Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3081-203-211 Elm St.-Decision Letter-10-3-2017CITY 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: 607-274-6513 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings & Decision Appeal No.: 3081 Applicant: Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc., Owner Property Location: 203-211 Elm Street Zoning District: R -3a Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 4 and Column 14/15. Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off -Street Parking and Rear Yard. Publication Dates: September 27, 2017 and September 29, 2017. Meeting Held On: October 3, 2017. Summary: Appeal of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off -Street Parking and Column 14/15, Rear Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to demolish three buildings and construct a 13 unit apartment building at the property located at 203 -2 11 Elm Street. The project site currently consists of four parcels that will be consolidated to accommodate the new three story apartment building. As part of the project, the applicant proposes to install a parking area on the southwest portion of the parcel. The parking area will accommodate 6 parking spaces and a 24' wide two way driveway aisle for safe ingress and egress. The applicant contends that the historical data for INNS properties suggests that 6 parking spaces will be sufficient for the project. The ordinance requires one parking space be provided for each of the 13 units within the apartment building. In order to construct the parking area, a retaining wall must be constructed in the rear yard due to the steep grade at the rear portion of the lot. The applicant proposes to install a three tier retaining wall, consisting of 7' high sections, to make up this supporting structure. The retaining wall will encroach into the required rear yard by 7.3', leaving 17.7' of the 25' required by the ordinance. The property at 203-211 Elm Street is located in an R -3a zoning district where the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit may be issued. Public Hearing Held On: October 3, 2017. No public comments in favor or in opposition. Members present: Steven Beer, Chair Teresa Deschanes Moriah Tebor Steven Wolf Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: N/A Environmental Review: Type: Type 1 The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Board identified only positive long term planning impacts with this appeal and fully supports it approval. The project has many merits: it replaces the existing aging affordable units with new, attractive, energy-efficient affordable units; many efforts were taken to minimize or avoid impact to the Unique Natural Area including limiting the area of disturbance and preserving existing trees; the reduced number of parking spaces further limits disturbance of the sensitive site; the unavoidable retaining walls on the site will be heavily planted to make them more attractive and less visible, and finally, the applicant has demonstrated, based on current parking demand at this site and similar projects, that the reduced number of spaces meets the needs of the project and its residents. Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Moriah Tebor. Deliberations & Findings: Factors Considered: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes ❑ No M The building design and the consolidation of the parcels for the project will be an improvement that will benefit the neighborhood. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes ❑ No M Given the discussion between the Planning Board and the applicant, they have modified the plan to best effectuate the project. The applicant could possibly achieve an alternative that would not require a variance, but is outweighed by the benefit to the applicant and the neighboring properties. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No M With respect to parking, the applicant has shown to the Board that there is an adequate flexible margin in providing only 6 spaces, if the need for parking increases. Having 6 spaces is a significant reduction from the 13 spaces required. But, given the calculated demand for parking, the variance is not substantial. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes ❑ No Due to the lack of elevation drawings for the retaining wall, it is hard to tell if there will be some adverse effect on the environmental conditions. The Planning Board has assured the Board that the retaining wall will be constructed and detailed to "minimize or avoid impact to the Unique Natural Area". 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑ The applicant could do something different or build a smaller building, but this factor is not significate enough to withhold the granting of the variance. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Steven Wolf. Vote: Steven Beer, Chair: Yes Teresa Deschanes Yes Moriah Tebor Yes Steven Wolf Yes Determination of BZA Based on the Above Factors: The BZA, taking into consideration the five factors, fmds 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 4 and Column 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. S ary, B and of Zoning Appeals October 12, 20 Date