Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout201 College Ave Determination Activation 9-12-161 | P a g e TO: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board FROM: Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration DATE: September 12, 2016 RE: Zoning Determination Regarding Facade Length Requirements for the MU-1 Zone as Applied to the Construction Proposal for 201 College Avenue along Bool Street By resolution dated August 23, 2016, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board (Planning Board) has requested a zoning determination from the Director of Zoning Administration in regards to the maximum facade length requirements for a proposed apartment building to be located on the corner of College Avenue and Bool Street as applied to Bool Street. The project, known as 201 College Avenue Apartments, was granted Final Site Plan Approval at the Planning Board’s August 23, 2016 meeting. In addition, the Planning Board has resolved that, should the Director of Zoning Administration conclude that the project at 201 College Avenue does not have a maximum façade length requirement on Bool Street, the determination will be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. As Director of Zoning Administration, I have determined that the proposed project at 201 College Avenue is compliant with the Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) requirements for facade length on Bool Street. Form Based Codes The goal of a “form-based code” is to be “prescriptive” rather than "proscriptive." This concept is woven through the regulatory approach in zoning. Put simply, “the setback line [conventional] is proscriptive, specifying prohibitions. The build-to line [neotraditional] is prescriptive, prescribing what is expected.”i Form-based codes include specific instructions, details, and unique graphics and illustrations, the majority of which are geared toward the physical design. With the exception of the CAFD ordinance, all other City zoning districts are based on Euclidean zoning, which addresses the compatibility (or incompatibility) of uses. Other than the CAFD ordinance, city zoning is focused on specific districts and the uses allowed in those districts as well as area regulations, supplemental standards, and definitions. The districts and the allowed uses in the districts are the focal point of these regulations and are limited to the specific language of the zoning ordinance. Form based codes differ from Euclidean or traditional zoning in that form-based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and character of streets and blocks. The regulations and standards in form-based codes are presented in both words and diagrams. “They are keyed to a CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Phyllis Radke, Director of Zoning Administration Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: cpyott@cityofithaca.org 2 | P a g e regulating plan that designates the appropriate form and scale (and therefore, character) of development, rather than only distinctions in land-use types.” (From Form Based Codes Institute Web Site - http://formbasedcodes.org/definition/). Generally, a form based code is geared towards the design of physical space and provides detailed graphics and illustrations to communicate more clearly what is permitted. Furthermore, where traditional zoning relies on the language codified in the Zoning Ordinance, form based codes traditionally rely on several components. Typically these are (1) the regulating plan, (2) the zoning ordinance and definitions and (3) architectural design standards. ii The Plan Traditionally, in form based codes, it is the regulating plan that drives the process. The regulatory plan for Collegetown is the 2009 Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines endorsed by Common Council on August 5, 2009 (the “Collegetown Plan” or the “Plan”). This Plan represents the community’s vision for development in Collegetown. Under Section 325-45.1, General Provisions (for Collegetown Zoning), Subsection B. states the “Intent” of the CAFD zoning requirements is to implement the Plan and Conceptual Guidelines and that the zoning regulations are “necessary to guide implementation of the City endorsed vision for the redevelopment of property in Collegetown”. Nevertheless, although the “intent” of the CAFD is clearly articulated, the “intent” of the ordinance does not outweigh clear regulations and “[w]here the meaning of an ordinance is clear, the courts will not permit its effect to be limited by the language of a preamble.”iii Zoning Ordinance and Building Envelope Standards The CAFD Ordinance contains building envelope standards. Each of the six districts in the CAFD contain typical zoning requirements used in other city zoning districts, which regulate off-street parking, area, height, and setback regulations. However, the CAFD Ordinance also regulates the appearance of buildings and includes design elements such as standards for flat or pitched roofs, and percentage of green space. In addition, each of the 6 zoning districts in the CAFD have “Activation” requirements such as, maximum length of blank wall, distance between functioning entries, and requirements for stoops or porches. Activation requirements reflect the appearance of building from the main street, or as in the MU-2 District, on both streets for buildings on corner lots. In addition, unlike the rest of the City Zoning Ordinance, the CAFD does not merely list or describe regulations in writing. Instead, for each zone site, it provides diagrams and illustrations prescribing where specific requirements must be applied and located. Definitions As in all zoning regulations, and particularly in form based codes, legislative definitions are important. Words incorporated into aesthetic controls are often unique to design professionals and may be subject to differing interpretations or be easily misunderstood. Where there is confusion about the meaning of the terminology, there is room to challenge a regulation for vagueness. iv Unfortunately, the CAFD does not contain a definition for “Façade.” From Wikipedia, “a [façade] is generally one exterior side of a building, usually, but not always, the front.” However, the word takes on multiple reasonable interpretations. Specifically, façade length and building length can reasonably refer to two distinct measurements. 3 | P a g e Design Guidelines The Collegetown Plan’s Part One, Chapter 6, Modifications to Design Guidelines, 6.A. states: “The entire Chapter 6 (“6. Collegetown Design Guidelines”) consists of only conceptual design guidelines some of which are intended to serve as the basis for the creation of codified design standards in the future. It was hoped that the design standards would be developed and enacted by Common Council concurrently with its development and enactment of new form-based Collegetown zoning amendments. Common Council passed the CAFD in 2014, prior to design guidelines being developed. Until design guidelines are established, I must rely on what is written and illustrated in the CAFD ordinance. 201 College Avenue Apartment Proposal The MU-1 zone is one of six zoning districts that make up the Collegetown Area Form Districts. The MU-1 and MU-2 zones are referred in the CAFD as the “Mixed Use Districts”. The Mixed Use Districts were specifically created to allow the development of high density residential and mixed use buildings. The MU-1 zone allows 5 story buildings up to 70 feet in height and a maximum lot coverage of 70 %. The parcel at 201 College Avenue is situated on the north east corner of College Avenue and Bool Street. Per the zone’s siting requirements it has two front yards. While the required width at the street line for multiple dwellings in this district is a minimum of 40 feet, the parcel’s street width on College Avenue is approximately 60 feet and approximately 128 feet on Bool Street. Activation requirements limit the facade length to a maximum of 75 feet. The applicant’s proposal for 201 College Avenue has a façade length of approximately 47 feet on College Avenue. On Bool Street, two facades, each measuring approximately 52 feet, have a 10 foot recession separating them, giving the appearance of two buildings. In November of 2015, after reviewing the CAFD requirements for the MU-1 zone and the Stream Collaborative proposal for 201 College Avenue, I consulted with Planning Staff, which is the standard practice for projects having CAFD design issues and concluded the proposal met the facade length requirements as illustrated on page 23 of the ordinance and as shown below. This informal decision was conveyed to the Planning Board in Stream Collaborative’s “Project Description Letter for 201 College Avenue, a letter that was first given to the Planning Board at Sketch Plan Review for 201 College Avenue on March 22, 2016. The project also was reviewed by the Planning Board on April 26, 2016, and May 24, 2016, the Design Review Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals on June 7, 2016, the Planning Board again on June 28, 2016, July 26, 2016, and final site plan approval was granted at the August 23, 2016 meeting. The question of the façade length was not brought up until the Planning Board meeting on July 26, 2016, even though the design had only minor changes since its initial presentation in March of 2016. What was discussed over several months included curb bulb-outs, building step backs, solar easements, the box-like appearance of the building, sidewalk width, street trees, how the building would be powered, inclusion of a shadow study, the color of building materials, massing, and height, but not the length of the façade on Bool Street. 4 | P a g e Determination regarding CAFD facade length requirements on Bool Street for the proposed apartment building at 201 College Avenue I have determined that the proposed building at 201 College Avenue meets the facade length requirements specified in the CAFD’s ordinance for buildings in the MU-1 Zone. In the MU-1 Zone, as in the CR-1, CR-2, CR-3, and CR-4 zones, a building on a corner lot is only mandated to meet “Activation” requirements on one street. Though requirements may differ in each zone, the activation illustrations consistently locate activation requirements on only one of two streets in corner lot situations. Below is the illustration for activation requirements in the MU-1 Zone. Note that this illustration shows a building located on a corner lot but activation requirements are only specified for one street. Similar illustrations for activation requirements for all zones other than the MU-2 district are shown in the CAFD ordinance. From Page 23 of the Collegetown Area Form Districts Ordinance: ACTIVATION Proposed 201 College Avenue Street Façade Façade length, max 1. Row House 150’ 2. All other structures 75’ Length of blank wall, max 12’ I considered and rejected the possibility that activation was intended to apply to both streets on corner lots after studying the above illustration on page 23 of the CAFD as it relates to the MU-1 zone. Comparing the proposed building for 201 College Avenue to the illustration in the CAFD ordinance confirmed my findings. All CAFD districts contain illustrations for siting requirements for corner lots, where both front yards are designated to meet front yard setback requirements, as seen below; and in all District’s (except MU-2) the activation requirement for a corner lot is required on only one street. I therefore concluded that where requirements were intentional, they were clearly articulated in the illustrations (see below). 5 | P a g e From Page 22 of the Collegetown Area Form District Ordinance: More importantly, where a similar activation location illustration is employed in the MU-2 —as opposed to MU-1—zone for Activation requirements, three siting exceptions are listed directly under the illustration (see below). The last exception for activation requirements in the MU-2 zone states that “all street-facing facades on corner lots shall be considered front facades.” This exception in the MU-2 zone stands in stark contrast to the MU-1 zone, for which no such exception is indicated. 6 | P a g e Finally, I also note that my determination reached here is consistent with recent City practice: the Planning Board gave final approval for the construction of a duplex at 319 Oak Avenue in November of 2015. This project was in the CR-2, CAFD on the corner of Oak Avenue and Oneida Place. Staff identified no zoning deficiency regarding—and the Planning Board did not ask the developer of this project to meet—Activation requirements on both Oak Avenue and Oneida Place. In this case, the Planning Board correctly interpreted the CAFD CR-2’s Activation requirements on corner lots by only applying the activation requirements to the Oak Avenue face of the building. While the above analysis leads me to the unambiguous conclusion that activation requirements do not apply to both streets of a corner lot in the MU-1 zone, to the extent that others find this conclusion ambiguous, I note that “Zoning regulations must be strictly construed against the municipality which has enacted and seeks to enforce them, and any ambiguity in the language used must be resolved in favor of the property owner.” (Hess Realty Corp. v. Planning Common of the Town of Rotterdam, 198 AD2d 588 (3d Dept. 1993). Façade length vs. building length While I have determined that activation requirements apply to only one street of a corner lot in the MU-1 Zone, I note that—had I determined otherwise—I would likely nonetheless have determined the façade length of this proposed project on Bool Street to be compliant. As noted above, there is no definition of façade in the CAFD, meaning that building length and façade length could reasonably be two separate measurements. As such, the building could have two facades each measuring less than 75' on Bool Street. In fact, the illustration below from page 5.18 of Part Two of the Collegetown Urban Plan and Conceptual Design Guidelines, shows a conceptual plan for a multi-parcel development (that includes the project site) and shows a building that runs the entire length of the Bool Street block. 7 | P a g e i “Through the Looking Glass: Analyzing the Potential Legal Challenges to Form-Based Codes, 23J. Land Use and Envtl. Law 395”, E. Garvin and Dawn Jorden, Spring, 2008, Lexis Advance Research p. 4. ii Ibid., p.4 iii New York Zoning Law and Practice, Patricia Salkin, 4th edition, Chapter 38:03 “Preambles; purpose clauses; rules of construction”, Thompson Reuters/ West , 2012. iv “Through the Looking Glass: Analyzing the Potential Legal Challenges to Form-Based Codes, 23J. Land Use and Envtl. Law 395”, E. Garvin and Dawn Jorden, Spring, 2008, Lexis Advance Research p. 9.