The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBZA 3271 - 601 E State St - Decision CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings & Decision Appeal No.: 3271 Applicant: Trade Design Build, on behalf of property owner Modern Living Rentals Property Location: 601 E. State Street Zoning District: R-3a Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-20D(4)(d), §325-8, Column 6 and Column 14/15 Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Area, Rear Yard, Off-Street Parking Location Publication Dates: March 29, 2024 and April 2, 2024. Meeting Held On: April 2, 2024. Summary: Appeal of Trade Design Build, on behalf of property owner 601 E State Street LLC, for an area variance from §325-8, Column 6, Lot Area, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as well as §325-20D(4)(d), Off-Street Parking Location Requirements, Distance from Use. The applicant proposes to construct a new 5,720 SF 2-story, 6-unit multifamily residential building in the rear yard facing Ferris Place behind an existing multiple dwelling facing E State Street. The Zoning Ordinance requires that a property have double the minimum lot area to allow the construction of two primary structures on site. The property at 601 E. State Street has a lot area of 13,285 SF, and a minimum of 15,250 SF is required to construct the new 6-unit multiple dwelling. In addition, the new building will be sited in the rear yard of the lot and will reduce the required yard to 8’ of the required 36’. Lastly, the two multiple dwellings will require a total of 10 off -street parking spaces. Two spaces will be provided on-site and an additional 5 spaces will be leased within 500’ of the property. The a pplicant has secured a multi-year lease for the remaining 3 spaces; however, these spaces will be located 1,400’ from the property. The applicant is seeking a variance from the distance requirement that all leased spaces be located within 500’. Public Hearing Held On: April 2, 2024. The following parties submitted comments in opposition to the appeal: • Kelly Delp, Ferris Place, submitted comments in opposition to the appeal. Members present: David Barken, Chair CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Zoning Megan Wilson, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org Andre Gardiner Michael Cannon Donna Fleming Joseph Kirby Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: Not applicable Environmental Review: This variance is a component of an action that also includes subdivision and site plan review. 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 February 27, 2024. Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board supports all three variances for this parcel and finds no negative long-term impacts to planning. As this is student housing, the board rationalizes that these are not daily drivers, so the parking spots are more places to store their cars and having their cars parked a little further, approximately 1400’ from the building, is acceptable. The Board also finds the applicant has provided positive mitigations to outweigh these variance asks such as a pocket park at the corner of State and Ferris, two ADA parking spots in front of the building and find the rear yard is unusable due to the slope. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation: The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission approved this project at its meeting on November 8, 2023. The Commission finds the new building to be compatible with the existing historic character of the neighborhood and supports the current design. Motion: A motion to grant variance #3271 601 E. State Street was made by D. Barken. Deliberations & Findings: The Board acknowledged that many of the homes on E State Street are not compliant with the existing zoning setbacks and found that the proposed variances, particularly off-street parking location requirements, are more compatible with the neighborhood. The Board debated whether the proposed rear yard deficiency is substantial and if a more zoning compliant development could be feasible. Members noted that it would be impossible to find a viable alternative project that would be fully zoning-compliant. Factors Considered: Rear Yard Variance: 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 a rear yard of 8’ of the required 28.8’ yard. This is a deficiency of approximately 77%. The average rear yard of homes on the street in this zone is roughly 58’. This requested area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as the proposal is consistent with community plans. The rear yard will serve as a side yard for the new structure, and an 8’ yard is consistent with many side yards in the area. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes No Due to the fact that the property is a corner lot and the specific requirements of other quasi-judicial boards, the proposed development is unable to meet the zoning requirements of the R-3a zone. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No The Board finds that this requested variance is substantial. However, the Board finds that, while proportionally substantial, the requested variances will not have significant impacts on the neighborhood or nearby properties. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes No The Planning and Development Board, acting as lead agency, has determined that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Based on the submitted application materials, testimony of the applicant, and observations of existing conditions, the Board does not find any evidence of adverse physical or environmental conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No The alleged difficulty is self-created as the applicant has designed new construction that do not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Board finds that the project’s benefits to the property owner and the broader community outweigh the fact that the difficulty is self-created. Lot Area Variance: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes No The applicant is proposing a lot area of 14,374 SF for the two primary structures where 15,250 SF is required. This is a deficiency of 876 SF or 5.7%. This requested area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as the proposal is consistent with the sizing of nearby primary structures. The lot area deficiency will have minimal impact on 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 Due to the zoning in the R-3a there is no viable alternative to achieve the unit count necessary to maintain the second primary structure. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No The Board finds that the request for a deficiency of 5.7% or 876 SF is not a substantial variance relating to a required lot size of 15,250 SF. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes No The Planning and Development Board, acting as lead agency, has determined that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Based on the submitted application materials, testimony of the applicant, and observations of existing conditions, the Board does not find any evidence of adverse physical or environmental conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No The alleged difficulty is self-created as the applicant has designed new subdivided parcels and new construction that do not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Board finds that the project’s benefits to the property owner and the broader community outweigh the fact that the difficulty is self-created. Off-Street Parking Location Requirements, Distance of Use Variance: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes No The Board finds that the proposed type of parking arrangement is common in the neighborhood. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes No The Board finds that the appellant has provided adequate information describing extensive efforts to comply with this zoning requirement and that it was demonstrated there is no feasible alternative to provide parking. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No The Board finds that this requested variance is not substantial as 1400’ is not a substantial distance from the property, especially considering the proposed use and physical conditions of the neighborhood. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes No The Planning and Development Board, acting as lead agency, has determined that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the environment. Based on the submitted application materials, testimony of the applicant, and observations of existing conditions, the Board does not find any evidence of adverse physical or environmental conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No The alleged difficulty is self-created as the applicant has designed new subdivided parcels and new construction that do not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Board finds that the project’s benefits to the property owner and the broader community outweigh the fact that the difficulty is self-created. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by A. Gardiner Vote: 4-1-0 Andre Gardiner YES Donna Fleming NO Michael Cannon YES Joseph Kirby YES David Barken, 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 applicants outweighs the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the Zoning Ordinance, §325-20D(4)(d) and §325-8, Column 6 and Column 14/15) are the minimum variances 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 4, 2024 Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals