Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Decision Letter - Appeal 3003 - 209-215 Dryden Rd. (209-215 Dryden Rd. Ass.) - 10-19-15CITY OF ITHACA o° ° ° p�°°°°°°°°°°�Cti 108 E. Green Street 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850 -5690 �,►7 ° DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ° H0 : �� -2 0 Division of Zoning '00.0 °C,0 ®© TOR OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION ° ° °° °° � PHYLLIS RADKE, DIREC k!%RA1E� Telephone: Planning & Development — 607 - 274 -6550 E -Mail: cpyott@cityofithaca.org CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS (BZA) Area Variance Findings &Decision Applicant: John Novarr (for 209 -215 Dryden Road Associates) Appeal No.: 3003 Zoning District: MU -2 Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) Zoning District Hearing Held On: October 6, 2015 Property Location: 209 -215 Dryden Road Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: The applicant requests a variance from Section 325 -45.2 G. (2), "Doors and Entries," requiring that the distance between functioning street - facing entries be limited to a maximum of 60 feet apart, and that those commercial entries be functional and useable during business hours. The proposed building has two street - facing fagades, one on Dryden Road and one on Linden Avenue. The fagade on Dryden Road is 122' 8 "-long and has one two -door entry, located between 8 and 14 feet from the fagade's northwest corner; required are two doors along this face of the building. On Linden Avenue, one door is located approximately 16.5 to 20 feet south of the northeast corner of the building and 64' from the building's southeast east corner; required are two doors on this face of the building. While the entry door on Dryden Road meets the requirement that entries must be functioning and useable during business hours, the door on Linden Avenue serves a stair exit and is not intended for ingress access. The applicant also requests a variance from Section 325 -45.2 G. (3) (b), requiring a building on a corner lot in the MU -2 Zoning District have a chamfered corner or be set back a minimum of 5 feet from both street frontages. The proposed building is set back 7 feet from Dryden Road, but the Linden Avenue setback varies from 2 to 0 feet. The applicant claims the slight gain in visibility or pedestrian access at the corner would cause a significant loss of useable interior space and a greater construction cost due to increased structural complexity. Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: 325 -45.2 G. (2), "Doors and Entries," and 325 -45.2 G. (3) (b) Me., ;bens Present: Steven Beer, Chair Moriah Tebor Teresa Deschanes Steven Wolf Marshall McCormick Motion: A motion to grant the variance requests was made by Marshall McCormick. Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 and -m of New York State General Municipal Law: The Tompkins County Planning Department reviewed the proposal and found no negative intercommunity or countywide impacts. Environmental Review: Type: Unlisted Action. The Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for Environmental Review for Site Plan Review and requested Zoning Variances, determined on August 25, 2015 the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for the purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Planning & Development Board Recommendation-, The Planning Board supports granting the variances for two reasons: (1) regarding the doors, the Board feels the design of the building meets the intent of the Collegetown Area Form Districts (CAFD) Zoning Ordinance regulations. The extensive glazing on its bottom floors provides an animated street experience, since the views are into well - lighted gathering and event areas; and (2), regarding the required chamfered corner on Dryden Road and Linden Avenue, the Board feels the building meets the intent of the ordinance on this corner. This corner transitions from a high- density, mixed -use district to a lower- density residential district. There is far less vehicular, pedestrian, and bike traffic at this corner than at the corner of Dryden Road and College Avenue, where a chamfer is also required. The bottom floors of the building are also pushed back from the property line an additional 2 feet in excess of the required setback — which achieves sufficient visibility and openness (as intended by the ordinance) in this location. Factors Considered: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes ❑ No F;J Reasons: The character of the neighborhood has been changing over the last few decades. Neighboring buildings in upper Collegetown and nearby Dryden Road buildings are similar and the project will be in keeping with this neighborhood. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes ❑No❑ Reasons: The applicant benefits by being able to construct a new building on the lot, but so does the City. The benefits of having an iconic building could not be achieved if the applicant were not granted the requested variances. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No Reasons: It is an unsubstantial request. The amount of square footage that would be lost as a result of a chamfered corner does not justify the requirement's intended purpose, which is for the increased gain in the sight lines at the corner of Linden Avenue and Dryden Road with respect to vehicle and pedestrian traffic, since the building will have opaque walls and because the proposed building's north wall will be set back from Dryden Road. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes ❑ No Reasons: The Planning Board completed an environmental review and identified no environmental significance. The review of the application and testimony presented by the applicant supports the BZA's conclusion that this project will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 2 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self- created: Yes ❑ No F;j Reasons: The problem is that the new Collegetown Area Form District (CAFD) zoning requirements need to be further refined. The proposal benefits the City 5 -6 times more than what can be put on this lot. The alleged difficulty is not a factor in this case. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes Vote: Steven Beer, Chair: Yes Moriah Tebor: No Teresa Deschanes: Yes Steven Wolf: Yes Marshall McCormick: Yes Determination of BZA Based on the Above Factors: The BZA, taking into consideration the five factors, finds the Benefit to the Applicant outweighs the Determinant to the Neighborhood or Community. The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning Ordinance, Sections 325 -45.2 G. (2), "Doors and Entries" and 325 -45.2 G. (3) (b), 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. October 19, 2015 Secretary oa rd on i ng Appeals Date Director ing Administration 3