HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3074-372 Elmira Rd.-Decision Letter-7-13-2017CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street— 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
Gino Leonardi, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Sign Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3074
Applicant: Steve Wilson of Bohler Engineering for McDonald's USA, LLC. Owner
Property Location: 372 Elmira Road
Zoning District: SW -2
Applicable Section of City Sign Ordinance: Section 272-7A.
Requirement for Which Variance is requested: Size requirements of permitted signs.
Publication Dates: June 21, 2017 and June 23, 2017.
Meeting Held On: July 13, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Steve Wilson of Bohler Engineering on behalf of the owner McDonald's USA,
LLC for a sign variance from Section 272-7A, size requirements of permitted signs. The applicant
proposes to demolish the existing McDonald's building and construct a new building at the property
located at 372 Elmira Road. The applicant proposes to install 5 new wall signs on the new McDonald's
building. The signs include 3 wall arch signs and 2 McDonald's wordmark signs. The property is located
in the SW -2 zone district where the allowable area of building signage is limited to 1.5 SF of sign area per
1 linear foot of the building frontage. The proposed building has 46.7' of building frontage which would
allow a total sign area of 70.05 SF. The total square footage of the 5 proposed signs is 108 SF. There is an
existing pole sign on the property that was granted a variance on July 6, 2010 for size of permitted signs
and setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. The freestanding pole sign will remain the same and
not be exacerbated by the proposed project.
The property is located in an SW -2 use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, the Sign
Ordinance, Section 272-18 requires that variances be granted before a sign permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: July 13, 2017.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
N/A
Environmental Review: Unlisted Action
These actions have been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment and are
otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law. CEQR Section
176-6 A (4) (b).
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any long term negative planning impacts with this appeal. However,
the Board notes that the variance request is not large and questions why the applicant cannot comply with
the sign ordinance.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes.
Deliberations & Findings:
Factors Considered:
1. Size of sign:
The applicant presented evidence that the speed of the highway requires signs that are visible to patrons
coming from many directions. This is a commercial property can be approached from all four sides.
2. Number of letters:
In this case, the signs are just the company logo and the one word name of the company. The smallest
number of letters have been used and the size of the signs are appropriate.
3. Other signs:
This is a commercial strip where there are multiple drive thru businesses and other businesses that have
similar signage.
4. The character of the neighborhood:
It seems that while the overall increase in signage is approximately 10%, the number of signs is greatly
reduced from what is on the existing building. In particular, the signs seem to be well scaled for the size
of the building. The signs appear modest and restrained considering that only one side of the building will
be seen from oncoming traffic.
5. Public Interest:
In this case, the building is smaller than it could be and the signs that we are considering are all on the
building and don't affect the vistas or public views. The exception is the large freestanding logo sign that
has an existing variance for its size.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Steven Beer, Chair
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair: Yes
Teresa Deschanes: Yes
Marshall McCormick: 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 Sign Ordinance, Section 272-7A is the minimum variances that should be granted in order
to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
1
Secreta , B, d of Zoning Appeals
_7/14/2017_
Date