HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3203 - 325 Dryden Road - Decision.docx
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3203
Applicant: Jason K. Demarest Architecture on behalf of Red Door Rentals and AdBro Development
Property Location: 320 Elmwood Avenue and 325 Dryden Road
Zoning District: CR-2 and CR-3
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-45.2B(11) and §325-45.2E
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Required Vegetative Buffer, Off-Street Parking, Lot
Coverage by Buildings, Front Yard, Rear Yard, and Maximum Building Length.
Publication Dates: April 6, 2022 and April 9, 2022.
Meeting Held On: April 12, 2022.
Summary: Appeal of Jason K Demarest Architecture on behalf of property owners Red Door Rental and
AdBro Development for an area variance from Section 325-45.2E, Collegetown Residential 2 (CR-2) and
Collegetown Residential 3 District Standards for Off-Street Parking, Lot Coverage by Buildings, Front
Yard, Rear Yard, and Maximum Building Length as well as Section 325-45.2B(11), Required Vegetative
Buffer, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures
at 325 Dryden Road and 320 Elmwood Avenue and consolidate the two parcels into a single lot with
primary frontage on Dryden Road. The consolidated parcel will be located in two zoning districts: CR -3
in the northern portion of the lot (original 325 Dryden Road parcel) and CR-2 in the southern portion of the
lot (320 Elmwood Avenue parcel). The applicant proposes to construct a new multiple dwelling in the CR-
3 district and a new two-family dwelling in the CR-2 district. The consolidated site has sufficient lot area
to allow two primary structures on the same parcel; however, the proposed project creates multiple area
deficiencies:
• Off-Street Parking: The proposed project will require 13 off-street parking spaces. The
applicant is proposing to provide 6 spaces on site (5 spaces in the CR-2 and 1 ADA-compliant
space in the CR-3).
• Lot Coverage by Buildings: The new multiple dwelling in the CR-3 district will occupy 45.3%
of the lot, and the district regulations limit lot coverage by buildings to 40%. The project meets
the minimum green space requirement.
• Front Yard: The project site has one front yard along Dryden Road and a second front yard
along Elmwood Avenue. Both districts require a minimum front yard of 10’. A corner of the
building projects into the front yard along Dryden Road, creating a minimum front yard of 6.1’
in this location. The project meets the front yard requirements along Elmwood Avenue.
• Rear Yard: The rear yard for the consolidated lot is located in the CR-2 district, adjacent to 318
Elmwood Avenue. The proposed site plan shows a rear yard of 8.9’ of the required 20’.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
Megan Wilson, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org
• Maximum Building Length: The CR-3 district limits building width to 45’ in length; this
regulation applies to the entire building, not individual facades. The full building length along
Dryden Road measures 61’, which exceeds that maximum allowed by the Zoning Ordinance
by 16’ or 35.6%.
• Required Vegetative Buffer: A minimum 10’ vegetative buffer from the rear proper ty line is
required for all properties within the CR districts. The proposed project does not provide
sufficient vegetative buffer in the rear yard. This is an existing deficiency that will not be
exacerbated by the proposal.
• §325-20D(3)(a), Setback Compliance Method for New or Expanded Parking Areas in
Residential Districts: The setback compliance method does not allow parking areas within the
minimum required side or rear yards. The proposed site plan shows an expanded parking area
that is located within both the required rear and side yard of the CR-2 district. Please note that
the applicant is proposing to meet the requirements of the Landcscape Compliance Method for
locating parking areas of 3 or more cars. Compliance with this method will be eval uated by
the Planning and Development Board on March 22, 2022. This variance will be required if the
Planning and Development does not approve compliance with this alternate method.
The applicants presented the appeal at the November 2, 2021, December 7, 2021, and January 4, 2022 BZA
meetings, and Board members expressed concern about the magnitude of several of the requested variances.
The Board encouraged the applicants to consider its comments and put forward a project that better meets
the zoning. The applicants have again revised the project for consideration.
320 Elmwood Avenue is located in the CR-2 district and 325 Dryden Road is located in the CR-3 district
in which the proposed uses are permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that area variances be granted
before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: April 12, 2022.
Note: Public hearings also held on November 2, 2021 and January 4, 2022.
Members present:
Michael Cannon
Andre Gardiner
Steven Henderson
Joseph Kirby
David Barken, Chair
The following interested parties submitted comments in support of the appeal:
• Cheryl Beach, 403 Elmwood Avenue
• Nancy Brooks and Derek Pereboom, 106 Harvard Place.
• Margaret and Dan Liguori, 401 Dryden Road
The following interested parties submitted comments in opposition to the appeal:
• Christopher Carey, 310 Elmwood Avenue
• Martha Frommelt, 308 Elmwood Avenue
• Robert (Bob) Klohmann, 109 Harvard Place
• Ellen McCollister & Robert H Frank, 221 Bryant Avenue
• Dr. James R. Orcutt, 324 Dryden Road
• Joanne Trutko, 310 Elmwood Avenue
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 subdivision 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 Determination of Environmental Significance on
November 23, 2021.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board continues to not identify any negative long-term planning impacts and supports this
appeal, as they did in November 2021. The Planning Board accepts the applicant’s reasons for requesting
the Landscape Compliance Method for the parking area and will require the applicant to provide additional
plantings in addition to the proposed fencing.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable.
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3198 for 228 Dryden Road, with conditions, was made by D. Barken.
Deliberations & Findings:
Board members expressed differing opinion on the necessity of various individual variances requested as
part of this appeal. The Board noted that several of the variances, including front yard, required vegetative
buffer, and rear yard, would result in conditions that are similar to the existing site. Others, such as off -
street parking, lot coverage, and building length seem like larger requests that seem to be self-created.
Required Vegetative Buffer (Approved)
Motion: A motion to grant the variance for required vegetative buffer for 325 Dryden Road & 320
Elmwood Avenue was made by M. Cannon, seconded by S. Henderson.
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 rear yard of the consolidated lot will be in the location of the current side yard of 320
Elmwood Avenue. This area currently provides approximately the same amount of greenspace,
and the proposal will not alter existing conditions.
• Interested parties have not presented testimony identifying negative impacts caused by this
deficiency.
• The Board does not find evidence of undesirable change on the character of the neighborhood
caused by the requested rear yard vegetative buffer variance.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• This variance is directly related to the applicant’s request for a rear yard variance. It is not
feasible to provide a 10’ vegetative buffer in the rear yard while providing a 8.9’ rear yard.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• The applicant is proposing between 5-10’ of vegetative buffer in the rear yard, with the majority of
the rear yard having a vegetative buffer of 7+’. The Board does not consider this to be a substantial
request.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
• Through the environmental review process, the Planning & Development Board determined that
the proposed project will have little to no impacts on the environment and issued a negative
declaration of environmental significance in November 2021.
• Because the proposed vegetative buffer is comparable to the existing greenspace in this location,
the Board does not anticipate adverse impacts on the physical environment.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is proposing new construction that does
not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
• However, the Board finds that there are no substantial impacts of the reduced vegetative buffer in
this location.
Vote: 4-0-1
Michael Cannon YES
Andre Gardiner ABSTAIN
Steven Henderson YES
Joseph Kirby YES
David Barken, Chair YES
Front Yard (Approved)
Motion: A motion to grant the variance for minimum front yard for 325 Dryden Road & 320 Elmwood
Avenue was made by S. Henderson, seconded by M. Cannon.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
• Only a small corner of the front of the building will project into the front yard, by 3.9’. While not
in compliance with the zoning regulations, other properties in the immediate area have front yards
of similar depths.
• Interested parties have not presented testimony identifying negative impacts caused by the front
yard variance.
• The Board does not find evidence of undesirable change on the character of the neighborhood
caused by the requested front yard variance.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• The applicant has stated that the front yard requirement could be met by creating an angle on the
building to accommodate the 10’ setback; however, the Board finds the requested variance creates
a better project and is consistent with other front yards along the street.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• The Board does not find the 3.9’ encroachment into the required front yard to be substantial, as it
is only a small corner of the building. The applicant is proposing between 5-10’ of vegetative buffer
in the rear yard, with the majority of the rear yard having a vegetative buffer of 7+’. The Board
does not consider this to be a substantial request.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
• Through the environmental review process, the Planning & Development Board determined that
the proposed project will have little to no impacts on the environment and issued a negative
declaration of environmental significance in November 2021.
• The Board does not find that allowing a small portion of the building to encroach into the front
yard will create an adverse impact on the physical environment.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is proposing new construction that does
not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has stated that the front yard
requirement could be met by creating an angle on the building to accommodate the 10’ setback;
however, the Board find the requested variance creates a better project and is consistent with other
front yards along the street.
Vote: 4-0-1
Michael Cannon YES
Andre Gardiner ABSTAIN
Steven Henderson YES
Joseph Kirby YES
David Barken, Chair YES
Rear Yard (Approved)
Motion: A motion to grant the variance for minimum rear yard for 325 Dryden Road & 320 Elmwood
Avenue was made by J. Kirby, seconded by M. Cannon.
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 rear yard of the consolidated lot will be in the location of the current side yard of 320 Elmwood
Avenue. The depth of the proposed rear yard is comparable to the depth of the current side yard of
the existing two-family dwelling at 320 Elmwood Avenue.
• Interested parties have not presented testimony identifying negative impacts caused by the rear yard
variance.
• The Board does not find evidence of undesirable change on the character of the neighborhood
caused by the requested rear yard variance.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• The applicant has demonstrated that it is not possible to build two structures on the consolidated
lot without a rear yard variance.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• The requested variance is for 55% of the required rear yard. In terms of proportion of the request,
this is a substantial variance.
• However, the Board finds that there are no substantial impacts of the rear yard variance request.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
• Through the environmental review process, the Planning & Development Board determined that
the proposed project will have little to no impacts on the environment and issued a negative
declaration of environmental significance in November 2021.
• Because the proposed rear yard is comparable to the existing side yard, the Board does not
anticipate adverse impacts on the physical environment.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is proposing new construction that does
not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Board finds that there are no
substantial impacts of the rear yard variance request.
Vote: 4-0-1
Michael Cannon YES
Andre Gardiner ABSTAIN
Steven Henderson YES
Joseph Kirby YES
David Barken, Chair YES
Off-Street Parking (Approved)
Motion: A motion to grant the variance for off-street parking for 325 Dryden Road & 320 Elmwood
Avenue was made by D. Barken, seconded by S. Henderson.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
• While parking issues are tight at certain times, the applicant is taking steps to mitigate impacts on
the surrounding neighborhood. The urban-centric reality of this zone combined with mitigations
such as the Residential Parking Permit System (RPPS) will alleviate any undesirable change.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• An as-of-right scenario (a building designed to meet the area requirements) might allow different
footprints and different ways to accommodate off-street parking.
• However, the applicants have explored several different parking scenarios and have demonstrated
that they cannot provide the parking required for the project onsite.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• A variance of 6 parking spaces and 46% of the requirement is substantial. However, the Board
finds that the impacts are not substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
• Through the environmental review process, the Planning & Development Board determined that
the proposed project will have little to no impacts on the environment and issued a negative
declaration of environmental significance in November 2021.
• Mitigations to the request have been considered and provided, including the addition of one space
to the most recent proposal and exploration of the RPPS parking.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is proposing new construction that does
not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
CONDITION: The project must provide 7 off-street parking spaces on the consolidated site.
Vote: 4-0-1
Michael Cannon YES
Andre Gardiner ABSTAIN
Steven Henderson YES
Joseph Kirby YES
David Barken, Chair YES
Maximum Building Length (Denied)
Motion: A motion to deny the variance for maximum building length for 325 Dryden Road & 320
Elmwood Avenue was made by D. Barken, seconded by J. Barken.
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 CR-3 district is not an area intended for redevelopment. As stated in the Col legetown Area
Form Districts, “any new construction shall be similar in form and scale, and the zoning
requirements of these districts are intended to protect the character of the established residential
neighborhoods.”
• The maximum building length requirement is one way that zoning limits density on a site. While
the multiple dwelling use is allowed, the project exceeds the maximum building length and is of
greater size and density than the zoning intended for this site.
• The proposed building is larger than other buildings in the immediate area, which will alter the
character of the neighborhood, regardless of existing buildings that resemble existing construction.
• Interested parties have expressed concern about impacts of the larger building size on the
neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• While the applicants would prefer to build the new multiple dwelling as proposed, they have not
demonstrated that it is not feasible to meet the maximum building length requirement.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• The proposed multiple dwelling will exceed the maximum building length by 16’ or 35.6%. The
Board considers the requested variance to be a substantial request in a district where redevelopment
and increased density are not encouraged.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
• Through the environmental review process, the Planning & Development Board determined that
the proposed project will have little to no impacts on the environment and issued a negative
declaration of environmental significance in November 2021.
• The proposed building is larger than other buildings in the immediate area, but the Board does not
find this to have an environmental impact.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is proposing new construction that does
not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has not demonstrated that the
requirement cannot be met.
Vote: 3-1-1
Michael Cannon YES
Andre Gardiner ABSTAIN
Steven Henderson NO
Joseph Kirby YES
David Barken, Chair YES
Lot Coverage by Buildings (Approved)
Motion: A motion to grant the variance for maximum lot coverage by buildings for 325 Dryden Road &
320 Elmwood Avenue was made by J. Kirby, seconded by M. Cannon.
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 Board finds that the proposed lot coverage will not a significant change to the overall area and
will be consistent with existing neighborhood character. No undesirable change are anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
• While the applicants would prefer to build the new multiple dwelling as proposed, they have not
demonstrated that it is not feasible to meet the maximum lot coverage by buildings requirement.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
• The 5.3% lot coverage deficiency is not substantial in terms of percentage or anticipated impacts.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
• Through the environmental review process, the Planning & Development Board determined that
the proposed project will have little to no impacts on the environment and issued a negative
declaration of environmental significance in November 2021.
• The variance allows the construction of a larger building but the project meets and exceeds the
minimum greenspace requirement.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
• The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is proposing new construction that does
not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the lot coverage deficiency is not
anticipated to have detrimental impacts on the neighborhood.
Vote: 4-0-1
Michael Cannon YES
Andre Gardiner ABSTAIN
Steven Henderson YES
Joseph Kirby YES
David Barken, 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, §325-45.2B(11), Required Vegetative Buffer, and §325-45.2E, Off-Street Parking, Maximum
Lot Coverage by Buildings, Front Yard, and Rear Yard, are 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.
___________________________ April 12, 2022
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals