Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-2023-01-03City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes –January 3, 2023 Board Members Present: David Barken, Chair Michael Cannon Donna Fleming Andre Gardiner Joseph Kirby Staff Present: Megan Wilson, Deputy Director of Planning Samuel Quinn-Jacobs, Assistant Planner Victor Kessler, Assistant City Attorney Lisa Nicholas, Director of Planning and Development Applicants: Centerline Communications LLC, (BZA #3245) Jason K. Demarest Architecture (BZA # 3242) Sandra Greene, Property Owner (BZA #3244) Green Street Redevelopment Partners, LLC, Property Owner (BZA #3226) Chair D. Barken called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm and read the opening statement. I. TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPEALS APPEAL #3245 Right of Way Locations near 507 N. Albany Street; 309 Franklin Street; 312 Thurston Avenue; 120 Utica Street; 202 King Street; 635 W State Street; 333 W State Street Appeal of Centerline Communications LLC for an area variance from Section 325-29.8B(1)(h), Siting Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities, and Section 325-29.8C(1), Design Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities, of the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to install seven new small wireless facilities on utility poles within the City’s right-of-way at locations nearest to the properties noted above. The City’s Telecommunications Ordinance, Article VA of the Zoning Ordinance, requires that all Personal Wireless Service Facilities be located (1) at least 1,500 feet from all other PWSF (§325-29.8B(1)(h)) and (2) at least 250 feet from all residences, schools, and daycare facilities. The applicant is seeking a variance from these setback requirements for the proposed locations. The applicant presented this appeal at the December 6, 2022 BZA meeting and requested the continuation of the appeal at the January 3, 2023 meeting to allow time to submit additional information requested by the City’s Telecommunications Ordinance. The public hearing was opened at the December BZA meeting and remains open for testimony for new interested parties Board of Zoning Appeals January 3, 2023-Meeting Minutes 2 at the January 3rd meeting. The new submission is attached, and the original submission remains available for review at https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/Index/1518 Centerline Communications, on behalf of AT&T presented as the appellant. The presentation gave an overview of the installation of seven small-cell telecommunication boxes at various locations throughout the City. Board members discussed questions with the appellant regarding the dropped calls and drive data, coordination of installing the boxes on NYSEG poles, and what efforts were made by the appellant to minimalize the aesthetic impact on the neighborhood. The Board also asked questions regarding feasible alternatives and implementation. The appellant responded by stating the aesthetic impact from a few large poles would be worse than that of several boxes added onto existing utility poles. Public Hearing Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing. The following interested parties spoke or submitted comments in support of the requested variances: • 120 Utica Street o John “Nate” Foster, 209 Utica Street The following interested parties spoke or submitted comments in opposition to the requested variances: • Phoebe Brown, Alderperson, 2nd Ward • 507 N. Albany Street o Jerone Gagliano, 105 First Street o Molly Kornblum, 105 First Street o Deb Justice, 106 Second Street • 309 Franklin Street o Janice Kovar, 601 Willow Avenue o Mary Russo, 603 Willow Avenue o Marty Blodgett, 414 Adams Street • 202 King Street o Deborah Cohen, 108 King Street o Charles (Andy) Rollman and Andrew Hertzberg, 830 N. Aurora Street o Vanessa Wood, Fall Creek Elementary School o Natalie Lester, 832 N. Aurora Street o Nicole Housson, 510 Linn Street • 333 W. State Street o Elizabeth Salon, 108 S. Albany Street • 312 Thurston Avenue o Erin Cuddihy, 123 Roberts Place • 120 Utica Street o Marilyn Webb, 703 N. Cayuga Street Board of Zoning Appeals January 3, 2023-Meeting Minutes 3 o Jerone Gagliano, 105 First Street o Molly Kornblum, 105 First Street o Margot Lystra, 518 N. Tioga Street o Heather Stone, 511 N. Tioga Street o Jill Freidmutter and Katherine Herrera, 116 Utica Street o John Steiniger, 110 E. Marshall Street 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 acknowledges the frustration expressed by many interested parties but notes many of the issues of community concern lie outside of the Board’s purview and beyond what the Board can legally consider in its evaluation of the variance requests. The goal of the City of Ithaca Telecommunications Ordinance is to minimize the adverse impacts caused by the placement of wireless facilities. The Board finds that the proposed PWSF do not add significant visual clutter and blend in relatively well with the existing street conditions. There is no evidence that the small cell facilities will reduce property values. The applicant has demonstrated that the current proposal is the best option to meet service needs. While there are alternatives, there are no alternatives that would not require variances from the same requirements and those would likely have more impacts on the neighborhoods in which they would be located. The Board finds that the requested variances will result in no undesirable change on the character of the neighborhoods. The benefit sought by the appellant outweighs any detriment community, based on the criteria for the area variance that the Board must consider. Board members also acknowledged that the City has a broader problem with the aesthetics of utilities but this is a larger issue that this lies beyond the purview of the BZA and this appeal. The City is moving toward burying utilities but there is a lot of work to do. The renderings of the proposed PWSF show installations that are less impactful than many existing installations. On a motion by M. Cannon, seconded by A. Gardiner, the BZA voted 5-0-0 to approve Appeal #3245 for the Right of Way Locations Near 507 N. Albany Street. On a motion by M. Cannon, seconded by A. Gardiner, the BZA voted 5-0-0 to approve Appeal #3245 for the Right of Way Locations Near 307 Franklin Street; 312 Thurston Avenue; 120 Utica Street; 202 King Street; 635 W. State Street; and 333 W State Street. II. NEW APPEALS APPEAL #3242 108 & 110 College Avenue Board of Zoning Appeals January 3, 2023-Meeting Minutes 4 Appeal of Jason K. Demarest Architecture on behalf of property owner 110 C-Town LLC for an area variance from Section 325-45.2F, Collegetown Residential 4 (CR-4) District Standards for Lot Coverage by Buildings and Rear Yard. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures at 108 College Avenue and 110 College Avenue and consolidate the properties into a single lot. The applicant proposes to construct a four-story, 34-unit apartment building that meets all requirements for a rowhouse under the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The new building will meet the minimum greenspace requirement of the CR-4 district but will occupy 57.5% of the lot, which exceeds the maximum 50% lot coverage by buildings. Additionally, the new building will provide a 9.7’ rear yard instead of the 16’ required rear yard. The applicant seeks area variances for both of these requirements. 108 & 110 College Avenue are located in a CR-4 district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued. Jason Demarest presented on behalf of the appellant, stating that the lot coverage variance is requested due financial hardship associated with renting a smaller building that conforms with zoning. J. Demarest also suggested that the topography of the site was a factor in the variance request. Board members discussed with the appellant the sunken patios and their impact on the request for the rear yard variance. Public Hearing Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing. No comments were submitted. Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal: The Lead Agency supports this variance and does not see any negative impact to the general character of the neighborhood planning-wise with the proposed density. Collegetown is the place for student housing and this building answers this need in a compelling design. There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public hearing. Deliberation & Decision The Board noted that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the request meets the criteria for an area variance, specifically that there are no feasible alternatives and that the need for the variance is not self-created. Board members noted that it appears that a project could feasibly fit within the requirements of the CR-4 zone and stated that the hardship claimed by the appellant was self-created, as the applicant knew of the zoning requirements prior to purchasing the property and undertaking new construction. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are unique characteristics of this site that justify the need for a zoning variance. Board of Zoning Appeals January 3, 2023-Meeting Minutes 5 On a motion by D. Barken, seconded by M. Cannon, the BZA voted 5-0-0 to deny Appeal #3242 for the proposed lot coverage deficiency for 108 &110 College Avenue. On a motion by D. Barken, seconded by M. Cannon, the BZA voted 5-0-0 to deny Appeal #3242 for the proposed rear yard deficiency for 108 & 110 College Avenue. ______________________________________________________________________________ APPEAL #3244 209 Elmwood Avenue Appeal of property owner Sandra Greene for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 12, Side Yard, Column 13, Other Side Yard, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a 19’ x 12.5’ carport over the existing driveway at 209 Elmwood Avenue. The proposed location of the new carport is 5.5’ from the side property line, and a side yard setback of 10’ is required. The proposed location aligns with the existing driveway and will be constructed to be immediately adjacent to the existing house. The property also has existing rear yard and other side yard deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by this proposal. 209 Elmwood Avenue is located in a R-1b district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-32 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued. Sandra Greene presented as the appellant and homeowner, to request a variance to build a carport over her driveway. S. Greene stated that her closest neighbor is supportive and that there are no existing buildings near the location of the proposed carport. The board had no questions for the appellant. Public Hearing Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing. No comments were submitted. Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal: The Planning Board supports this variance as they support owner-occupied improvements, appreciate the design of the carport, and also note a large yard in adjacent property. The Planning Board finds no long-term negative impacts to planning. There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public hearing. Deliberation & Decision The Board found no feasible alternatives to this proposal, given the existing siting of the home and existing driveway. The adjacent property owner is supportive of the request, and the deficient side yard will located next to a large yard on the nearby property. The Board had no objections to this request. Board of Zoning Appeals January 3, 2023-Meeting Minutes 6 On a motion by A. Gardiner, seconded by D. Fleming, the BZA voted 5-0-0 to approve Appeal #3244 for 209 Elmwood Avenue. ______________________________________________________________________________ III. CONTINUED APPEALS APPEAL #3226 210 E. Green Street & 215 E. State Street Appeal of property owner Green Street Redevelopment Partners LLC for a sign variance from §272-6 B(2)(b), Number and Size of Signs Permitted in a Commercial Zone. The applicant is proposing a sign package for the new mixed-use building The Ithaca, located at 210 E. Green Street and 215 E. State Street. The applicant is proposing to install 2 building signs on the south elevation of the building located at 210 E. Green Street and 2 building signs on the north side of the project at 215 E. State Street. Each parcel will have one logo sign that is 9 SF and one “The Ithacan” sign that will be 22 SF. While commercial signs are permitted to be up to 50 SF in size, the Sign Ordinance limits any sign advertising a residential building is limited to 12 SF in sign area. Two of the proposed building signs (identified as Type 3 and Type 4) will exceed the 12 SF maximum by 10 SF or 45% of the allowed square footage. Brian Bouchard with CHA Consulting presented on behalf of the appellant. B. Bouchard shared a sign package proposal related to the Ithacan Project located at 210 E. Green Street. The Board asked questions relating to the number of signs and discussed with B. Bouchard the implications of the Planning Board recommendation. Public Hearing Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing. The following interested parties submitted comments in opposition to the appeal: - Todd Kurzweil, tenant – 215 E. State Street Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal: The Planning Board has worked with the applicants to create a suitable sign package in which the applicants have made several compromises. The Board supports this sign package and variance with the following conditions met. The channel letter signs, ‘The Ithacan’ are appropriate, and the Board approves these at the size proposed, 18” in height and approximately 22 square feet each. The Board approves the internally lit illumination of the channel letter sign located on Green Street and the halo approach to illumination of the channel letters on the Commons. This lighting reflects the urban conditions on both sides of the streets appropriately. As for the Logo sign, the Board approves the package with either no logo signs (this is preferred) or at a much smaller scale at 3’ each at the largest in height on both sides of the building. This equates to approximately 9 square feet for each logo sign and the Board requests no illumination for the logos. With these conditions met, the Board finds the sign package has no long-term impacts to planning. There being no further comments from interested parties, Chair D. Barken closed the public hearing. Board of Zoning Appeals January 3, 2023-Meeting Minutes 7 Deliberation & Decision The Board noted that the signage proposed fit well within the context of the use and would have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood. The Board appreciated the changes made from previous sign package designs. On a motion by M. Cannon, seconded by J. Kirby, the BZA voted 5-0-0 to approve Appeal #3226 for 210 E. Green Street and 215 E. State Street. IV. PRELIMINARY PRESENTATIONS - NONE V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – NONE VI. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS a. February BZA Meeting i. Agenda Review VII. ADJOURNMENT – Chair D. Barken adjourned the meeting at 9:01 pm. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ January 3, 2023 Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals