Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3185 - 106 Cascadilla Park Road - Decision Letter1 CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings & Decision Appeal No.: 3185 Applicant: Jason Houghton and Michael Scanlon, property owners Property Location: 106 Cascadilla Park Road Zoning District: R-1a Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 6, 7, 10, 11, and 13. Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Lot Area, Lot Width, Lot Coverage by Buildings, Front Yard, and Other Side Yard. Publication Dates: May 27, 2021 and May 29, 2021. Meeting Held On: June 1, 2021. Summary: Appeal of property owners Jason Houghton and Michael Scanlon for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 6, Lot Area, Column 7, Lot Width, Column 10, Lot Coverage by Buildings, Column 11, Front Yard, and Column 13, Other Side Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicants propose to construct a covered parking space in the front yard of the property at 106 Cascadilla Park Road. Due to the sloped topography of the site, the parking space will be cut into the slope, enclosed on three sides with a landscape retaining wall, and covered by a wooden roof to create a carport. The carport will have a green roof that will also provide additional outdoor space for the property owners. The construction of the carport within the front yard will exacerbate the existing front yard deficiency, reducing the front yard to 6.5’ of the required 25’. In addition, the construction of the new carport will exacerbate an existing deficiency in maximum lot coverage by buildings. The project will result in 26% lot coverage by buildings, exceeding the 20% allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The property has existing deficiencies in lot area, lot width, and other side yard that will not be exacerbated by this proposal. The applicants initially presented this appeal at the June 1, 2021 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals and the required public hearing was held on that date. The appeal was tabled to allow staff to prepare an environmental review of the proposal. The applicants have also voluntarily submitted the appeal to the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission for an advisory review. The property is located in a R-1a use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section 325- 32 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued. Public Hearing Held On: June 1, 2021. Members present: David Barken CITY 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 2 Stephen Henderson Stephanie Egan-Engels Suzanne Charles, Chair The following interested parties submitted comments in support of the appeal: 1. David Fellows, 111 Cascadilla Park Road 2. Lawrence Gibbons and Ritchie Patterson, 108 Cascadilla Park Road The following interested parties submitted comments in opposition to the appeal: 1. Margherita Fabrizio, 105 Cascadilla Park Road 2. Jennifer Gunn, 104 Cascadilla Park Road Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: Not applicable. Environmental Review: This is a Type 2 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the State Environmental Quality Review Act and is not subject to Environmental Review. However, given the environmental concerns raised during the public hearing, the Board decided to conduct an environmental review of the action. The City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals hereby declares itself Lead Agency for the environmental review for the approval of zoning appeal 3185, an area variance for the property located at 106 Cascadilla Park Road in the City of Ithaca. The Board has reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), dated July 28, 2021, and determines that the requested variance will result in no significant impact on the environment. Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Planning Board does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan. There was not unanimous support or dissent for the project- the Board discussed the following considerations: • The Board would normally not seek to allow front yard parking. However, this is a unique site and unique street. • The Board understands that the BPW has reviewed and approved the project and that engineering staff have thoroughly vetted it. • It may be beneficial on this unique street to get a car off the road, though it removes an on-street parking spot and conflicts with the urban design principle that the street is public. • The applicant is asking for a large variance for the front yard. • Concern about runoff and construction practices. • Accessibility concerns. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation: This property is not a designated historic property but has been identified as a historic resource. The City’s Historic Preservation Planner has provided comments on the proposed appeal. Motion: A motion to grant variance #3185 for 106 Cascadilla Park Road was made by S. Henderson. Deliberations & Findings: Cascadilla Park Road is a unique curvilinear street with predominately single-family homes and is one of the only R-1a zones near the city’s downtown. The neighborhood is characterized by historic homes, the winding street, green spaces, and steep topography. Off-street parking is limited on this street and many properties are deficient in required parking. 106 Cascadilla Park Road is a single-family home located on the north side of road and adjacent to the City Cemetery. The lot is sloped, rising south to north and west to east. Due to this topography, the proposed project requires significant excavation of the slope in the front yard and construction of a carport in the slope in order to provide an off-street parking space for the property owners. The carport will be located 4’ from the front property line and will be located entirely within the required front yard. 3 The recently-provided rendering of the design is very helpful and demonstrates that the project will be compatible with the neighborhood character. The findings by the Historic Preservation Planner are extremely important and give the Board confidence that the new addition will not alter the historic character of the neighborhood. Any additional stormwater runoff can be accommodated, and the project will be helpful to reduce the number of cars on this unique, narrow street. The Board noted that this is an intensive project for one parking space and commends the appellants for their investment and design. The green roof will be a nice addition, if successful. Factors Considered: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes No The City’s Historic Preservation Planner and the Chairperson of the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission have reviewed the project and the existing conditions. They have determined that the new carport’s construction will not have a significant impact on the neighborhood, given the high-quality of the design and its sensitivity to the surrounding context. Upon review of the proposed site plan and the Board’s review of existing conditions, the Board finds that the proposed project will not result in an undesirable change on the character of the neighborhood. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes No The only other feasible location would remove an old-growth maple tree, which would have more significant impacts than the current proposal. Given the location of the existing house and the topography of the site, it is not possible to provide off- street parking on the property that would not require an area variance and/or significant site work. The lot area, lot width, and other side yard deficiencies are existing deficiencies that predate the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No The construction of the proposed carport will reduce the front yard to 4’ or 16% of the required front yard. It will also increase an existing deficiency in lot coverage by buildings to 26% of the 20% allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. These are substantial variance requests but, as evidenced by a review by the City’s Historic Preservation Planner and as considered in the environmental review, will not have a significant impact while enhancing the owners’ use of the property. All other deficiencies are existing deficiencies that will not be exacerbated by the proposal. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes No The Board has conducted appropriate environmental review of the proposal and has determined that the issuance of the variances will result in little to not impact on the environment. The proposed project will remove a substantial portion of the slope in the front yard but all evidence indicates that any resulting stormwater runoff can be accommodated within the existing system. The Board finds no traffic or parking impacts on the neighborhood or street. The Board’s review of the submitted site plans, testimony from the applicant, and consideration of existing conditions have not provided evidence of adverse physical or environmental impacts. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No 4 The front yard and lot coverage deficiencies self-created in that the applicant is choosing to create a carport within the front yard. The lot area, lot width, and other side yard deficiencies are existing deficiencies that predate the Zoning Ordinance. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by S. Egan-Engels/ Vote: 3-0-0 Stephen Henderson YES Stephanie Egan-Engels YES David Barken, Acting Chair YES Determination of the BZA Based on the Above Factors: The BZA, taking into the five factors for an area variance, finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the Zoning Ordinance, §325-8, Columns 6, 7, 10, 11, and 13 are the minimum variances that should be granted in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. ___________________________ August 3, 2021 Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals