Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3073-372 Elmira Rd.-Decision Letter-7-13-2017CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Zoning Gino Leonardi, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals Telephone: 607-274-6513 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings & Decision Appeal No.: 3073 Applicant: Steve Wilson of Bohler Engineering for McDonald's USA, LLC. Owner Property Location: 372 Elmira Road Zoning District: SW -2 Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 7, 11, and Section 325-29.2 B (2). Requirement for Which Variance is requested: Width at Street, Front Yard, and Building Setbacks for the SW -2 zone. Publication Dates: June 21, 2017 and June 23, 2017. Meeting Held On: July 13, 2017. Summary: Appeal of Steve Wilson of Bohler Engineering on behalf of the owner McDonald's USA, LLC for an area variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for Section 325-8, Column 7, Width at Street, Column 11, Front Yard and Section 325-29.2 B (2), which allows one-third of the building frontage requirement to be substituted for an architectural wall. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building known as McDonald's and construct a new 4,552 SF building at the property located at 372 Elmira Road. The new McDonald's building will be positioned to accommodate a new two lane drive thru, outdoor seating area, and provide adequate queuing for vehicles waiting to turn onto Elmira Road. The property located at 372 Elmira Road is in the SW -2 Zone, which requires 35% of the property's street frontage must be occupied by buildings that are located between 15-34 feet from the front yard street curb. The applicant proposes to construct the building, having a building frontage width of 46.7', which is 21.4 % of the 35% street frontage required by the ordinance. In addition, the building front will be setback 56 feet from the Elmira Street curb. The zoning ordinance requires building setbacks to be a minimum of 15' to 34' from the street curb. The applicant proposes to provide 73' of architectural wall that will be setback approximately 29' from the street curb. The zoning ordinance, Section 325-29.2 B (2), allows up to one-third of the 35% building frontage requirement, to be satisfied by an integrated architectural wall. The one-third allowance is permitted for buildings that meet the 15-34' setback requirements, but fall short of the 35% of street frontage by building. The applicant proposes to construct the architectural wall as mitigation for these deficiencies. The property is located in an SW -2 use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit is issued. Members present: Steven Beer, Chair Teresa Deschanes Marshall McCormick Public Hearing Held On: July 13, 2017. No public comments in favor or in opposition. Environmental Review: Type: Type 1 The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for 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. Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter - community, or county -wide impacts. Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board does not identify any long term negative planning impacts with this appeal. In this case the impact is positive because it allows for an outdoor dining area and more extensive landscaping in the front of the property. The project is a vast improvement over existing conditions as it greatly decreases impervious surface and increases greenspace. Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Marshall McCormick Deliberations & Findings: 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 record shows that there will not be a detriment to nearby properties considering the fact that there are other locations within this corridor that have frontages that are setback from the street. In consideration, the applicant has agreed to place integrated architectural walls within the required frontage setback that would mitigate some of the issues brought up by grating the 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 it would not be possible given the unique characteristics of a drive thru, with three station windows, and have the ability to queue cars within the drive thru lane. It does not seem, that a building this size would be possible without some type of variance for the frontage of the property. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No While the building is completely removed from the required frontage there has been some off -set architectural walls that will give the appearance of building frontage within 29' of the street curb. Therefore, the lack of building within the 15-34' distance from the curb does not appear to be substantial. Also, the percentage of building frontage of the new building will be 21.4% in width. This aspect of the building is a 1% reduction from the existing building, which is not a substantial variance and offset by additional green space and outdoor dining 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes ❑ No The reduction of impervious surfaces will improve the physical and environmental conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑ The alleged difficulty is self-created. In light of the fact that the building and surround site will be newly constructed. The Board does not find that this factor outweighs the other factors that were considered. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes Vote: Steven Beer, Chair: Yes Teresa Deschanes: Yes Marshall McCormick: Yes Determination of BZA Based on the Above Factors: The BZA, taking into consideration the five factors, finds that the Benefit to the Applicant outweighs the Determinant to the Neighborhood or Community. The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 7, 11, and Section 325-29.2 B (2) as applicable to the SW -2 zone, 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. � r Sec tary, and of Zoning Appeals July 14, 2017 Date