The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMN-BZA-1977-11-14 ii i i I ii { is Ii I' TABLE OF CONTENTS li i! MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ITHACA, ! NEW YORK - November 14 , 1977 Page i APPEAL NO. 1175 Orson Ledger 318-322 W. State Street 2 i APPEAL NO. 1176 Robert Mix & West Seneca St . Corp . 2 707-711 Willow Avenue APPEAL NO. 1176 Executive Session 7 i I APPEAL NO. 1177 Albert D. Kelly 8 319 Taughannock Boulevard APPEAL NO. 1177 Executive Session 13 APPEAL NO. 11-1-77 Charles Conlon $ Associates 14 216 East State Street (Ground Round Sign) r APPEAL NO. 11-1-77 Executive Session 18 I Certification of Recording Secretary 19 i i I i I i !i � I I i I i i; jl I� i i I i i ii ,I �j 1114 Ili li i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA ff; CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK I NOVEMBER 14 , 1977 A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals , City of Ithaca, was held in Common Council Chambers , City Hall, Ithaca, New York r f on November 14 , 1977 . !� PRESENT: Peter Martin, Chairman E Judith Maxwell C. Murray VanMarter Martin Greenberg Edgar Gasteiger Thomas Hoard, Building Commissioner $ Secretary to the Board Barbara Ruane, Recording Secretary Chairman Martin called the November meeting of the Ithaca Zoning r Board of Appeals together. We are missing one member of the Board! this evening so those of you seeking relief from the Board should know that it will take four affirmative votes to grant it and withl, i only five out of six present your odds are reduced slightly. If any of you want to hold over to the December meeting for presumably i f better odds , you are welcome to do so . The odds have just improveh. i Mr. Gregory Kasprzak arrived at the meeting at 7 : 35 P.M. For those of you who have not been before the Board before let me briefly outline our procedure . We take the cases up in order, those who are requesting relief from the Board are given full op- Iportunity to present their case , then we ask any others present who would like to express themselves ; first all of those who are in favor and any who are opposed, to present information relevant to the various grounds that the Board has to consider in granting 1 or denying a variance . Having heard all the cases we then go into' executive session, deliberate on the cases and reconvene in public' session to announce the results . Our proceedings are informal , i that is to say they are not governed by strict procedures or strict i rules of evidence but we do ask that all those who speak limit their remarks to the issues that are before the Board and not get 4 into extraneous matters . Mr. Secretary what is our first case? SECRETARY HOARD: Mr. Chairman the first case on tonight ' s agenda, ] i the appeal no. 1174 , the appeal of the Tompkins County Mental Health Association, for a special condition permit has been �9 I l� i' E i ! - 2 - v j jpostponed by the Planning $ Development Board so they can take committee action for next month' s meeting. So we move on to I i` Appeal 1175 , the appeal of Orson R. Ledger . APPEAL 1175 : Appeal of Orson R. Ledger for a variance from the parking requirements of Sectio 30 . 25 Column 4 , to add four (4) dwell- ing units to the building at 318-322 W. State Street, in a B-2 (business) us� district . A total of nineteen parking places are required for the eighteen dwelling units and two rooms to let that would result from the additional I; units ; there are now a total of ten parking spaces on the site . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone here to present that request fori I� a variance? Why don' t we come back to that at the end? , i ' SECRETARY HOARD: The next appeal on the agenda is j ! APPEAL NO. 1176 : Appeal of Robert Mix and West Seneca Street Corporation for an area variance under Section 30 . 259 Columns 10, 11 , 12, �! and 13 , to permit subdivision of the j property at 707- 711 Willow Avenue into !' two nonconforming parcels . The result ing parcels will be deficient in minimum front and side yard requirements , and I! exceed the maximum lot coverage . No change in use is contemplated for the property, which is located in an I-1 (Industrial) use district . ! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone here representing that appeal? JOHN VASSE : I 'm John Vasse, Real Estate Broker, agent for both 4 IIII; West Seneca Street Corporation and the prospective buyer, Robert Mix, for the property in question, 707 - 711 Willow Avenue and we are here for a variance , of course, for lot sizes . I do have a i �i scanty air photo which I can pass around showing the property. I have a plot plan of the property. You have a more precise plan there . This is a copy of the tax map indicating where the split i will take place - there are two of those, let me pass one over to i r Mr. VanMarter. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: This is shown on the plan that ' s attached to the !' appeal , right? I MR. VASSE: Right . The direct view would show the two buildings !+ together and they would be split like so . This would be Mr. Mix ' s : jand this would be retained by West Seneca Street Corporation. I 'v� !i I I' i I i i 3 - i? discussed the separation of these properties with the Fire Chief �I Weaver and he finds no problem since there will be no change in us� . i The plumbing shop , West Seneca Street Corporation will continue th front quonset but for warehousing and retail store , shop and the i rear building will be continued under the present use as body i fender repair shop by Mr. Mix. i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So, at the moment , there is a separation - the I things are being used separately through a lease arrangement that �! would simply provide a split in ownership ; no new construction, not change in use. MR. VASSE: Right, no change in use . The property was , a number lof years ago, utilized as one facility by the College Chevrolet j Company which today is Zikakis Chevrolet Company. They outgrew the facility, then it became the Century Discount Store , they outgrew s I f I, it and since then the Plumbing Company moved in and they don' t need all that space. They leased about half the structure to Mr . Mix a# d i the balance they want to retain. Now they want to sell the area that he is leasing. j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there questions from members of the Board? I � MR. VAN MARTER: What is it zoned, industrial? i I MR. VASSE: The present zoning is industrial , I-1 . I I I! MR. KASPRZAK: Tom, doesn' t signed off property constitute a sub i division? Or is there a law that requires a different procedure i� I i this case? � I` +I MR. VASSE : This is merely dividing one parcel into two portions . 1 MR. KASPRZAK: Exactly. MR. VAN MARTER: That' s a definition of a subdivision. MR. VASSE : Alright. !! 1 i� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: So you need Planning Board approval . . . . I MR. VASSE : We have the Planning Board approval . i, CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You have the Planning Board approval of the sub �! division? I� jj MR. VASSE : I don' t know about subdivision. They've approved the It concept that I 've presented to you people . f' i I ji I li F w - 4 - �lMR. KASPRZAK: I 'm not arguing about the concept, I 'm arguing with ; i ; the law because if it isn' t a subdivision then - you know. . . . ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Then you need not only our variance, which you would need in any event but you would also need, not only the reco�- lmendation of the variance by the Planning Board but their approval I� of it as a subdivision. I MR. KASPRZAK: Right . They have jurisdiction over the subdivision ' MR. VASSE: Do you not have minutes of the . . . . i CHAIRMAN MARTIN : Yes and it treats it simply as a variance case . � MR. VAN MARTER: JOHN, the number of square feet in the parcel retained by Donahue Halverson? i MR. VASSE : The structure , probably . . . MR. VAN MARTER: No , the lot , the land. . . i ' MR. VASSE : Well , it ' s irregular in shape so - the one dimension that we have is 195 feet along Willow Avenue , by a depth of 124 feet along the right-of-way and across the diagonal on the back side would be . . . i ; MR. VAN MARTER: We don' t need that John. What ' s the first one? 11124 is good to the first pipe? I MR. VASSE : Right . and 195 . . . j IMR. VAN MARTER: Okay. j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there further questions from members of the i Board? i ' MR. VAN MARTER: The problems I see are the requirement forwith the street line . . . i i 'iMR. GASTEIGER: How is access gained to the back property? Is it j i by way of a 20 ' right-of-way? i i iMR. VASSE : Right, a 20 ' right-of-way, there is a permanent 20 ' right-of-way which is also used by the Lansing Research Company, Art Shull ' s operation. �I MR. VAN MARTER: And the rear of the Montessori property? i 1I MR. VASSE : Right. , CHAIRMAN MARTIN: If we translate this into the sorts of consider ii ations that govern area variances , your case for one , is in essenc , j III that these structures were put there, that they are established nor Ii I "i i I - S - 1j as a separate use , that it would be impossible to comply with the r if various requirements of the ordinance giving the fact that the lot! is as it already is , and the structures are as they already are. i y' MR. VASSE: That ' s true . ! i' CHAIRMAN MARTIN: That nothing in terms of pattern of use is being changed or new structures , they are already there . { i MR. VASSE: Continued use , right. MR. VAN MARTER: May I continue? CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Sure . I I ! MR. VAN MARTER: The west side of the garage building becomes a i �! side yard, and between the east side and the new proposed line be- comes the other side yard. Do you have those dimensions? �I MR. VASSE : 200 . . . . I i MR. VAN MARTER: Just side yard. i MR. VASSE: Well if you are going to call the west side , the side I� yard to the Mix building. . . . . MR. VAN MARTER: You name what you want to call it John. . . . � y � i MR. VASSE : Okay. It appears to be 210 ' along the west boundary o i �ithe body and fender shop , if you are going to call that a side yar . If you are going to call the front yard the right-of-way it ' s 75 . 5 i IMR. VAN MARTER: Okay. The building is set from the west propertyli line how far - the proposed property line? 44 IMR. VASSE : There is one area at 16 ' and another area I would esti mate to be around S1 . MR. VAN MARTER: Okay, how about on the east line? IIIMR. VASSE : On the east line I would guess that you've got - are ycu i I j calling the east line the section that faces . . . . j� MR. VAN MARTER: That ' s the 112 ' - I 'm calling the lot line and i0s II j at the east end of the building . 4 i `1MR. VASSE : Okay. Well that ' s now the Lansing Research and I woul i llestimate that to be about 121 . ! i; IMR. VAN MARTER: Okay. ( CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Does that get all the ones you need Murray? 4 �I ij i E I I I - 6 - e MR. VAN MARTER: We 've of a supplementary condition that we used (� g pp Y I to have that described that no lot shall be reduced in size , dividod f so that it fails to meet any of the requirements of the ordinance . ! ii I don' t know where I might look for it now. If there is to be an application to pray for that relief there ought to be some standar to be met in order to do it. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: It ' s contained as part of the requirements for subdivision or as part of the zoning ordinance? I I� MR. VAN MARTER: 30 . 34 Area regulations. No lot shall be so re- duced in area that any required yard shall be smaller than that prescribed in the regulations for the district in which said lot is located. That ' s not quite as tight as it used to be . I guess by definition of frontage, the street line would - is restricted i i to public right-of-way and this no longer is part of a parcel that fi faces public right-of-way. Is that a fair statement? MR. VASSE : I 'd say so. MR. VAN MARTER: I don' t feelcomfortable, you know, because I don' j, know what else to ask, John. II � y MR. VASSE : I would suspect that this probably was at one time , I I, haven' t checked that far back in the deeds , that it might have bee ,I two different parcels and old Bert Taber probably merged them when he needed more land there for College Chevrolet and now we are f coming back to divide again. I have an idea that the original I! building was built right to the property line , the quonset hut . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Do other members of the Board have questions? iGuess not . Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to be I I heard on this case? Anyone who would like to be heard first in ! favor? Anyone who would like to be heard in opposition? We will move on then to the next case. II I I II I I i I� �I I 'i V - 7 - � i BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS it CITY OF ITHACA (i I ( NOVEMBER 14 , 1977 j i, I! EXECUTIVE SESSION I I ! APPEAL NO. 1176 : Ii II CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the requested area variance �I in Case 1176 be granted. MR. GASTEIGER: I second the motion. j !I FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . The structures on the property which will be divided already exist an !� I ( a split in use already exists . The i I division makes no change in the physic,r1 arrangements but simply creates two j (l f i lots where formerly there was one . IE i I� 2 . Given existing structures and li existing lot, the area requirements of I the ordinance could not practically bel complied with. fThis variance is condition on the subdivision securing the subdivision {� approval of the Planning & Development i� Board. I VOTE : YES 3; NO 3 Area variance denied. I 9i I I i I I f i I I I I I i 9 i � I I � i I I i - s - Secretary Hoard announced the next case to be heard: i APPEAL NO. 1177 : Appeal of Albert D. Kelly for an area variance under Section 30 . 25 , Column 1 , to expand the restaurant at 319 Taugha - nock Boulevard on the south side , re- ! sulting in a three foot wide side yard. A minimum of five feet is required for; �= a side yard in the M-1 use district in which the building is located. j ISECRETARY HOARD: Susan Vance is here representing Mr. Kelly. SUSAN VANCE : I have a diagram here that shows the building, how I �1 he plans to build it . �9 CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Could you begin by identifying yourself? SUSAN VANCE: I am Susan Vance . I live at 230 Pleasant Street in Ithaca. i' CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you. I SUSAN VANCE: Basically what he wants to do is expand the buildings si i, within a fence as this little photograph shows . Do you want me just !j to take this off (photo which was stapled to the larger diagram) o-r I li do you want to - this is really just to demonstrate that we need 'I the extra space in the building and it ' s going to help - you know make the building wider for extra use inside . (� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright, could you perhaps describe what that i i shows and then we could pass that around? MS. VANCE: Yes . This shows - this is a picture here of the fence:, I! that is already existing on the outside of the building and the net part that ' s going to be built won' t be outside the fence that is already there . See? CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright . j I; ii. MS. VANCE: Okay. I ' ll pass this whole thing around. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The application refers to Health Department I� reasons for the need for the expansion. Would you elaborate on I i I! that? l it MS. VANCE: Basically just the additional working space within the; Ii building that creates - it ' s just better to - roomier. I don' t I jf really know anything about the Health Department reasons . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: More room is necessary for Health Department I� reasons . That ' s the undue hardship as our form has it structured i here . I i f - 9 - i i MS. VANCE : I didn' t realize that there was an undue hardship . I guess he just wants two extra feet in the building because it ' ll be easier and the building will be larger. His point is that the ;ibuilding will not be going outside of the fence that is already I there - that ' s what the picture in the upper right hand corner � I represents . It shows that there is a fence already there and he ; just wants to move the building over an additional two feet for width inside . MR. GASTEIGER: I , too, share some doubts about this , just plain understanding of it. One the reason; second, is this a new wall ligoing to be built? The whole wall torn down? i I' j MS. VANCE: Right. No , it will be expanded. Okay - maybe I can ( show you on here. This is the building that already exists , right w here and what he wants to do is - this wall will , it ' ll still be j� there but, I guess , basically, it ' ll be torn down while we are H building this . There is presently a walk-in cooler here. This is fI ( the parking line here and the wall is already three feet (31 ) away9 i from the parking line . What we want to do is just expand the building up to where the wall is presently. ( MR. GASTEIGER: This wall is continuous to the face of the buildin*? s MS. VANCE: Right . This is the building right here . MR. GASTEIGER: This is Taughannock Boulevard? , MS. VANCE: This is Taughannock Boulevard, here . The current build- ,, ; ding line is right here (pointing) . It also extends down here , thi 's Ii is the street , this is Taughannock Boulevard here and this is the l ' fence right here, that is already existing. This is the side of (I the building where it is already and what he wants to do is expand ; out here . a, I( CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. So that all of this in red is new - will �! be new? !IMS. VANCE : Right . This here too . There will be a wall here - well there already is a wall here. MR. GASTEIGER: What kind of a wall is this , a cement block? f I� ii i - 10 - I SMS. VANCE : Yes , I guess . Yes it will be cement block. Whatever it is , it complies with all the other codes it has to . i MR. VAN MARTER: So you are after a three foot (31 ) side yard here ;IMS. VANCE : Right. It already exists here. j i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Yes . i i MR. GASTEIGER: But there will be no passage between - what will the distance be? Or what is the distance? j IIMS. VANCE : It wouldn' t be anything in here, right now. .SMR. GASTEIGER: The fence is right up against the wall? MR. KASPRZAK: It ' s right on the property line . MS. VANCE : Right , the fence will be right up against the wall? IIMR. GASTEIGER: Wasted fence. MS. VANCE : Well , that was already built . That ' s what the picture show, you see. I 'ts already there. MR. GASTEIGER: You can' t give more insight to the the Health De- partment involvement - requirement? j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: You wouldn' t need a variance if you moved it two I feet (21 ) this way. IMS. VANCE : Right, I understand that . