The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBZA 3136-232-236 Dryden Rd-Decision Letter-10-1-2019CITY 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.: 3136 Applicant: STREAM Collaborative for Lux Ithaca Holdings, LLC, Owner Property Location: 232-236 Dryden Road Zoning District: CR -4 Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 10 and Column 14/15. Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Percentage of Lot Coverage by Buildings and Rear Yard Publication Dates: September 25, 2019 and September 27, 2019. Meeting Held On: October 1, 2019. Summary: Appeal of STREAM Collaborative on behalf of the owner Lux Ithaca Holdings, LLC for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 10, Percentage of Lot Coverage by Buildings and Column 14/15, Rear Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a four story 8 -unit apartment building at the property located at 232-236 Dryden Road. The property has two existing building on the parcel and the applicant would like to construct a new building on the eastern portion of land between Dryden Road and Summit Avenue. The two existing buildings on the property occupy 48.7 % of the lot coverage and adding the third building will increase the lot coverage by buildings to 55.1% of the maximum 50% permitted by the ordinance. The proposed new building will front on Dryden Road and will meet the front and side yard setback requirements. Although, the building will be deficient in the required rear yard, having 9 feet of the 20 feet required by the ordinance. The property is located in a CR -4 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: October 1, 2019. No public comments in favor. Raymond Schlather representing ENP Associates, LP spoke in opposition of proceeding with the appeal. Wen -Long Cheung of 109 Summit Avenue spoke in opposition to the appeal. Members present: Steven Beer, Chair Teresa Deschanes Steven Wolf Stephanie Egan -Engels 1 Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: N/A Environmental Review: This variance is a component of an action that also includes site plan review. Considered together, this is a Type 2 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 September 24, 2019. Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. This is appropriate and attractive infill housing that is consistent with the Collegetown Area Form Districts and the Collegetown Design Guidelines. The rear yard setback does not have an impact because the rear yard of the building backs up to Summit Ave Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Steven Wolf Deliberations & Findings: The Board discussed the conditions of site plan approval for the two previously constructed buildings, the current use of the portion of land as a stoiiu water detention pond and approved mitigation, the current litigation concerning Summit Avenue (dispute between property owners), the transition from CR -4 to CR -3 and the density of the area, the area limitations that were adopted in the recent zone change to the CR -4 zone, the Collegetown Area Plan and the Comprehensive Plan for infill development, the public access to Dryden Road, and the potential detriment to the neighboring properties if public access to Dryden Road was not provided. Factors Considered: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes ❑ No This is infill development identified in a district which was intended to be densified. The building is proportionately compatible in use, look, and scale with the character of the neighborhood. There is a concern that the properties to the rear of the building, on the Oak Avenue side, would suffer some detriment if there is not a public access provided to Dryden Road. The owner did commit to provide public access for foot traffic from Dryden to Oak Avenue which would preserve the historic access. The issue of right-of- way or the public road should be ruled by the court. On balance, with respect to this factor, there is not an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood noting the access will be maintained for pedestrian traffic. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes ❑ No Discussions concerning the size of the building and weather the building could be made smaller to meet the lot coverage requirements. Building a smaller building that would only consume 50% of the lot coverage would not be practicable. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes E No El One could say that 55.1% of area coverage, relative to 50% which is more than 10%, could be argued that it is or is not substantial. But given the infill nature of the project the requested variance is not substantial. With respect to the 9' setback of the required 20' setback, because of the nature of the land use on the northern portion of the property, which is basically parking and the view out to Summit Avenue, is not substantial. In addition, the bump out that encroaches on the rear yard setback is only on the North West corner of the building and not the entire width of the building. Which is not particularly substantial. 2 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes No There would be an adverse effect on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood, except the owner has agreed to maintain the public access through the property. This would be a positive impact on the neighborhood because the modern staircase would improve the public access from the dirt path that existed. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No C Traditionally, the Board does not weight this factor heavily due to the fact that they could have not developed the third building or proposed a smaller building that would not require a variance. But these options would not be a reasonable expectation for development. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes. Vote: Steven Beer, Chair Yes Teresa Deschanes Yes Steven Wolf Yes Stephanie Egan -Engels Yes Determination of BZA Based on the Above Factors: The BZA, taking into consideration the five factors, fords 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 10 and 14/15 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. Gino e lijardi! oning Administrator Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals October 10, 2019 Date Note: The Board of Zoning Appeals recommends to the Planning Board that a condition for providing pedestrian public access, via the proposed stairway between Summit Avenue and Dryden Road, be required as part of the Final Site Plan approval for the 238 Dryden Road project. 3