HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3093-412 E. Yates St.-Decision Letter-4-3-2018CITY 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.: 3093
Applicant: STREAM Collaborative for Aaron Sachs and Christine Evans, Owner
Property Location: 412 East Yates Street
Zoning District: R -2b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 10, 11, 12, 13, Section 325-20 E (3) and
Section 325-25 C
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Percentage of Lot Coverage, Front Yard, Other Front
Yard, Side Yard, Front Yard Parking Requirements, and Location of Accessory Structure requirements.
Publication Dates: March 28, 2018 and March 30, 2018.
Meeting Held On: April 3, 2018.
Summary: Appeal of STREAM Collaborative on behalf of the owners Aaron Sachs and Christine Evans
for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 10, Lot Coverage, Column 11, Front Yard, Column 12,
Other Front Yard, Column 13, Side Yard, Section 325-20 E (3), Front Yard Parking Setbacks, and
Section 325-25 C, Location of Accessory Structure requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant
proposes to construct a new garage with a second floor writing studio at the property located at 412 E.
Yates Street. As part of the proposal, the applicant intends to demolish the existing 187 SF garage to
accommodate the new 315 SF garage. The new garage will increase the lot coverage from 48% to 52% of
the 35% allowed by the ordinance for lot coverage by buildings.
The ground level of the new garage will be used for parking but the applicant needs an addition parking
space to meet the two parking space requirement for the four bedroom home. Therefore, the applicant
would like to position the new garage one foot from the side lot line to accommodate the required 18'
dimension for a compliant parking space in the driveway. The garage will be 3 feet from the rear lot line,
meeting the rear yard setback, but will have 1 foot of the 3 feet required by the zoning ordinance for the
side yard.
The property has existing deficiencies in both front yard setbacks and the required setback for front yard
parking that will not be exacerbated by the proposal. The property is located in an R -2b residential use
district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that a variance be
granted before a building permit is issued.
1
Public Hearing Held On: April 3, 2018.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Lindsay Jones
Marshall McCol wick
Environmental Review: Type: Type 2
These actions have been determined not to have a significant impact on the environment and are
otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law. CEQR Section
176-5 C 12.
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 long term planning impacts and had the following comments:
- It may be preferable to encourage a parking variance to eliminate the driveway space rather than
encourage the side yard variance.
- As the lot coverage is already deficient, the new garage could be kept to its current footprint of 187 S.F.
- The 52% is well above the 35% code for coverage in this case.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Marshall McCormick.
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board discussed the Planning Board comments with the applicant and found that the first
recommendation for a parking variance was not preferable given the applicant has a family and owns two
cars. In addition, having a two story building and moving it closer to the street would have a worst
appearance than having it visually setback from the street. The second recommendation to maintain the
current 187 SF footprint; a new garage could be kept to that square footage, but the applicant is proposing
to have a new garage, writing studio, with storage above, and it could not be achieved within a 187 SF
footprint. The third recommendation concerning the percentage of lot coverage; the incremental increase
of the variance is 4% and is not substantial.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes ❑ No EZI
The record does not show that there will be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. In
fact, increasing the quality of the accessory structure, the safety of the structure, and increasing the size of
the garage to adequately park a car may actually be beneficial to nearby properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes ❑ No El
The benefit sought by the applicant to include both a garage and a writing studio, could not be achieved in
a feasible alternative that would reduce these variances. If the writing studio and access stairs were
eliminated, the required variance might be less. But having the amenity of a writing studio, allowing
someone to work from home and thereby reduce car traffic and other reasons, is more beneficial to the
applicant than the alternative.
2
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes [ No
The variance may be considered substantial compared to the 35% lot coverage required by code and the
52% coverage that we will be approving. But the variance in itself is an additional 4% of lot coverage
from the existing 48% lot coverage. This increase is not considered substantial. Concerning the other
variances requested; the variance for the location of the accessory structure is in fact an improvement
from the current structure which is currently located on the lot line. The other variances for front yard,
other front yard, and parking setbacks are existing variance that are not being exacerbated.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
The applicant is improving the structure that is there and will have positive impact on the condition of the
neighborhood by having a more attractive and safer structure.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ❑ No
The allege difficulty is self-created in so far as the project doesn't really need to happen. But, the Board
does not consider this to be a determining factor to deny the variance.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Marshall McCormick Yes
Lindsay Jones Present (New Member)
Steven Wolf Absent
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
Deteiuiinant to the Neighborhood or Community. The BZA further finds that variances from Zoning
Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 10, 11, 12, 13, Section 325-20 E (3) and Section 325-25 C, 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.
Secre . 4F,Boa riof Zoning Appeals
April 6, 2018
Date
3