Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3107-113 Fourth St.-Decision Letter-11-6-2018CITY 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.: 3107 Applicant: Alena Fast representing Ithaca City Apaitments, LLC, Owner Property Location: 113 Fourth Street Zoning District: R -2b Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 4, 12, and 14/15. Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off -Street Parking, Other Front Yard, and Rear Yard Publication Dates: October 31, 2018 and November 2, 2018. Meeting Held On: November 6, 2018. Summary: Appeal of Alena Fast representing Ithaca City Apa'tments, LLC for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off -Street Parking, Column 12, Other Front Yard and Column 14/15, Rear Yard requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant is in the process of renovating the first floor apai intent at the property located at 113 Fourth Street. As part of the renovation, the applicant would like to comply the ADA requirements for accessibility and install an accessible ramp. At the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on October 2nd, the Board requested that the applicant provide an alternate design that would reduce the extent of the front yard variance. The property is located on a corner lot and the applicant now proposes to construct the switchback ramp in the rear yard. The proposed alternate design will provide direct access to the front door of the Accessible apai tment. The new design will encroach into the other front yard and will terminate 2 feet from the front property line. The ordinance requires other front yards to have a 10' setback. The relocation of the ramp to the rear yard will result in a rear yard deficiency leaving 16'-10" of the 22'-8" required by the ordinance. The property has an existing deficiency in 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 an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued. Public Hearing Held On: November 6, 2018. No public comments in favor or in opposition. 1 Members present: Steven Beer, Chair Teresa Deschanes Steven Wolf Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: N/A Environmental Review: Type 2 This is a Type 2 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO"), and State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), and is not subject to Environmental Review. CEQR Section 176-5 C 12. Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board does not identify any long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes. 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 r— No El There was no evidence presented that there would be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. This is an extremely well designed ramp and it seem to fit in with the architecture and the character of the neighborhood. There were no public comment disagreeing with these points. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes C No EI The applicant has revised the original plan and this layout is the most feasible way to achieve their desired goal of accessibility to the residence. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No The variance is not substantial. The previous application had substantially increased the deficiencies and the applicant made modification that kept the requested variance to a minimum. The parking deficiency is existing and being that they are providing accessibility, the current configuration is a good fit. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes I— No There is no evidence that there will be an adverse impact. In fact, the current orientation of the ramp does not have a zero setback along the entire sidewalk as did the first proposal. Having the ramp in the rear yard will have very little impact on the physical or environmental conditions along the front yard. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes E No In this case it is not self-created in as much as they desire to make this property accessible. There is no option to achieve accessibility without the need for a variance and there is a need for accessible homes within the City. 2 Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Steven Wolf. Vote: Steven Beer, Chair Yes Teresa Deschanes 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, 12, and 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. November 19, 2018 d of Zoning Appeals Date 3