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And the question is why you need those two feet . ; i, MS. VANCE : Why we need two more feet? Well , because . . . . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Bigger is better, of course , but . . . I! MR. KASPRZAK: Not always , Peter. � MS. VANCE : Well I think two feet (21 ) . . . Basically what he is concerned with is the working area in here (pointing) - in the 11counter space and to have, you know, proper amount of room to walk through. I i MR. GASTEIGER: I 'm just trying to think of how this would be written up. We've got the Health Department ' s . . . i SIMS. VANCE : I know, I know - one other thing I think is that the 11equipment that he ' s - I 'm not sure, I think the equipment that he I I is going to buy is a certain size and there has to be room in between for cleaning and stuff. I it f' I� i ii ; MR. KASPRZAK: What about the Fire Chief, did he have a chance to i ; look at it, in terms of access in case of emergency? t; ; MS. VANCE: He - I 'm really not sure what his conclusions were . I ' !,know that Kelly talked to him. He didn' t tell - Kelly did not say ! Ithat he had some objections . I think he would have. IIMR. KASPRZAK: He probably wouldn' t have said anything . . . 1MS. VANCE: No , I think he would have told me that, but I really i can' t say honestly. �IMR. KASPRZAK: No front yard is there? 11MS. VANCE : Yes , there is a small front yard here (pointing) and � I Ithis is front yard here (pointing) . IMR. VAN MARTER: The green is an existing fence? � MR. KASPRZAK: The front yard requirements . . . . jMS. VANCE: Right . You see this is all behind the fence right now ! Ilanyway. What' s here now is a big walk-in cooler that sits right ! up against the fence anyway. !JMR. GASTEIGER: This is essentially an expansion of the kitchen �i ;, area or will there be additional? r IMS. VANCE : Yes , it is . The whole part of it . . . The counter exists H now right here in this part of the building that is already there . ' ( What he wants to do is move the kitchen area back out of the dining i area so that the dining area can be closed off from the kitchen aroIa. $` MR. GASTEIGER: That kitchen area that you are speaking about is dining area. ,IMS. VANCE : You mean because the counter sits there? IMR. GASTEIGER: No, no , I 'm just - because of the way you put that.! i 11MR. VAN MARTER: This is the short order area right here and in place �gof it they want the four tables in there see . I IMS. VANCE : But there will be a wall here , too, another wall , like ) ,! either a half wall or a wall with shutters . f IMR. GASTEIGER: I 'm bothered in that we don' t have anything on this; ! Health Department problem and that that is being used as a major 11argument . It looks to me like this is just an expansion of a business . _ 1� MS. VANCE : May I say something? The Health Department saw these i ' I �f 1E - 12 - i plans and said they were okay. i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: But that ' s a different point . I 'm sure they do `i j have to approve them but it was in the application at least , used 'i Ii as an argument why the expansion was necessary, there were Health Department reasons and you' re unable to elaborate on that . I MS. VANCE : Yes , I guess I am. Okay. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there other areas that the members of the jBoard want clarification? Do you have any more questions for Ms . I ii j; Vance? No . Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this II ; appeal? MR. GASTEIGER: If this indeed is an expansion of a business , i !i doesn' t the parking question have to come up? It seems to me there will be more customer space or . . . . I 'm sorry, I 'm trying to' get this in perspective. �i j MS. VANCE : That' s okay. I understand. There is plenty of parking ace s right across the street from the Farmers Market and there is I; p g �i 1 parking all along Taughannock Boulevard, too . i CHAIRMAN MARTIN• Is there any off-street parking space that is i immediately controlled by the restaurant? I I' MS. VANCE: No . i. +� CHAIRMAN MARTIN: No . Are there other questions? Is there anyone! else here tonight who would like to be heard on this appeal? We will move on then to the next. i s� I, i I I I I fl � i I �I I i I( I , - 13 - BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA , I NOVEMBER 14 , 1977 I i EXECUTIVE SESSION ,( s it APPEAL NO. 1177 : ii CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I move that the area variance as requested in case number 1177 be I �( denied. i! MS. MAXWELL : I second the motion. } jg FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 . Based on the evidence presented atil f� I� the hearing , the Board cannot find that ,} an addition that did not require a variance could not meet the reasonable ', , j needs of the appellant . it 2 . While the application referred to Health Department reason for the ! addition which would require this area! I i variance, no information was available ; I, , at the hearing to support that claim. J VOTE : YES 6 ; NO 0 . ii Area variance denied. I �I I` �4 I} I� I I } �I k ! I 1 I !` I i! �i I i, {I - 19 - I `i � s �1 jI , Barbara Ruane , Do Certify that I took the minutes of the Board j � of Zoning Appeals ,City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeals ; numbered 1175 , 1176 , 1177 and 11-1-77 , on November 14 , 1977 at !i City Hall , City of Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed them Land the foregoing is a true copy of the transcript of the minutes I of the meeting and the Executive Session of the Board of Zoning ! i Appeals , City of Ithaca, on the above date, and the whole thereof } i i to the best of my ability. Barbara C. Ruane I� Recording Secretary i i i Sworn to before me this i i I day of1977 . i� i� !) Notary Public i i N(? X611 1�.5 Q r' in Tompkins,County leiiil i.xpires 'March 3U, 19 -Z� jl I it I, l I� e I� I z I I � 14 - i 1Secretary Hoard announced the next case to be heard: :! APPEAL NO. 11-1-77 : Appeal of Charles Conlon and Associate$f , Ltd. , for a variance of Section 5 (b) o$ the City of Ithaca Sign Ordinance , to place a projecting sign which projects ! approximately thirty-six (36") inches from the face of the building at 216 i East State Street (the former College Spa) . The maximum projection permitte under the sign ordinance is eighteen f; (18") inches . The property is located ; in a B-3 (business) use district . CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there someone here to present that appeal? j d ROBERT SPECKMANN: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is lBob' Speckmann, I 'm vice president of Conlon $ Associates , Architects . Basically, I think - do you have a drawing of that sign? I hope. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Yes we do. ' ROBERT SPECKMANN: Okay. The elevation of the old College Spa which ! is now going to be Ground Round was developed with the close coor- dination with CDAT and at the last Planning & Development Board we I received unanimous approval of this request . The elevation that i was developed has a projecting cornice - rough sewn cornice , right ! l ,know of 1811 which necessitates the sign being , so to speak, pushed cut i an additional 18" to clear the cornice so that we have! exposure to '1 the pedestrian traffic. So basically what we are asking for is tho variance to allow us to affix the sign to the building to hang out ! � in front of the cornice which you probably have seen constructed now, if you have walked down the Mall since the elevation is pretty Ilclose to completion. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Am I correct in believing that the size of the i ,I !isign will be less than the ordinance allows? � �iMR. SPECKMANN: All the signs on the building are far less than wh�t the ordinance allows as far as square footage is concerned. 1CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright so that in terms of square footage you I Tare well under the ordinance and the only problem is this extension 1! now for an additional eighteen (1811) inches? II IMR. SPECKMANN: Right . Yes , Mr. Chairman. !' CHAIRMAN MARTIN: And the grounds on which you would seek it is that 1 Ij i i i i' ! ,I f given this cornice , it ' s the only way the sign becomes visible? I I i MR. SPECKMANN: Right . i! CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there questions from members of the Board? �! l MR. VAN MARTER: I have a question about the existing sign. Ij MR. SPECKMANN: The large restaurant sign? MR. VAN MARTER: Yes . ! MR. SPECKMANN: That will be taken down. MR. VAN MARTER: Am I correct in assuming as I look at that sign i I� �! right now there is no part of it obstructed from east and west? I MR. SPECKMANN: You mean the new sign? iI MR. VAN MARTER: No , the existing one. IMR. SPECKMANN: Oh, the existing one? What do you mean by ob- i � structing .? I MR. VAN MARTER: View. The view of the face of the sign is not obstructed. MR. MR. SPECKMANN: Not to my knowledge , no . MR. VAN MARTER: Okay. Why couldn' t the new one be located in thei same way then? j i MR. SPECKMANN: That ' s far in excess of the square footage allowed { �i by your sign ordinances , plus the configuration of the sign is not , I in keeping with the sign ordinance either. � 1 MR. VAN MARTER: Thank you. i MR. GASTEIGER: Is the bottom of that sign just 7 ' off the pavemeni? i MR. SPECKMANN: No . Actually it is a little higher. It ' s about I 1714" I believe, is the actual . I I IICHAIRMAN MARTIN: So a tall person and a tall hat has a little problem. f MR. SPECKMANN: Getting under the sign or getting in the building , �I leither way, right. � i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Are there further questions? i 11MR. GASTEIGER: Well I am think of you and . . . ii MR. SPECKMANN: I think if anybody is walking that close to the Ilbuilding they are going to have scraped shoulders , possibly. 11MR. GASTEIGER: Whenever it rains , that ' s where I walk. Ij i f i I) i 16 - ij ii j MR. SPECKMANN: Okay. I I i MR. VAN MARTER: I would like to ask about the lighting please . it CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Lighting of the sign. MR. SPECKMANN: It ' s external and they are pencil beam type of j j I fixture that will shine only on the area of the sign. MR. VAN MARTER: So that the source is visible? I MR. SPECKMANN: No , it ' s shielded by louvers . MR. GASTEIGER: It will not strike the cornice when the wind blows it? MR. SPECKMANN: No. The chains , I believe, will be welded so that I there will be no swinging, extraordinary swinging of it also . j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Any further questions? I think you have all ours questions . Are you moving toward a question Murray? MR. VAN MARTER: No, thank you. i CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. SPECKMANN: Thank you very much. I CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Is there anyone else who would like to be heard on this request for a sign variance? Yes . j I LINDA TASKER: I 'm Linda Tasker and I 'm with the City Planning I lDepartment and co-chairman of CDAT and Mr. Speckmann from Conlon & i Associates has worked very closely with us . They've made compro- mises beyond what could be expected and we are very pleased with toe l ' design of the new Ground Round and one of the items we asked for f specifically was that lower cornice and it is that lower cornice that ' s making it necessary to have this sign moved out from the El wall 18" . So it is because of their cooperation that they are hav ng a to be here tonight to get a sign variance . . . i w ,, CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would Mike to be heard on this appeal? Then I believe that takes us bacl' i ito our first case 1175 . Is there anyone here representing Mr . I ILedger? Seeing no one , I believe that concludes our public busine�s I! 11for this evening . li 1MR. VAN MARTER: I 'd like to ask the question in regard to the fir t it �l ; case heard; if the notice was given to adjoining property owners? I I � i HI �� I �i I j i i' !! - 17 I li CHAIRMAN MARTIN: This is the appeal of Robert Mix and West Seneca ; i Street Corporation? I ( MR. VAN MARTER: Right . i+ j CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Mr. Vasse. Notice given to neighborhing propert owners? MR. VASSE: Absolutely. There is a certificate on record somewherlo, in the Building Commissioners Department indicating what people have been contacted. MR. HOARD: We have it here . MR. VASSE : I have a copy of the letter if anybody cares to see its CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Okay. Thank you. i MR. VAN MARTER: I need to ask the same question about the next 1 I case . I 'm sorry I didn' t take it in order. CHAIRMAN MARTIN: The restaurant at Taughannock Boulevard. Notice ; I given to neighboring property owners? j MS. VANCE : Yes. i iCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Yes. I iIMR. VAN MARTER: Thank you. Fine . IiCHAIRMAN MARTIN: Alright, we will now go into executive session i �1which means all of you will have to leave . Those of you who want ! to stay around for the results of our deliberations we will invitel you back after we reach some conclusion and report them to you. i II I i� � I I i I i' �I i' f !i i� I1 (I i !t f I i i i ii i - 18 - ' I I BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS I CITY OF ITHACA NOVEMBER 14 , 1977 i' EXECUTIVE SESSION i Ii l APPEAL NO. 11-1-77 : E !� MR. . VAN MARTER: I move that the motion be granted. �f I MR. KASPRZAK: I second the motion FINDING OF FACT: 1 . The projecting cornice designed Ij in accordance with the recommendations f f of CDAT creates a problem of visibility it for a sign that complied with the 18" i limitation of the sign ordinance . The proposed sign which is substantially �f less than the total amount of sign ,f area permitted by the ordinance requir s an 18" extension beyond that allowed by the ordinance . i VOTE: YES 6 ; NO 0 . iVariance granted. j� i i i i i f I f I ' +I I 1 ` f Ii i. I I i