Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3152-518 Stewart Ave-Decision Letter-3-3-2020CITY 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.: 3152 Applicant: Robert Poprawski for RPSL Revocable Trust Owner Property Location: 518 Stewart Avenue Zoning District: R -3a Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 4, 6, and 13 Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off -Street Parking, Lot Area, and Side Yard Publication Dates: February 26, 2020 and February 28, 2020 Meeting Held On: March 3, 2020. Summary: Appeal of Robert Poprawski on behalf of the owner RPSL Revocable Trust for area variance from Section 325-8, Column 4, Off -Street Parking, Column 6, Lot Area, and Column 13, Side Yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct an ADA compliant ramp on the front of the building located at 518 Stewart Avenue. The applicant recently renovated the building and the new ramp will improve the landing area at the front entry and provide accessibility to the building. The installation of the 137 SF ramp will cause an enlargement to the existing non -conforming structure, thereby requiring an area variance. The property has existing deficiencies in parking, lot area, and other side yard that will not be exacerbated by this proposal. The property is located in an R -3a 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: March 3, 2020. No public comments in favor or in opposition. Members present: Steven Beer, Chair Teresa Deschanes Suzanne Charles 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 identi any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal. This is a welcome pedestrian and accessibility improvement and it is visually attractive. Environmental Review: This is an Unlisted Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance ("CEQRO"), and State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), and is subject to Environmental Review. Lead Agency: The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals did, on March 3, 2020 declare itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the approval of zoning appeal 3152, an area variance for the property located at 518 Stewart Avenue in the City of Ithaca. Environmental Determination: The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals, acting as Lead Agency, on March 3, 2020, reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Foam (SEAF) and determined the requested variance will result in no significant impact on the environment. Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes. Deliberations & Findings: Board discussed the building plans provided for the appeal. The items discussed by the Board included: front yard parking area, ADA ramp and access isle, accessibility required by the Building Code, need to install a ramp to meet the building code for the building alterations, feasibility of adding an accessible lift to the front foyer area. Alternate locations for the ramp were discussed. Factors Considered: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes —] No IZI There was no evidence that there would be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. In fact, the Planning Board commented that the ramp would be quite attractive as a part of the neighborhood. The actual change in the footprint of the neighborhood is small and is a slight extension while the previous deficiencies are reduced. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes ❑ No El There was evidence that a feasible alternative could not be achieved. The applicant states that the only other two options were to install a lift in the foyer which is less attractive. The foyer lift would take up interior space, be less attractive, and may require someone to operate the lift causing the patron to wait for the lift to be operated. The other option was to put the ramp on the rear of the building which would require a longer ramp and it would take up some of the parking spaces. The ramp addition to the rear of the building is not as universally welcome as the ramp being located in the front of the building. Therefore, there was no other good alternative to installing the ramp than on the front of the building. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No 121 The variance is small given the decreases created by reducing the number of rooms which in turn reduced the number of required parking spaces. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes [ No 121 Both the Planning Board and in light of discussions held by the Board members, felt that the proposal will have a positive impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood, because it brings the building up to code for universal access in an attractive way that is welcoming at the front of the building. 2 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑ There is an argument that it is self-created even though the building is being brought up to code and they need some type of accessible access. They can possible accomplish compliance with the code by installing a lift, but this is less desirable and is outweighed by the other factors. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Suzanne Charles. Vote: Steven Beer, Chair Teresa Deschanes Suzanne Charles Determination of BZA Based on the 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 325-8, Column 4, 6, and 13 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. Gini ` ¶na Secretary, Beard of Zoning Appeals Zoning Administrator March 5, 2020 Date 3