HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3182 - 215 N Meadow Street - Decision Ltr
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3182
Applicant: Jason Demarest on behalf of property owners Chris Kim and Soyong Lee
Property Location: 215 N. Meadow Street
Zoning District: WEDZ-1b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Column 4.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off-Street Parking.
Publication Dates: March 31, 2021 and April 3, 2021.
Meeting Held On: April 6, 2021.
Summary: Appeal of Jason Demarest on behalf of property owners Chris Kim and Soyong Lee for an
Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking, requirements of Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant proposes to renovate the existing structure at 215 N. Meadow Street to operate a restaurant in the
space that previously was used by a convenience store. The interior of the structure will be altered to
accommodate the restaurant use, and the applicant proposes site changes to include restriping the existing
parking area, installing planters, and screening the dumpster area. The restaurant use requires more off-
street parking than the previous retail use; the Zoning Ordinance requires 1 off-street parking space for
every 50 square feet of net floor area of assembly space. The restaurant will require 22 off-street parking
spaces, and the applicant proposes to provide 18 spaces on site. No additions to the building or other
alterations to the building footprint are proposed, and the property meets all other requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The property is located in the WEDZ-1b use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However,
Section 325-32 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: April 6, 2021.
Members present:
David Barken
Stephen Henderson
Stephanie Egan-Engels
Suzanne Charles, Chair
There were not comments in either support of or opposition to the requested variance.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Not Applicable.
CITY 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
Environmental Review: This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality
Review Ordinance (“CEQRO”), and State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”), and is subject
to Environmental Review. The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals hereby declares itself Lead Agency
for the environmental review for the approval of zoning appeal 3182, an area variance for the property
located at 215 N. Meadow Street in the City of Ithaca. The Board has reviewed the Short Environmental
Assessment Form (SEAF), dated February 19, 2021, and determines that the requested variance will result
in no significant impact on the environment.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Board does not identify any long-term planning issues with this proposal and supports the appeal. This
is a welcome example of adaptive reuse of an existing building and will have a positive impact on the
commercial corridor.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable.
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3182 for 215 N. Meadow Street was made by S. Charles.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board noted that they are very happy to see the adaptive reuse of the existing building. There are often
parking issues associated with this type of reuse on small sites. Several restaurants have been lost in that
area and it will be a benefit to the neighborhood to have a new restaurant in this location. The location is
accessible by multiple modes of transportation, including pedestrians and bicyclists. Parking is available
in there including 17 spaces on site, at least 20 in the nearby City-owned lot, and on-street. The onsite
parking is well designed for the use and points of entry. Any alternative that would reduce the size of the
restaurant defeats the purpose of the reuse of the structure and makes the business less viable.
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 applicant proposes to renovate an existing convenience store to open a new restaurant at 215 N.
Meadow Street. The proposed project meets all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance except off-
street parking. The property is located in a relatively walkable area between the West End commercial
district and the northside neighborhood. Seventeen of the twenty-two required spaces will be provided on
site. Additional parking can be found nearby in a City-owned lot as well as on-street in the area.
Upon review of the proposed site plan and the Board’s review of existing conditions, the Board finds that
the proposed project will not result in an undesirable change on the character of the neighborhood. In fact,
it will remain similar to conditions in recent years.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
The applicant cannot provide additional spaces on site, as evidenced by testimony of the project architect.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The applicant proposes to offer 17 of the 22 required parking spaces on site and seeks a variance for the
remaining 5 spaces or ~23% of the required parking. This is not substantial request.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
The Board of Zoning Appeals, acting as Lead Agency, has conducted appropriate environmental review
and determined that the requested variance would not have a negative impact on the environment on April
6, 2021. Furthermore, the Board’s review of the submitted site plans, testimony from the applicant, and
consideration of existing conditions have not provided evidence of adverse physical or environmental
impacts.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant could have designed a smaller restaurant to reduce
the off-street parking requirements. However, a smaller restaurant space would result in a less financially
viable project for the property owners. The Board determined that the benefits of the project, including
adaptive reuse of an existing building and creation of a new local business, outweigh the fact that the
difficulty was self-created.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by D. Barken.
Vote: 4-0-0
David Barken YES
Stephen Henderson YES
Stephanie Egan-Engels YES
Suzanne Charles, Chair YES
Determination of the BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into the five factors for an area variance, finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs
the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the Zoning
Ordinance, §325-8, Column 4 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.
___________________________ April 6, 2021
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals