The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMN-BZA-2024-09-10City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – September 10, 2024 Board Members Present: Andre Gardiner Donna Fleming Michael Cannon Joseph Kirby David Barken, Chair Staff Present: Megan Wilson, Deputy Director of Planning Sam Quinn-Jacobs, Planner Applicants: Mark Fuentes (Appeal #3276) Todd Saddler (Appeal #3277) Samantha Sheppard and Jerry Allen Holt (Appeal #3279) Wendy Kern (Appeal #3278) Chair D. Barken called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm and read the opening statement. I. TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPEALS APPEAL #3276 110 DRYDEN ROAD Request for an area variance from §325-29.8B(1)(h), Siting Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities (PWSF), and §325-29.8C(1), Design Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities, of the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to allow the modification of an existing personal wireless service facility that is located within 250’ from a residential structure and less than 1500’ from other PWSF. Mark Fuentes, on behalf of the property owner, presented the appeal. Fuentes verbally described the project and was available for questions from the board members. Board members had no questions for the appellant. Public Hearing Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing. Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal: The Board has reviewed this variance and has no comments. There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public hearing. Deliberation & Decision The Board acknowledged that this is an existing installation, and the equipment modifications will not exacerbate the existing deficiency. On a motion by J. Kirby seconded by M. Cannon the Board of Zoning Appeals voted 5-0-0 to approve appeal #3276. Board of Zoning Appeals September 10, 2024-Meeting Minutes 2 II. NEW APPEALS APPEAL #3277 122 FIRST STREET Request for an area variance from §325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the reconfiguration of an existing 3-unit multiple dwelling with 9 occupants to a 4- unit multiple dwelling with 8 occupants. While the overall occupancy of the property will be decreased, the addition of a fourth dwelling unit requires an additional off-street parking space. The property has established rights to provide no on-site parking, and the applicant seeks a variance for all 4 required spaces. Todd Saddler, on behalf of the property owner, presented the appeal. T. Saddler verbally presented, describing the details of the construction and the fact that the unit count and number of legal occupants would change as a result of the renovation. M. Wilson described to the board the zoning history of the property and conveyed information regarding previously approved zoning appeals. M. Wilson went on to describe the procedural reasons why the property owner needed to seek a variance. Board members asked questions regarding existing conditions, design decisions for the current renovations and unit count. The appellant described the existing conditions of the site and explained how those conditions limited the siting for parking spaces and the amenities available that make the property walkable. Public Hearing Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing. Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal: The Planning Board supports this variance. Board members found no negative long-term impacts to planning and support owners investing in the property. There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken, closed the public hearing. Deliberation & Decision The proposed renovation will decrease the number of legal occupants. The property has not provided parking for more than 60 years, and the Board finds that a decrease in occupancy will not increase parking demand. Board members noted that the property has established right regarding off-street parking, and while the requested variance is for the full amount of required off-street parking, the additional requirement of the renovation is one space. The Board concluded that the benefits sought by the appellant outweigh the impacts of any feasible alternative and any potential impact to the neighborhood. On a motion by D. Fleming, seconded by J. Kirby, the Board of Zoning Appeals voted 5-0-0 to approve appeal #3277. _____________________________________________________________________________________ APPEAL #3279 710 MITCHELL STREET Appeal of property owners Samantha Sheppard and Jerry Allen Holt, for an area variance from §325-8, Column 11, Front Yard; Column 13, Side Yard; and Column 14/15, Rear Yard requirements as well as §325-25C, Location of Accessory Structures requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a new 252 SF covered porch in the rear yard of an existing single-family dwelling. Board of Zoning Appeals September 10, 2024-Meeting Minutes 3 The Zoning Ordinance requires that each lot in the R-1b zone provide a rear yard setback of 25% of the depth of the lot with a minimum of 20’. The property has an existing rear yard deficiency, as the existing house is located 14.5’ from the rear property line or 20.1% of the depth of the lot. The proposed covered porch would exacerbate this deficiency by reducing the rear yard to 2.5’ or 3.3% the depth of the lot depth. The property has existing deficiencies in the front yard, side yard and setback requirements for accessory structures that will not be exacerbated by the proposal. The appellants verbally presented, describing the existing conditions of the property, and the reasoning behind the requested variance. Board members discussed potential viable alternatives with the appellants. Public Hearing Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing. Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal: The Planning Board does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts and supports this appeal provided any neighborhood concerns are addressed. There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public hearing. Deliberation & Decision On a motion by A. Gardiner, seconded by J. Kirby, the Board of Zoning Appeals voted 4-1-0 to table appeal #3279 710 Mitchell Street. APPEAL #3278 917 WEST STATE STREET Appeal of Bartush Signs, on behalf of property owner Steve Shannon Tire & Auto, for a sign variance from §272-6B(2), Signs in the Commercial Districts, of the City of Ithaca Sign Ordinance to allow the installation of a sign package that includes two freestanding signs and 10 wall signs at 917 W. State Street. The property is located in the West End-Waterfront District where a business is allowed either one freestanding sign or two walls signs. Individual signs are limited to 50 SF each. The applicant is proposing a freestanding sign structure with two attached freestanding signs. In addition, the applicant is proposing 10 wall signs. Seven of these signs, ranging 4-11 SF, advertise automotive services provided by the business and will be installed above each garage bay. The final three signs advertise the name of the business and will be installed on three different exterior facades of the building. These are the largest wall signs and will be 40 SF, 104 SF, and 200 SF. The entire site is allowed a maximum of 315 SF but an individual business is limited to 50-100 SF as described above. The applicant is proposing a total of 438 SF of signage for the business. Steve Shannon Tire & Auto is locating in the former Goodyear Automotive location, which has existing signs that exceed the number of allowed signs and the allowed square footage. According to the applicant, the existing signage is equal to 307 SF. The appellant verbally presented, describing the existing conditions of the property and reasoning behind the request for a variance from the sign ordinance. Board members asked questions regarding the use of the signs as they pertain to wayfinding. Board of Zoning Appeals September 10, 2024-Meeting Minutes 4 Board members gave the appellants feedback regarding the number and size of the sign, asking the appellants to amend their proposal to conform with the sign ordinance. Public Hearing Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing. Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal: In general, the Planning Board does not advocate for larger signage than the sign ordinance allows. The Planning Board finds long-term negative impacts to planning and does not recommend this variance. The Board believes the proposed signage should come more into compliance with the sign ordinance and remove the internal lighting components. There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public hearing. Deliberation & Decision On a motion by D. Barken, seconded by D. Fleming the Board of Zoning Appeals voted 5-0-0 to table appeal #3278. III. CONTINUED APPEALS - NONE IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. May 7, 2024 On a motion by J. Kirby, seconded by M. Cannon, the Board of Zoning Appeals voted 5-0-0 to approve the May 7, 2024 meeting minutes. V. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS a. Next Meeting – October 1, 2024 VI. ADJOURNMENT – Chair D. Barken adjourned the meeting at 7:05 pm. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ September 10, 2024 Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date