Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-1975-09-08 ° BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, CITY OF ITHACA CITY HALL, ITHACA, NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 8, 1975 A regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, City of Ithaca, was held in Common Council Chambers, City Hall, Ithaca, New York, on September 8, 1975. PRESENT: Peter Martin, Chairman C. Murray Van Marter Gregory Kasprzak Elva Holman Edgar Gasteiger Edison Jones, Dep. Bldg. Comm. and Secretary Chris Smith, Recording Secretary ABSENT: John Bodine Chairman Martin opened the meeting listing members of the Board present. The Board operates under the provisions of the City Charter of the City of Ithaca and under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinances. The Board shall not be bound by strict rules of evidence in the conduct of the hearing, but the determination shall be founded upon sufficient legal evidence to sustain the same. The Board requested that all participants identify them- selves as to name and address and confine their discussions to the pertinent facts of the case under consideration. Edison Jones announced the first case to be heard. APPEAL NO. 9-2-75: Appeal of William Zikakis to Section 6-B-3 of Sign Ordinance of City of Ithaca at 381 Elmira Road in a B-5 district. MR. ZIKAKIS: Gentlemen, it' s a very simple case. We've opened up an import store as you may be aware of, we bought the Tompkins Supply Building and we are doing extensive remodeling. By that, we are remodeling the inside and we plan to face lift the outside. I've had architects work on it and now I have an interior decorator working on it which we are making better progress. We think that certainly probably it is one of the biggest eyesores on the Elmira JRoad now and I think that the improvements that we will make will be impressive to you and that it will certainly help the Elmira Road at least our end of it. It will help it substantially. Whati we need is identification for the product that we are handling. i 2 We are handling three lines of automobiles and we have no identifi— cation whatsoever. When you so graciously approved our Chevrolet sign my identification for Volvo was on that same pylon and when that went down all my identification went down which we were delighted and I think that our sign made a big improvement in the area. What we would like to do is have approval to put up an import sign bearing the names of the three products represented plus my own name as identification of who is selling the product. We brought it before the Planning Board and the Planning Board has agreed to the design and in fact they made a change. They didn't like the first design and we agreed to alter it and we made a change on it. I don't know, did they give you a copy of it. This is a little more up to date version of what we have and I will submit it over here. MR. MARTIN: Can we keep this as part of the evidence? MR. ZIKAKIS: Ok, the only thing that I've discovered is that you don't give things back. Like my pictures in the last case. I sort of need it, will it come back to me? If you need it you're welcome to it but I'm still working with the sign designer on it. MR. MARTIN: Why don't we pass this around and we can each note the extent to which it varies from what we already have. MR. ZIKAKIS: It' s basically the same, except the recommendation of the Planning Board was that I enclose the Masda sign. MR. MARTIN: Within the frame. MR. ZIKAKIS: Within a frame, right. The Masda sign is like a lollipop as their preference but they said they will go with anything that the recommendation is. They will allow us some flexibility on changine that. The size is not exact. We requested a variance I don't rember the square feet, perhaps Ed, you do? MR. JONES: 162 MR. MARTIN: The ordinance permits you 50, right? MR. JONES: Right. MR. ZIKAKIS: That is a little smaller. That shows, and I don't know where he got his dimensions, he came up with 8 foot and that f i 3 is one of the things that I have to discuss with him because actually the signs are all 10 foot wide which brings it up to that standard that we originally requested. So, that is not a true representation other than we think appearance will hold in that. MR. GASTEIGER: So, it will be 10 x whatever this. . . . . . . . MR. ZIKAKIS: Yes, Which I think is like 18 when you add the name on it. Before we didn't have the name added on it. We were thinking at that time of putting the name on the building, but the Planning Board requested that everything to on the sign itself. MR. GASTEIGER: The 162 square feet are with the 10 foot width? { MR. ZIKAKIS: Yes. It would actually be 180. MR. MARTIN: I have two questions. First as I recall, the prior , case in which we gave you a variance for the main building, we took account of the fact that there were non-conforming signs in excess of what the ordinance permitted, that would have to come down after the period of time allowed for non-conforming signs and we imposed that time limitation on the variance. Would • you have any objections to the same being done here? MR. ZIKAKIS: No. I imagine if the one came down that the other would have to come down, and I'd probably come down with it. But, we would agree to whatever we agreed to last time, I'm certainly sure, would be alright. MR. MARTIN: The second thing is perhaps a bit more difficult. We are not charged to grant variances anytime we think people are good citizens and its a good idea. We have to find that there is something impractical, unreasonable and possible in the require- ments of the ordinance as it applies to this property. Could you explain to us why we might reasonably find that about your case. MR. ZIKAKIS: I think that the big reason is that we have unlike but that is .not really true. I was going to say like on most I dealership but that is not the case in Ithaca. Most dealerships are dual or tripled up and this is the case where we are represent-I ing three lines and if I had just for example volvo in that build- ing which cannot support that building by itself, I could manage i 4 to stay in that 50 foot limit, that would be no problem but I can't support the building with just one import line. It takes the three lines to do the job and I need the identification for the three franchises. It really is a hardship without it. We are advertising heavily now, to try to identify the building but people really don't know where it is at. Fortunately they tie it in with the Chevrolet and they will come into the Chevrolet and we will refer them over across the street. But it is a hard- ship not having the identification. MR. MARTIN: Are there questions from members of the Board? MR. GASTEIGER: Yes, I'm sort of curious about what the Planning Board might have said, in terms again of new rules and regulations for the Elmira Road area. I 'd like to know if you have heard anything about this, are there any rough guides and whether this was an easy thing with them to except. It would be curious to know what the thinking is and this is reoccurring now and . . . . . . . . . . . . . MR. ZIKAKIS: It seemed rather easy, I don't mean to second guess them but they of course have come out and looked over the location and where we would put it we also adhere to their changes grace- fully and it appeared as if they were leaning more now, that the new zoning, the B-5 zoning is there that they were looking at it as perhaps there is a need on something that' s on a more of a traffic area for that particular area. Again, I don't mean to try to express their sentiments but they seemed in sympathy with our problem. MR. MARTIN: In another recent case on the Elmira Road, this Board was unable to act because of inaction of the Planning Board but th City Council in effect allowed a non-conforming sign to go up sort of on a interim basis pending the enactment of some new sign provisions of the Elmira Road. Would you have any objections to a condition being attached to a variance which would say in the event that there are amended sign requirements that come into effect for the Elmira Road that your sign would have to comply. MR. ZIKAKIS: No, I feel that I would agree with that if it I� 5 1 I certainly, if they could live by it, I certainly could too. IMR. GASTEIGER: What is the area of this sign compared to the othersign. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MR. ZIKAKIS: It would set back further. We are not asking, for a variance forward till we feel that we can comply with everything but size. Actually, the property I think that you will find • being a corner location is entitled unless I 'm mistaken, is f entitled to 50 square foot twice. One for each corner. So, I don't plan to have a one sign, again unless I'm mistaken I think I'm entitled to 100 square foot. So, I'm not asking for that much more except that it would be all in one and it would be towards the front of the building closer to the building whereas j the Chevrolet sign sits pretty far out. I MR. GASTEIGER: I brought these from home to see what the area i was on the Chevrolet sign. Do you remember what that area was? MR. ZIKAKIS: 250 I 'm guessing 250 square foot or something like that. Incidentially, I hope that you have driven by that because it certainly is a tremendous improvement; from what was there. I hope you have seen it, it' s actually enhanced the property and it is a clean looking sign and I hope to do the same thing here. One thing that is interesting here is that all the colors are blue and white so you won't have a hodgepodge of different colors all clashing together. All their identification colors are blue and white. it ties in with Chevrolet which is blue and white. MR. MARTIN: Any further questions? MR. GASTEIGER: What brought this up in my mind is to what the thinking of the Planning Board, but I think that you have made a different pitch than this. I wish I could have found your previous, one using a need for identification of three franchises on a faster traffic area. I don't think that was used as an arguement before? EMR. VANMARTER: The approach from the south is through that i underpass and it is the same. The visibility of Chevy as you 6 approach from the south is not quite as good as this which is a backed up intersection. MR. GASTEIGER: The reason I brought this up is that that was a matter of visibility and nothing was said about the speed of traffic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MR. ZIKAKIS: The speed limit is 30 mph, which is a city speed limit but you are coming in off of a 40 or 50 mile zone and I'll tellyouu it would be hard for us to find anybody going 30 by the time they hit our place. The other is that the place, you see since we are remodeling the facility and it was Tompkins Supply for 15 years, it is identified as that and we still have people to sell wholesale plumbing to if I had any. They still come in and wonder where they go to pick up that pipe. MR. KASPRZAK: Would it be very difficult for you to retain the size suggested on this? . . . . . . . . . MR. ZIKAKIS: Yes sir, because the corporations, we have to buy their signs if we use any signs at all. All the sizes are 10 foot. Frankly when Arnold Meyer Sign Company made this up the last time, the only thing that I could imaging is that they were trying to get me to manufacture the signs, which I have a problem with the corporation plus it is probably double the expense if I have the manufacture verses buying them ready made from the individual corporations. From the distributorships the car distributorships. But they are 10 and 10 and I think the Masda was 13 and that is where we ran into a little problem and they had the Masda on the outside of the original sketch. And then we had to encase it and do some artistic work I imagine the sign company will, to make it fit properly. MRS. HOLMAN: But that is possible? MR. ZIKAKIS: Yes, we planned to encase it all. We might have to add a little stuffing or something the others might be a little more suspended and not fit as neatly or else it will be shaped down. i' 7 i MR. MARTIN: Any further questions? For the record I 'll ask if anyone else wishes to be heard in this case, hearing none, than that concludes the public portion of our hearing this evening. i 8 , BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ITHACA SEPTEMBER 8, 1975 , EXECUTIVE SESSION APPEAL NO. 9-2-75 Mr. Gasteiger: I move the variance be granted That he be allowed to put up a single sign of no more than 180 square feet with the conditions : 1) That no sign be placed on the building on either Spencer Street or Elmira Road. 2) That no pylon sign is placed on Spencer Street. 3) That his signs adhere to the sign ordinance in 1979. Mr. Kasprzak: I second that. FINDINGS OF FACTS 1) That a problem exists for the property owner in terms of presenting the product lines that he has committed himself to. 2) The Ordinance permits a total square footage of sign pylon and on the building of approximately 245 square feet at this location, so that the proposed variance with conditions results in less square footage of sign than the total allowed by the Ordinance. 3) Since the property is in a faster traffic area, the larger pylon sign would appear to be justified. 4) That conditions 1 and 2 above, lends itself to a distinct improvement of the area. VOTE: Yes - 4 No - 1 Application has been granted. 9 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I , CHRISTINE SMITH, DO CERTIFY that I took the minutes of the BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, City of Ithaca, in the matters of Appeal 9-2-75 on September 8, 1975, at City Hall, City of Ithaca, New York, that I have transcribed same, and the foregoing is a 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 Christine Smith Recording Secretary Sworn to before me this �Wday of ��, 1975. ota y c MOLLY J. W. BEARDSLEY Notary- PL16HC :iof New York Qualificcl in `iun;1kins County Tcrin Llnir;, March 30, 19