HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3118-504 S. Meadow St.-Decision Letter-3-5-2019CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
���,� Division of Zoning
p ,� Gino Leonardi, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3118
Applicant: John Snyder Architects for Maguire Family Limited Partnership, Owner
Property Location: 504 S. Meadow Street
Zoning District: SW -2
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-29.2 B (2)
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: SW -2 Building Setback
Publication Dates: February 27, 2019 and March 1, 2019.
Meeting Held On: March 5, 2019.
Summary: Appeal of John Snyder Architects, on behalf of the owner, Maguire Family Limited
Partnership for an Area Variance from Section 325-29.2 B (2), SW -2 Building Setback requirements of
zoning ordinance. The property at 504 S. Meadow Street is located on the corner of S. Meadow St. and
Cecil Malone Drive. The applicant proposes construct two additions to the existing Ford Dealership. One
addition will be on the S. Meadow Street side of the building and will be a new showroom entry addition.
The other addition is on the Cecil Malone side of the building and includes an expanded showroom area,
a service drive addition, and a second floor office expansion. The building is a non -conforming structure
because it does not meet the District's front yard setback regulations on the S. Meadow Street side of the
property. In the SW -2 zone, a minimum of 35% of the lot's street frontage must be occupied by buildings
that are located between 15 and 34 feet from the curb. The existing building is approximately 84' from
the curb and the applicant proposes to construct the new showroom entry addition 79'-2" from the S.
Meadow St. curb. The new addition will exacerbate the existing deficiency by not meeting the building
setback requirements of 15-34' from the street curb.
The property is located in an SW -2, southwest use district in which the proposed use is permitted.
However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: March 5, 2019.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Steven Wolf
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Tompkins County has reviewed the proposal, as submitted and has determined that it has no negative
intercommunity, or county wide impacts.
Environmental Review: Type: 2
SEAR Completed by Planning & Development Board: This variance is a component of an action that also
includes site plan review. Considered together, this is an Unlisted 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 December 18, 2018.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
The applicant has included many design features that enhance pedestrian accessibility.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Steven Wolf.
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 C No
The specific construction being proposed will enhance the aesthetics of the building and functionality of
the building. The applicant does attempt to mitigate a small percentage of the building setback by
constructing the entryway a few feet closer to the curb. None the less, it is far short of the curb and given
the considerations, this is not a significant change in the character of the neighborhood. The building, is
and will continue to be a car dealership and the proposed renovations will enhance the character of the
neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ❑ No
There is no practical means of achieving a feasible alternative due to construction costs, design
considerations, and the planned use of the building. The variance, as presented, is the most feasible
remedy to achieve the outcome.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes E No
The variance request is not substantial in light of the existing conditions and the proposed renovation. The
project does mitigate some of the existing conditions and is not viewed as substantial.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
The proposal would not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions given the
amenities of the pedestrian passage and the plantings that will enhance the property.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes E No
The proposed renovation cannot remedy or fix the setback issue and what is proposed does not make the
existing condition worse in any respect.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Steven Wolf 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, Section 325-29.2 B (2) 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.
�//
;I/%...
Secre , BV:rd of Zoning Appeals
March 21, 2019
Date