area Variances for signs in the past that were appropriate in scale to a larger project. Mr. Hershberg commented that this is a 60-acre site. Mr. Fallati stated that when they had mocked up the sign in this location it did not look extremely large of imposing. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION David Giacalone of Washington Avenue spoke in opposition to the proposal. He stated that the location of the sign appears inadequate for identifying purposes, as he believes that drivers will have to very close to the intersection before seeing the sign. He noted that he also does not believe that the sign will provide a significant buffer for the STS Steel site. Mr. Giacalone cited several other sites, including MiSci and the Golub Corporation Headquarters, which have large sites but much smaller signs. Mr. Fallati commented that in the case of those locations the traffic speed is much slower than that of Erie Boulevard. Pat Popolizio, owner of the property across Erie Boulevard from Mohawk Harbor stated that he was not necessarily in opposition to or in favor of the signs, but he urged the Board to consider the neighbors of the site and what impact their decisions will have on them. Seeing no further members of the public wishing to speak Mr. Gleason closed the public comment portion of the meeting. 4  CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Keller stated that he has some concerns about the size of the sign and the precedent that it might set, but that he feels that for a project of this size and in this location the size could be justified. Mr. Connelly stated that he could support the variances because of the scale of the overall Harbor development. AREA VARIANCE APPROVAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to approve the Area Variances based on the following findings of fact: 1. No undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other method. 3. The variance is not substantial. 4. There will be no adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The size and location of the sign is appropriate for the size and scope of the overall site. Motion carried unanimously. D. PAUL FALLATI requests Area Variances for 220 Harborside Drive located in the C-3 Waterfront District to allow for a 265-square foot pylon sign, with a height of 30 feet and a message board of 12 feet wide, and a 1-foot setback, where a 75-square foot sign with a height of 10 feet, a message board of 8 feet wide, and a setback of 3 feet is allowed. Paul Fallati of the Galesi Group, Dan Hershberg of Hershberg & Hershberg Engineers, and Pat Boni of Saxton Sign Company presented the application. Mr. Hershberg presented the sign design and reviewed the proposed landscaping and materials. He explained that the sign was designed to provide identification for the retail and office tenants that will be located within Mohawk Harbor and will not be visible from Erie Boulevard. He stated that the sign had been located where it is due to the drainage plan for the site. Mr. Fallati noted that the Planning Commission had suggested that the Mohawk Harbor portion of the sign be added. He added that the developers believe that a sign of this size if appropriate for a commercial development of this magnitude. He explained that the LED screen will be used to advertise special events, as well as community announcements. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN FAVOR None. PUBLIC COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION 5 David Giacalone of Washington Avenue spoke in opposition to the application. He noted that he had sent an email to the Board Members explaining his position in detail, which they confirmed they had received. He stated that he believes that the Code was written to take into account the size of the project, which is why larger signs are allowed for shopping centers. Mr. Giacalone added that he has serious concerns about the distracting qualities and the glare of the LED sign, particularly for older drivers. He stated that he believes that the problem is self-created, as the developers had a great deal of input in formulating the Zoning specifications for the C-3 Waterfront District, and they could have sought more lenient sign requirements at that time. Seeing no further members of the public wishing to speak Mr. Gleason closed the public comment portion of the meeting. CONTINUED DISCUSSION Mr. Keller stated that he believes that the sign is very large, even with a project of this scale. Ms. Lester agreed. Mr. Keller explained that while he understands the concerns of being able to identify the tenants, he believes that some significant issues of concern had been raised by Mr. Giacalone’s email and comments. Mr. Connelly stated that while he would not automatically be against granting a variance for a large sign at the site, he does believe that the size of this design is excessive. Mr. Keller agreed, stating that he also has reservations about the size and height of the LED screen, which he believes make it very much like an electronic billboard. Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore asked Mr. Epstein what had happened at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the sign. Mr. Epstein passed around the decision letter issued by the Planning Commission, which expressed the Commission’s support of the size of the sign in relation to the size and scale of the Mohawk Harbor Development. Mr. Epstein stated that the applicants had worked with the Commission to reduce the size and refine the design of the sign. AREA VARIANCE DENIAL Motion by Mr. Keller, seconded by Mr. Connelly, to deny the Area Variances based on the following findings of fact: 1. An undesirable change will be produced in the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by another method. 3. The variance is substantial. 4. There will be an adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6  Motion carried, with Mr. Clark, Mr. Connelly, Mr. Keller, and Ms. Lester voting in the affirmative, and Ms. D’Alessandro-Gilmore and Mr. Gleason opposed. VI. MOTION TO ADJOURN Motion by Mr. Connelly, seconded by Mr. Clark, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. 7