The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBZA 3268 - 356 Elmira Road - Decision CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Sign Variance Findings & Decision Appeal No.: 3268 Applicant: Jax Signs on behalf of property owner Seneca Valley Properties LLC Property Location: 356 Elmira Road Zoning District: SW-2 Applicable Section of City Sign Ordinance: §272-7A Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Permitted Signs in the SW-2 District Publication Dates: February 29, 2024 and March 5, 2024 Meeting Held On: March 5, 2024 and April 2, 2024. Summary: Appeal of Jax Signs on behalf of property owner Seneca Valley Properties, LLC, for a sign variance from §272-7A, Permitted Signs in the SW-2 District, of the City of Ithaca Sign Ordinance to allow the installation of a 98.1 SF freestanding sign on an existing sign structure. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing 118.6 SF sign with a 98.1 SF sign. While smaller than the existing, the proposed sign exceeds the maximum 75 SF allowance for freestanding signs in the SW -2 district. In addition, the Sign Ordinance limits freestanding signs to 22’ in height. The new sign, with the existing structure and base, will be approximately 24’ 6” tall. The applicant has also proposed a wall sign for the business that meets the requirements of the Sign Ordinance but was installed without a permit. Public Hearing Held On: November 7, 2023. Members present: Donna Fleming Andre Gardiner David Barken, Chair There were no comments from interested parties regarding the appeal. Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: Not Applicable Environmental Review: This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), and State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject to Environmental Review. The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals hereby declares itself Lead Agency CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green St. — Third Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Lisa Nicholas, AICP, Director Planning & Development – 607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA – 607-274-6565 E-Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org for the environmental review for the approval of sign appeal 3268, an sign variance for the property located at 356 Elmira Road in the City of Ithaca. The Board has reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated February 23, 2024, and determines that the requested variance will result in no significant impact on the environment. Planning & Development Board Recommendation: In general, the Planning Board does not advocate for fabricating larger signs than the sign ordinance allows along Elmira Road, as oversized signs create the planning impact of an over-signed thoroughfare that is car oriented versus people oriented. However, in this case the Board considered that the sign permit had already been granted and thus the sign is already fabricated and see that this might be a mitigating factor. It is a unique circumstance the Board finds as acceptable. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation: Not applicable. Motion: A motion to grant variance #3268 for 356 Elmira Road was made by J. Kirby. Deliberations & Findings: This appeal was presented at the March 5, 2024 meeting of the BZA, and the Board asked the applicant to provide additional information on the necessity and appropriateness of the proposed sign. The applicant has submitted sufficient evidence showing that the proposed sign is not out of character for the Elmira Road corridor and will not have a negative impact on the area. Factors Considered: 1. Environmental Impact • The Board of Zoning Appeals, acting as lead agency, has completed appropriate environmental review and does not identify adverse impacts on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood resulting from the proposed signage. 2. Size of sign: The purpose for which the sign is erected and the distance from which the sign is intended to be read and the character of the adjacent streets shall be taken into consideration. In all cases, the smallest sign that will suit the purpose shall be the guide, taking into account legitimate business interests to be promoted by the sign and the speed limits and traffic conditions on adjacent streets. • The applicant is proposing 1 building sign and 1 freestanding sign. While the property is allowed both a freestanding sign and building signs, the proposed freestanding sign will be 98.1 SF in a district where a maximum of 75 SF is allowed. The proposed sign exceeds the maximum sign area by 31%. However, the proposed sign is a reduction in square footage from the existing. • The freestanding sign also exceeds the maximum sign height of 22’. The proposed sign will be approximately 24’ 6” tall, exceeding the maximum height requirement by 11%. 3. Number of letters: A sign with few letters need not be as large as one with many letters to be seen at the same distance. The number of letters are appropriate for the size of the sign. The proposed signage features the name of the business and the business logo. 4. Other signs: The context of existing signs in the vicinity of the proposed sign shall be taken into considerations. • There are a mix of signs in this area, including a variety of sizes and heights. • The Southwest District has the most generous sign requirements of any commercial district in the City. These requirements allow less signage than previous regulations, and many existing signs were installed prior to the adoption of the current sign ordinance. The Board finds the size of this sign to be comparable to similar businesses along Elmira Road. 5. The character of the neighborhood: The proposed use shall not be detrimental to the general amenity of the neighborhood character so as to cause a devaluation of neighboring property or material inconvenience to neighboring inhabitants or material interference with the use and enjoyment by the inhabitants of neighboring parties. The proposed sign will not be detrimental to the neighborhood character. • The property is located along Route 13 in area that has high traffic volumes and higher than average vehicular speeds. • Many existing signs were installed prior to the adoption of the current sign ordinance and thus exceed maximum size requirements. The Board finds this sign to be compatible with the existing character of the Elmira Road corridor. 6. Public Interest: The protection of public interest and the desirability of maintaining open spaces, views and vistas shall be considered insofar as possible. The proposed signage will not affect open spaces, views, and vistas. • The Board does not identify any impacts on open spaces, views, and vistas that will result from the installation of the proposed sign. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by M. Cannon. Vote: 5-0-0 Michael Cannon YES Donna Fleming YES Andre Gardiner YES Joseph Kirby YES David Barken, Chair YES Determination of BZA Based on the Above Factors: The BZA, taking into consideration the five factors for a sign variance, finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the determinant to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that variances from the Sign Ordinance, Section 272-7A is the minimum variance that should be granted in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ___________________________ April 4, 2024 Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals