Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3294 - 215 College Avenue - Decision CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings & Decision Appeal No.: 3294 Applicant: Nick Robertson Property Location: 215 Coll, LLC Zoning District: CR-4; MU-1 Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-45.2F(1) and §325-45.2G(1) Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Coverage in the CR-4 District, Lot Coverage in the MU-1 District Publication Dates: August 28, 2025 and September 2, 2025. Meeting Held On: September 2, 2025. Summary: Appeal of Nick Robertson for property owner 215 Coll, LLC for an area variance from §325 - 45.2F(1), Lot Coverage by Buildings in the CR-4 District and §325-45.2G(1), Lot Coverage by Buildings in the MU-1 District, of the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a new residential building with 84 dwelling units. The property is a through-lot that spans the width of the block and connects College Avenue and Linden Avenue. The property is located in both the MU-1 and CR-4 zoning districts, and the proposed building must meet the requirements for the zone in which it is located. The portion of the building in the MU-1 district will cover 73.5% of the portion of the lot in that district, and a maximum lot coverage by buildings of 70% is allowed. The portion of the building in the CR-4 district will cover 56.7% of the portion of the lot in the CR-4 district, and a maximum lot coverage of 50% is allowed. The applicants presented a previous version of the proposed project to the Board of Zoning Appeals in April 2025. At the time, the project required variances for building height in feet and stories for the CR-4 portion of the project site as well as lot coverage by buildings in both districts. Board members expressed concern about the requested variances for new construction on the site given recent zoning changes adopted by the Common Council. In response to the Board’s comments, the applicant revised the project to eliminate the need for the height variances on the CR-4 portion of the site. Public Hearing Held On: September 2, 2025. Members present: Michael Cannon Donna Fleming Joseph Kirby Andre Gardiner, Vice-Chair CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Megan Wilson, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org David Beer, property owner of 209 College Avenue, stated that the project should have a lighter color on the façade facing the neighboring historic structure and that he was not excited about the scale of the building. However, he added that the applicants have been very responsive and have communicated him throughout the development of the project design. Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: Not Applicable Environmental Review: This variance is a component of an action that also includes site plan review. Considered together, this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act for which the Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead Agency, made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on August 26, 2025. Motion: A motion to grant variance #3294 215 College Avenue was made by J. Kirby. Deliberations & Findings: The Board discussed the specifics constraints of this through-lot site that is located in two different zoning districts. While members noted there are many challenging sites in Collegetown, the topography of the site combined with the different area regulations for the eastern and western portions of the property create unique challenges to the site’s redevelopment. The Board also discussed the impacts to the neighborhood, including available green space and the relationship to neighboring buildings. The applicants have taken steps to mitigate impacts of the new building on the adjacent historic structure. Factors Considered: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes No • The requested area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The applicants have sufficiently demonstrated that the lot coverage will not be a detriment to nearby properties and have worked to mitigate impacts on the nearby historic property. Additionally, while the proposed design exceeds the maximum lot coverage by buildings on the site, it also provides more green space than required by the zoning regulations. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes No • The applicants considered removing the balconies to decrease lot coverage; reducing the size of units; and creating loft-style units. While zoning compliant, these changes would negatively impact the quality of the living spaces. The applicant has demonstrated that there is no feasible alternative to the variance, based on the specific characteristics of the site and efforts to mitigate impacts on the adjacent historic property. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No • The requested variance is not substantial. The portion of the building in the MU-1 district will cover 73.5% of the portion of the lot in that district, and a maximum lot coverage by buildings of 70% is allowed. The portion of the building in the CR-4 district will cover 56.7% of the portion of the lot in the CR-4 district, and a maximum lot coverage of 50% is allowed. The Board does not consider this to be a substantial request and does not identify any substantial impacts. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes No • Based on the submitted application materials, testimony of the applicant, and observations of existing conditions, the Board does not find any evidence of adverse physical or environmental conditions. The additional green space will contribute positively to the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No • The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is proposing a new building that does not meet the area requirements of the zoning district. However, the benefits of the proposal to the applicant, the applicants attempt to minimize variances, and a lack of negative community impacts outweigh the fact that the difficulty is self-created. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by A. Gardiner. Vote: 4-0-0 Michael Cannon YES Donna Fleming YES Joseph Kirby YES Andre Gardiner, Vice-Chair YES Determination of the BZA Based on the Above Factors: The BZA, taking into the five factors for an area variance, finds that the benefit to the applicants outweighs the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the Zoning Ordinance, §325-45.2F(1) and §325-45.2G(1) is the minimum variance that should be granted in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ___________________________ September 2, 2025 Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals