Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1982-02-01 i� I� �i ii BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK I; FEBRUARY 1 , 1982 ii CHAIRMAN WEAVER: I call this meeting of the Board of Zoning Appea s jof the Cit;,r of Ithaca to order. This is a formal public hearing land our agenda tonight is to hear one case , the appeal of Atlantic ; Richfield Company for a variance under provisions of the Sign Ordinance. I'd like to introduce the Board: Ms . Margaret Haine Mr. William Wilcox Ms. Donna Ward Ms. Bette Bagnardi :i Mr. Charles Weaver Mr. Thomas Hoard, Building Commis- sioner & Secy to the Board ' Ms. Barbara Ruane, Recording Secy ABSENT: Mr. Peter Walsh ! The Board will not be bound by strict rules of evidence , however i lithe determination shall be determined upon sufficient legal evi- deuce to support the same. We request participants to come forwar nand use the microphone here so that your testimony can be recorded We ask you to identify yourself as to name and address and we , of , course , don't have any, problem on order of cases tonight we ' ll , have the first case and the last case first and I now call upon th appellant to come forward in the case of Atlantic Richfield. SECRETARY HiDARD: The first case is appeal number 2-1-82 : �I Appeal of Atlantic Richfield Company for a variance under Section 34. 6, Paragraph A-1 and Section 34. 8 , Paragraph A to per- mit the erection of a second sign on the front of the building at 112 Meadow Stree ii (ARCO AM/PM Facility) , and erect a free- standing sign within the setback line of that property, As proposed the number of� signs on the building will exceed the j number permitted in the B-4 (business) us-e district in which the property is located, and the free-standing sign will be closer to the public right-of-way than permitted by the Sign Ordinance . SMR. KEITH; Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, thank you for this 11oppoartunity, to be heard with reference to this request for a vari- ance. The request, as you have seen in the application in the ( notification has, been broken down into two components . . . i i CHAIRMAN WEAVER: We need your name for the record. . . I' - 2 - 1 i' I� { MR. KEITH: Oh, I 'm sorry. My name is John Keith and I am with �i : the Atlantic Richfield Company out of Syracuse, their regional i; jloffice. I am the Real Estate Representative for the northeast i �Jdistrict . I have also with me today the Franchisee of the location Ik Mr. Mark Metzger. As I said before, we have two components to this ! request. .I shall address them separately, the first being the I .D pole sign. The regulations governed by Section 34 . 8 in a B-4 ! zone stipulate that the sign must be placed ten feet from the �iright-of-way, in this case there being two streets , it would 1! position itself ten feet from Meadow and ten feet from State . ;, The sign base as it exists today the center point of that is If 1,1approximately 7% feet from Meadow Street - rather from State Stree , i' ;, and 8, feet from Meadow Street. Taking into consideration the bas itself, and the dimensions it currently .. the point nearest each j property line is Sz' and 6z' so therefore you can see that it Jis not within the regulations saying that it must be 10 ' . The fi ,! sign that will be placed on top of the pole will be within the 18" � which is required to be from the right-of-way. The particular sig , in question , prior to our changing or converting this location to Ian AM/PM was located approximately two feet from the sidewalk or i ithe right-of-way, In the process of changing our identification and our mode of business , we moved it in, and quite frankly, I missed the regulation and I thought that we were - it was a per- I �Imitted use and it was just a matter of making application for the sign permit. We propose to place a sign which is forty-six square i Ifeet. The sign that is in place there now if any of you hap- pened to see it , and I am sure you did, was placed by mistake. It I ! came in, the contractor erected it and it was not the sign that is f "designated for that particular location. I have a blueprint of th Jisign which Z can pass around and, for your information, the sign 11is identical to that which is on the opposite corner here at 11 !Cayuga and Green. Tonight when I arrived I saw that that sign is ;leaning against the side of the building and as soon as we can i; contract to have it placed there, and we receive your permission Ito do so, we will put it in place, The Planning Board on this i I I i i 3 _ i ii ; particular phase of the variance request, gave its approval and I ;, would be in the recommendation which I believe perhaps you have ' seen a copy of that. The second part of our request for a vari- lance deals with the number of signs on the building. And in jiSection 34 . 6 it states that you can only have - if you have an I.D. pole sign you can only have one building sign mounted - not !j Tito exceed 12 foot per lineal foot of the building which is f iiapproximately 96 square feet. I believe , also , that Section C i iof that sarle Ordinance allows a second sign if your premise is a �icorner location so that what we would be talking about would be i! done sign facing State and one sign facing Meadow. It is our in- itent to eliminate the sign that would be facing State Street and i� 111just have our identification logo facing Meadow Street. However �I we would also like to have a 24 hour sign on the building which ( faces Meadow Street.. The AM/PM sign has a dimension of 3' x 9 I I which is 27 square feet. The 24 hour sign has dimensions of 5 x 5 i , which is 25 square feet. The sum of these two signs , obviously, is about half of what would be allowable if a second sign were I� ipermitted on the Meadow Street side. The planning Board did not i ilisee fit to endorse this recommendation or proposal . It was my i opinion that that lack of endorsement was primarily based upon the fact that they objected to setting a precedent. I submit that the testimony before the Planning Board was such that the sign was deemed to be in good taste , that it was of professional design - unobtrusive and it was not found to be a source of eye-polution or a source of emitting bothersome light rays into the neighborhood. T. also submit that without the 24 hour sign, it would constitute iia hazard not a hazard but a hardship based upon the nature of this I bus ness. The name AM/PM suggests that it is a business that is open 24 hours, Our particular jingle is "just around the corner i iall around the clock, " The sign serves as a constant reminder for jIthe customers that they are there for not only what would be con- is dered the normal business hours but for their emergency purchase throughout the day. The particular franchise calls for a royalty fee which is based upon a 24 hour operation and if this particular ii i i - 4 - f feature were taken away from the franchisee ' s ability to do busi- i iness , it would cause a hardship. As a matter of fact, even the �i ;! justification process to determine the feasibility of converting �ithis location to an AM/PM was based upon a 24 hour basis . I also feel that a prudent decision in granting this particular sign woul help to eliminate a possible circumventing other sign ordinance an �i ; as I go up and down Meadow Street I see many many signs which appear Tito be not in conformance as I read this particular sign ordinance. IlI also offer to you an accountability. Our franchise agreement an I jour lease agreement with the franchisee specifically states that the will apply to all or he or she will apply to all governmental �j lregulations and hopefully by having the sign off the sidewalk, on Ij ; the building in a tasteful manner that it will serve our purpose !!from a business standpoint and also lessen any possible traffic ( hazard or site polution something of this nature , as I see I! !many of the other signs that are up and down the street. In the meeting that the - the initial Planning Board meeting when we had !,asked for a variance for the use of the building, there were no i �jobjectors at that time, Unfortunately I didn't appear before you, {since I was out of town when we requested the use variance, however, ; I am told that there were no objectors and again at the Planning �eeting last. Tuesday, there were no objectors and, as I said before , lit seemed to me that and quite frankly - quite rightly so that (the Planning Board was concerned about a poliferation of signs . In the process of developing this corner and reconstructing it there ,.ere some omissions on my part as well as my bossfs part in commun cating to the contractor and the engineer on the site and last eek I, was somewhat embarrassed because they did point out to me fiat there was an awful inordinate amount of signs there . Since hat time we have taken down signs to the nature that say please i ay inside the store, we will definitely remove the sign - the AM/ 1 M on the side and I have a, work order showing that that will be eplaced strictly with . a striping effect. And what we hope to have J�n place is the particular sign that the blueprint shows you and th I' 4 hour sign and the AM/PM which is on the front of the building. i ;; Are there any questions? i{ ! MR. WILCOX: Yes . Could you elaborate on - it says : location cou d ii impede traffic flow within the property lines and create traffic + hazards. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? MR. KEITH: Yes sir. When I appeared before the Planning Board a recommendation was made to perhaps eliminate the side island - the {lone that is kiddi-korner to State Street. I went and made seven , attempts to contact various people in the Department of Transpor- f� tation. The intent of that was to - since we no longer have to us the service bays and we don' t have to have a clear path for cars icoming in and out of what would be the - where the lifts are - I wanted to elongate the island - do away with the side island and 11relocate my curb cuts . Unfortunately they do not see fit - and they told me that if I did that I would eliminate the curb cut - the northernmost curb, cut on Meadow Street. The closest to the corner that I could have a curb cut if I were to modify them would I Ibe arrived at with a formula which was two times the width of the driveway plus 15' and if you have a 30' drive , you are talking of 75' and one curb cut on one street and one curb cut on the other ,! (would certainly not provide the ability to do business as a con- i �venience food store, So, therefore, I had to maintain the island that is kiddi-korner to State Street, If we move the pole in any closer to the canopy and the island - it would cause a traffic hazard and as a matter of fact , already, due to weather conditions and ice, there was a sign that was in place that I had taken down !� that had been struck twice and before we put any signs up with reference to the pricing of gasoline we will have to modify them and make sure that they dont cause a problem. That ' s what I meant by that. CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Have you any other locations in which you combine these building signs to get your message across in one sign rather than two separate locatipns? �I I�MR, KEITH: No we have no other place in the east . At the time of lithe Zoning Board meeting where the use variance was ranted g , I was Ijin Los Angeles at a school , and I did see one location where re they I� I'. I I r - 6 - i i ' had taken the AM/PM sign and moved it across the face of the i, building so it was up and above the 24 hour sign, in a composite Ii unit so that it would be considered one sign. That could be done ; but I don' t think that it would lend itself to the identification iI I' as we know it here and obviously the strength of our business and IIthe strength of our organization is that people identify with us sand they see a particular unit and immediately you get recogni- tion and hopefully the sales generate from that. I MS. BAGNARDI: The two signs that would be facing Meadow Street then would be the one AM/PM sign which is 9 x 3 , is that correct? IMR, KEITH: Yes , that is correct . i 11MS.. BAGNARDI : And the 24 hour sign, the 5 x 5? :IMR. KEITH: That is: correct, I SMS, BAGNARDI: These are the only two signs facing Meadow? ' MR. KEITH: That' s correct , That would be the only two signs on � th.e building and it would be the only two signs other than the fre - standing sign in use for the business , I have a front elevation o Ithe drawing which shows this and I think Mr. Hoard was looking at it. ,i (discussion took place which wasn't picked up by the tape recorder) ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Are there any questions from members of the Board? Any other questions? IMR, KEITH: If - again in trying to come up with some meaty reason wh_ ,ch allow you to make a favorable decision on my behalf, if I look at your opening paragraph of your sign ordinance, I believe lla,nd hopefully our intent is to abide by that, What we are trying Ito do is to tastefully advertise our business , assist the Pran- ( chisee in maximizing his profits and in being successful and also Ito eliminate any kind of signs that become potential problems . As 1Iyou have signs that are and I am somewhat confused with th your sign ordinance - but as you have signs that are on the street that I announce certain messages whether it be 24 hours or whether it be cigarettes or things of thisnature that I have seen, when they fare placed on the curb and as you try to make a corner, and so for h I rI �3 ;I _ 7 _ I i! ' it obstructs the vision - and up on the building it gives a messag I' ; and as I said, it doesn' t - it isn' t offensive to the neighborhood iwe had - there has nobody been in to object and, hopefully, it is ! my belief that everyone was properly notified and I have so attest( d land I think that if you grant this type of thing then there is an � accountab .lity that should any problems develop in the future, Mr. i' ;Hoard will certainly get ahold of me or my successor. We hope to Abe a good citizen and we would like to have our image well displayEd iin the community of Ithaca. ( CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Do you or does Mr. Metzger wish to address the I (Board? I I +MR. METZGER: I am Mark Metzger, I am the Franchisee of the AM/PM i 'Mini-Market and I would just like to say that it is an important I part of my business to be open 24 hours it is part of my lease agreement and it ' s - I just _feel that having the 24 hour sign they a 1Iwhere people can see it during the daytime will help them to remem �jber that I am open 24 hours, if they ever need anything. It is in I good taste and it is a very important part of my business . Thank You. {CHAIRMAN WEAVER: Is there anyone else that wishes to address the Board on this matter? Anyone else who wishes to be heard? (no one) Thank you Mr, Keith, Procedure for the Board now will be to ,go into executive session in this room, so the rest of you will be ?obliged to leave, We will deliberate the case and then we will ireconvene into a public meeting and those who are interested will The able to hear the decision of the Board. i i I !I I i i I, 1 If 9 - u BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COMMON COUNCIL CHAMBERS I{ CITY OF ITHACA NEW YORK FEBRUARY 1 , 1982 I EXECUTIVE SESSION ( APPEAL NO. 2-1-82 ; Ii The Board considered the appeal of Atlantic Richfield Company for ja variance to permit the erection of a second sign on the front of lithe building at 112 Meadow Street and erect a free-standing sign Ii t within the setback line of that property. The decision of the ,! Board was as follows : E 2-1-82„A. !IMR. WILCOX; I move that the Board permit the location of the I free,standing sign although it doesn't meet the setback requirements because of the configuration I of the property makes it a hardship. +SIMS . HAINE; i second the motion. II VOTE: 5 Yes; 0 No 1 Absent Granted. i FINDINGS OF FACT; 1) The hardship in locating the pole sign in compliance with the i Ordinance is that the pole would interfere with the free-flow of traffic on the property, creating a possible hazard. 2)_ Would deny the property owner fair use of the property. 3) The Board notes that the sign itself is in conformance with the setback requirement but the pole is not. 2 1,82RB. �i MR. WI'LCOX; I move that the Board approve the requested vari- ance to allow the two building signs with the f condition that the signs do not exceed the size as proposed by- the appellant ' s plans , MS'. WARD; I second the motion. VOTE: 5 Yes ; 0 No; 1 Absent Granted w/condition FINDINGS OF FACT; 1) This tends to keep the total square footage well under what i j the Ordinance allows. I� 2) The variance meets the spirit of the Ordinance nance by limiting th area of signage. l ;I ,I I , BARBARA RUANE, DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the Board ! of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, New York, in the matters of '' Appeal No. 2-1-82 on February 1 , 1982 at City Hall , City of Ithaca liNew York; that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a l H true copy of the transcript of the minutes of the meeting and the executive session of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, on the above date, and the whole thereof to the best of my ability I+ !i Barbara C. Ruan Recording Secretary j i I Pworn to before me this �Idad of ��;._�z.�.�..���. 19 82 �f Notary Public NOTARY Y X I� MY CiJ",i h;.., - `^,N 30, � it I II I I I� I� i �I I I i I I ii I !I