HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3150-232-236 Dryden Rd.-Decision Letter-2-4-2020CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, &
Division of Zoning
Gino Leonardi, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6513
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3150
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: January 29, 2020 and January 31, 2020.
Meeting Held On: February 4, 2020.
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 third building on the eastern portion of
land, between Dryden Road and Summit Avenue, to be known as 238 Dryden Road. 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 55.29% of the 50% pet witted by the ordinance. Due to the limited depth
of this portion of the property, the new building will be deficient in the rear yard, having 10'-7" of the 20
feet required by the ordinance.
A variance was previously granted on October 1, 2019 for the percentage of lot coverage and rear yard
requirements for the proposed building. However, the building has since been reconfigured to
accommodate a Fire Department access area which encroaches into the rear yard. Therefore, the applicant
now seeks new area variances for the reconfigured building.
The property is located in a CR -4 use district in which the proposed use is peuiiitted. However, Section
325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: February 4, 2020.
No public comment in support.
The following spoke in opposition to the requested variance:
1. Ray Schlather, Attorney for ENP Associates. (Exhibit B, C, and F)
2. Wen -Long Cheung, for the owner of 109 Summit Avenue. (Exhibit A)
The following letters were received:
1. Sharon M. Sulimowicz, The Law Office of Sharon M. Sulimowicz. (Exhibit D)
2. Edward Y. Crossmore, The Crossmore Law Office, (Exhibit E)
Members present:
Teresa Deschanes, Acting Chair
Steven Wolf
Stephanie Egan -Engels
Suzanne Charles
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
N/A
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.
Environmental Review: Type: Unlisted Action
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 January 28, 2020.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Stephanie Egan -Engels.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board discussed: the maintenance of public access from both Summit Avenue and Dryden Road
including signage, the deficiencies between the current variance request and the previous variance
approved on October 1, 2019, the height of the proposed building, impacts on open space, storm water
management, potential traffic impacts, fire access to the site, 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, and
the Collegetown Area Plan and the Comprehensive Plan for infill development, the issues of site control
and the ongoing litigation, and the possibility of installing additions to the existing building rather than
constructing a new structure.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes n No
There was testimony from some residents that feel there are concerns. Although, this area of Collegetown
is in a transition zone to a denser environment and while this can be difficult on the edges, the proposal is
fulfilling planning goals and is in character with the neighborhood. The proposed building suits the
neighborhood and is compatible with the surrounding area in terms of aesthetics and facade.
2
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes —1 No
The project was previously approved by the Board and the increase in lot coverage is not significant. The
Board determined that this proposal is the feasible alternative and the new request is less significant in
that it provides a larger rear yard.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes [ No
The requested variance is not substantial and has been reduced from the similar variance approved by the
Board in October 2019. The request for increased lot coverage is not significant.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No El
While neighboring property owners expressed concern about the removal of the originally -proposed
stormwater retention pond, the applicant is now planning to install an underground catchment tank to
manage storm water runoff. The applicant has also committed to maintain the public access to Dryden
Road and installing signage. Both of these issues as well as others pertaining to site and building design
will be part of the project's site plan review.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No C
The applicant could construct a smaller building to meet zoning requirements, but wanted to make the
project financially feasible. The variance request for lot coverage and the rear yard is not substantial and
increase in the rear yard helps with the neighboring properties.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Suzanne Charles.
Vote:
Teresa Deschanes, Acting Chair Yes
Steven Wolf Yes
Stephanie Egan -Engels Yes
Suzanne Charles 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, Columns 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.
�/ ,,� �. _ - ' February 13, 2019
Gi !onair Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals
3