The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBZA Decision Letter - Appeal 2994 - 215-221 W. Spencer St. (PPM Homes) - 11-05-1500Z 00 p° 0 ° P ° C� ,► ° o v � ° v aoo �l o a 0 0 ° ° °�° ° °� �c�RPORAIE�� CITY OF ITHACA 108 E. Green Street 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850 -5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Zoning Division PHYLLIS RADKE, DIRECTOR OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION Telephone: Planning & Development — 607 - 274 -6550 E -Mail: cpyott@cityofithaca.org CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings &Decision Applicant: Noah Demarest, for owner, PPM Homes Appeal No.: 2994 Zoning District: R -3b Meeting Held On: November 3, 2015 Property Location: 215 -221 W. Spencer Street Publication Dateso October 21, 2015 & October 231 2015 Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off- street parking is prohibited in the property's required rear yard. Applicant wishes to place 77% of the required off - street parking for this proposed project in the required rear yard of 215 -221 W. Spencer Street. Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325 -20 F. (a) [1] Members Present: Steven Beer, Chair Teresa Deschanes Marshall McCormick Public Hearing Held On: November 3, 2015. No one spoke in favor of granting the variance. One person spoke against granting the variance. The Board also accepted a letter from an "interested party" opposed to the proposed project and the BZA's granting relief from the Ordinance's rear yard, off- street parking requirement. Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes. Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 and -m of New York State General Municipal Law: Tompkins County Planning Department reviewed the proposal and found no negative inter - community, or county- wide impacts. Environmental Review: Type: Unlisted Action. The Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency for the Environmental Review for Site Plan Review and the requested Zoning Variances, determined on October 271 2015 that this proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and made a Negative Declaration for the purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, which was filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board feels that the unique attributes of the site (steeply sloped with street frontage at both the front and back of the site) present a large barrier to locating the parking, such that it will not require a variance. The Board has worked with the applicant to mitigate concerns about visual /aesthetic impact of the proposed parking location. The applicant has agreed to install fencing (see drawing L001, titled "Perspectives," dated 8/6/15) and landscaping to block views of the parking lot from adjacent property owners on Cayuga Street. The Planning Board recommends granting this appeal. Factors Considered: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes ❑ No Reasons: This proposal requires 12 off - street parking spaces on a through -lot, which has a rear yard facing Cayuga Street. Because the proposed development is on land with a steep slope, the developer must partially place the required off - street parking spaces in the required rear yard setback. While the proposed parking is close to Cayuga Street, the actual parking area will be below street level and the view from Cayuga Street will be shielded by fencing and plantings. Any project developed on the site would have to access the site from Cayuga Street, because of the steep, uphill slope from Spencer Street. The multiple dwelling previously located on this site provided a parking area in essentially the same location as this proposal. The property also has an existing Cayuga Street curbcut that accesses the site. There is actually a benefit to the neighborhood as a result of placing the parking so that it is accessed from Cayuga Street, regardless of placing this off - street parking in the required rear yard. This is because the buildings can be placed further downhill and closer to Spencer Street, allowing more open views from Cayuga Street. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes ❑ No Reasons: Because of the site's limitations, the applicant would need a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, even if the developer proposed constructing a single - family home. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No ❑ Reasons: The request is not substantial in light of the Zoning requirements for through -lots. There can only be one rear yard, even though the site is between two streets. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes ❑ No Reasons: The project has been scrutinized by the Planning Board that required the developer to mitigate any adverse impacts resulting from the proposed parking location by screening the lot with plantings and fencing. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self- created: Yes ❑ No Reasons: Any use proposed on this lot would require a variance from the BZA, so the problem is not self - created. This is a valuable infill project for the City. Specifically, the proposed new stairway path will provide a valuable pedestrian connection between the two streets; and in balancing the criteria under consideration, the benefit to the developer outweighs the neighborhood concerns brought forward by "interested parties." 2 Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Marshall McCormick. Vote: Steven Beer, Chair: Yes Teresa Deschanes: Yes Marshall McCormick: Yes Determination of BZA Based on Above Factors: The BZA, taking into consideration the five factors, finds 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 -20 F. (a) [1], 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. November 5, 2015 SecrA ry,f Boar of Zoning Appeals Date Director o Wing Administration 3