HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3134-410 Elmira Rd-Decision Letter-9-16-2019CITY 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: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3134
Applicant: PW Campbell for lessee Visions Federal Credit Union
Property Location: 410 Elmira Road
Zoning District: SW -3
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 5 and Section 325-21 Off -Street
Loading; Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard; and Section 325-29.2, Building Setback Requirements
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Front Yard, SW -3 Building Setback Requirements and
Off -Street Loading
Publication Dates: September 11, 2019 and September 13, 2019.
Meeting Held On: September 16, 2019.
Summary: Appeal of Jason Straley of PW Campbell on behalf of the lessee, Visions Federal Credit
Union for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 5 and Section 325-21, Off -Street Loading, Column
11, Front Yard, and Section 325-29.2, SW Building Setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant proposes to construct a 3,320 square foot building and a 940 square foot amphitheater on the
property located at 410 Elmira Road. The new Visions Federal Credit Union branch office will be located
on the corner of the out -parcel at Elmira Road and the Site Entrance road for Home Depot and Kohls. The
position of the building is limited due to an existing water main easement that runs along the property
parallel to Elmira Road. The applicant proposes to position the building 47.5' feet from the Elmira Road
curb in order to maintain clear access to the easement area. In the SW -3 zone district, the ordinance
requires 35% of the property's street frontage to be occupied by buildings that are located between 15-34
feet from the street curb. The proposed building is 56.1' in width and the lot frontage is 431.9', which
provides 13% of the 35% street frontage to be occupied by building. The proposed setback of the building
from the curb is 47.5' feet of the 15-34 feet required from the street curb. The proposed parking plan for
the building does not include provisions for off-street loading. The ordinance requires one loading space
that is a minimum of 450 square feet. The applicant contends that the bank receives minimal deliveries by
truck and the additional parking spaces provided will meet the needs of the business.
The property is located in an SW -3 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.
1
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Stephanie Egan -Engels – non-voting new member
Steven Wolf
Public Hearing Held On: September 16, 2019.
No public comments in favor of the proposal.
Other Public Comment:
Carol Beeman spoke to the Board and outlined questions concerning the appeal. The questions were also
outlined in the letter submitted by John and Kathy Powers residing at 106 Buttermilk Falls Rd. Town of
Ithaca (TOI) and Carol Beeman & Don Jones of 102 Buttermilk Falls Rd. (TOI). A copy of the letter is on
record.
Environmental Review: Type 1
This variance is a component of an action that also includes site plan. 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 July 23, 2019.
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.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal
for several reason. First, in regard to street frontage deficiency, the site is large and essential bordered by
three streets. The Board feels that the position and size of the building are appropriate and that the
amphitheater and proposed fence mitigate the deficiency in building frontage and are in keeping with the
intentions of the SW Design Guidelines. In regard to the setback deficiency, the proposed building is
correctly positioned on the site and is in line with the building to the north. Finally, in regard to the loading
deficiency, the Board appreciates the applicant's thoughtful design of the parking area and agrees that
this type of business does not require a dedicated loading area.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes.
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
There was no evidence that there will be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or
detriment to nearby properties. The proposed development is consistent with the requirements of the
Southwest zone and will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The proposal with its
community space provide, be in fact an enhancement to the nearby properties, in particular to a possible
connection to the park across the highway.
2
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes _ No
The project could not be feasible without the variances. Moving the building closer to the curb is not
possible because of the water main easement. To require that the building cover more of the street
frontage is also not possible because of the large lot and would result in an extremely long building that
would not serve the intended purpose.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes 1 No
There was no evidence that the variance is substantial. The building, with the variances, would in fact
keep the building consistent with the surrounding area.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes n No
There would be no adverse environmental impact. Although the building does not meet the setback
requirements, the building would be in line with the neighboring property, in keeping with the character of
the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
In the case of the building setback, it is not possible to place a building within the required setback area,
anywhere on this lot, due to the location of the existing water main. The difficulty of providing a loading
space would be considered self-created. But, because the square footage of the building dictates whether a
load space is required and the building being so close to the 3,000 square foot minimum, does not weigh
heavily in light of the other factors. In addition, the loading space serves no practical use for the bank.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Steven Wolf.
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, fmds that the Benefit to the Applicant outweighs the
Detemiinant to the Neighborhood or Community The BZA further fords that variances from Zoning
Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 5, 11, Section 325-21, and Section 325-29.2 are 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.
1/,
Gino eon.. i, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals
September 20, 2019
3