Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3114 - 224 Fair St.-Decision Letter-4-2-2019CITY 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: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E -Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings & Decision Appeal No.: 3114 Applicant: STREAM Collaborative for Umit Sirt and Courtney Royal, Owners Property Location: 224 Fair Street Zoning District: R -3b Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 4 Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off -Street Parking; Rear Yard Publication Dates: March 27, 2019 and March 29, 2019 Meeting Held On: April 2, 2019 Summary: Appeal of STREAM Collaborative on behalf of the owners Umit Sirt and Courtney Royal for Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off -Street Parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a net -zero energy efficient building at the property located at 224 Fair Street. The proposed three-story building will be located on the comer of Wood Street and Fair Street and will contain four residential apartments. The four -unit dwelling requires four on-site parking spaces to comply with the zoning ordinance. Due to site constraints and the zoning restrictions for parking placement, the applicants' options for providing parking are very limited. The property has two front yards and the ordinance allows only 25% to be utilized for parking. Furthermore, the parking spaces cannot be located within the required front yard setback. Parking in the side or rear yard is also limited and is not permitted in the required setbacks. The applicant is proposing to provide an ADA accessible ramp that has its access point in the side yard. The ramp will reduce the available side yard and the access to the ramp limits the space to provide parking. The rear yard meets the minimum setbacks although there is not enough additional area to permit parking without a variance. Therefore, the applicant proposes to use the limited rear yard area for raised bed gardening and green space and requests a variance for the required four parking spaces. The property is located in an R -3b residential use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that area variances be granted before a building permit is issued. Public Hearing Held On: April 2, 2019 Marshall McCormick of 108 Fair Street submitted a letter of support. No public comments in opposition. 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: Unlisted This variance is a component of an action that also includes site plan review. This is an Unlisted 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 Deteiinination of Environmental Significance on March 26, 2019. Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board does not idents any negative long term planning impacts and enthusiastically supports this appeal. The applicant's original proposal located the building much closer to the side yard and would have required variances for both parking and side yard deficiencies. The Board was concerned that the original proposal could negatively impact the neighboring properties- particularly the one to the north. The current proposal locates the building at a comfortable distance from the northern property and improves the overall fit with the neighborhood. Though it does not allow for the required on-site parking, the applicant has demonstrated that there is ample on -street parking in close proximity to the project. The current layout also means that there will be no curb cuts to access driveways (accommodating the required parking on-site would have required two driveways) which creates a safer pedestrian and more child - friendly environment. The Board feels that this net zero projects is further enhanced by the potential to reduce automobile use. Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Steven Wolf. 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 E No From the information that was provided, there is ample on -street parking and this project will have little effect on the available on -street parking. Granting this variance will not cause a cascade of requests for parking variances for other project because the surrounding area is limited by a more restrictive zone. The variance will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood as it will provide infill for the vacant lot and enhance the neighborhood. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes ❑ No The project as designed cannot be accomplished if parking was provided on site. Without the variance, the changes to the project would be substantial and reduce the feasibility of providing the energy efficient enmities and usable green space. Many of the desirable feature of the project would be lost if they have to provide parking on site. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ® No ❑ Reducing the required 4 parking spaces to zero is substantial. But, on balance, it is reasonable considering the availability of the on -street parking. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes ❑ No El The net impact of the project is positive in terms of providing housing, aesthetics of the project, quality of housing, energy efficiency, and the green space that will be provided. The project will enhance the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No C The applicant could have pursued an alternative project. Although, most of the desirable benefits of the project would be lost. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Teresa Deschanes. 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 is 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. Secr of Zoning Appeals April 4, 2019 Date