HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-2021-08-03
Approved 10/5/2021
City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes – August 3, 2021
Present: David Barken, Chair
Stephanie Egan-Engels
Steven Henderson
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator
Rehan Dadi, BZA Intern
Absent: Vacancy (2 positions)
Chair D. Barken called the meeting to order at 6:28 p.m. and read the opening statement.
I. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS – NONE
II. CONTINUED APPEALS
APPEAL # 3185 106 Cascadilla Park Road
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.
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.
Board of Zoning Appeals
8/3/21 Meeting Minutes
2
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 (attached).
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3185 for 106 Cascadilla Park Road was made by S. Henderson, seconded
by Stephanie Egan-Engels.
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. 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
Board of Zoning Appeals
8/3/21 Meeting Minutes
3
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
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: GRANTED 3-0-0
Steven Henderson YES
Stephanie Egan-Engels YES
David Barken, Acting Chair YES
Approved 10/5/2021
III. NEW APPEALS
APPEAL # 3190 405 ELMIRA ROAD
Appeal of KBP Investments on behalf of property owner Buttermilk Falls, LLC for an Area Variance from
Section 325-8, Column 4, Off-Street Parking, Column 7, Lot Width, and Column 11, Front Yard, requirements
of Zoning Ordinance as well as §325-20I, Parking in the Southwest Area. The applicant proposes to construct
a fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru on the vacant property located at 405 Elmira Road. A shared access
easement to the adjacent properties is located within the required front yard, causing the building to be
setback 81’ from the curb instead of the 15’-34’ required by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed building
also does not meet the lot frontage requirements of the SW-2 zone. The district regulations require that
35% of the lot frontage be occupied by buildings within the required front yard. Since the building is
proposed to be setback further than the required 15’-34’, it is unable to meet the lot frontage requirement
as well. In addition, §325-20I, Parking in the Southwest Area, requires off-street parking to be setback 100’
from the curb when the front yard and lot frontage requirements are not met. The parking cannot be set
back 100’ without removing the existing vegetative buffer.
Additionally, the applicant seeks a variance for three off-street parking spaces. The proposed building
requires 23 off-street parking spaces, and the applicant proposes to construct 20 spaces on site. The reduced
off-street parking will allow space to accommodate outdoor dining.
Public Hearing Held On: August 3, 2021.
Members present:
Steven Henderson
Stephanie Egan-Engels
David Barken, Acting Chair
There were no comments in support of the appeal.
Robert L. Halpin, on behalf of interested party Amiri, LLC of 407 Elmira Road, submitted a letter in
opposition to the appeal (attached).
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
The Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability had no recommendations or comments on
the proposal.
Environmental Review: This variance is a component of an action that also includes subdivision and site
plan review. Considered together, this is a Type 1 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 Determination of Environmental Significance
on June 22, 2021.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long- term planning impacts and supports this appeal
for the following reasons:
• Due to the existing vehicular access to the site, the applicant cannot comply with the setback and
frontage requirements.
Board of Zoning Appeals
8/3/21 Meeting Minutes
5
• The Board supports the parking variance because there is ample parking on the site as a whole
and removal a few spaces allows for additional site improvements such as an outdoor patio and
tree planting – which is much needed in paved areas.
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3190 for 405 Elmira Road was made by S. Egan-Engels.
Deliberations & Findings:
In response to the letter submitted by Mr. Halpin, the Board noted that the parking concerns are a
property management issue and should be a discussion among the involved private property owners.
Unauthorized use of private parking is not a zoning issue. The Board discussed the claim that the property
owner was not notified of the appeal as required by Code. The appellant has submitted three sets of
certified mail receipts that demonstrate that three separate notifications were sent to the property
owner’s address of record. This evidence confirmed appropriate notifications of the appeal were sent to
adjacent property owners. It was also noted that the property at 407 Elmira Road was required to obtain
the same variances to build, due to the site constraints.
The vacant lot is currently an eye sore in the Southwest area. The variance will allow the restaurant to be
constructed and will activate the site. Due to the property easements, any construction on this site would
require front yard and frontage variances.
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 development of the property at 405 Elmira Road would be a positive change. The existing
easement requires variance for the development of the site in any manner. The proposed project is
In-line with the existing buildings on the surrounding lots. Furthermore, the accommodation of all
required parking would require removal of existing green space, and it is undesirable to remove
vegetation at the rear of the site.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
Due to the existing easements on this property, it is not possible to construct any building to meet the
front yard and frontage requirements of the SW-2 zone.
The off-street parking requirement could be met with the removal of existing green space; however,
the Board believes that the proposed 20 spaces will be sufficient and finds it undesirable to remove
any green space in this neighborhood to accommodate additional parking.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes. No
The proposed building will be located 81’ from the curb, as opposed to the 15’-34’ required by the
Zoning Ordinance. This is a substantial request but the building is sited in line with other structures on
that particular block face and the existing easement necessitates this siting.
The Board does not find the request to reduce off-street parking or locate the parking closer to the
curb to be substantial.
Board of Zoning Appeals
8/3/21 Meeting Minutes
6
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
The Board finds no evidence of adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions. As noted by
the Planning and Development Board, the requested variances allow the appellant to maintain existing
green space in an area already dominated by surface parking and paving. The ability to add additional
plantings and trees as well as an outdoor dining area will improve the environmental condition in the
immediate neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the appellant is choosing to develop this vacation site.
However, the proposed project, including all requested variances, are appropriate to the
neighborhood and do not exacerbate any existing site challenges on this property.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by S. Henderson.
Vote: 3-0-0
Steven Henderson YES
Stephanie Egan-Engels YES
David Barken, Acting Chair YES
APPEAL # 3192 109 E. YORK STREET
Appeal of Geoffrey Hinman of Tigerlily & Fox, LLC for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column
4, Off-Street Parking, Column 10, Lot Coverage by Buildings, and Column 11, Front Yard, as well as
Section 325-25C, Location of Accessory Structures, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant proposes to expand the front porch and create a deck off the northeast corner of the two-
family dwelling at 109 E. York Street. The project will add an 8’ deep by 17’ wide uncovered deck
in the front yard. The property has an existing front yard deficiency that will be exacerbated by the
project, as the new deck will reduce the front yard to 1’ of the required 10’. The deck will also add
136 square feet to the building footprint and will exacerbate an existing deficiency in lot coverage
by buildings. The property’s current lot coverage by buildings is 50.1%. The project will increase
the lot coverage by buildings to 52.8%, exceeding the maximum of 35% allowed by the Zoning
Ordinance. The property has existing deficiencies in off-street parking and location of accessory
structure that will not be exacerbated by this proposal.
The property is located in a R-2b 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: August 3, 2021.
Members present:
Steven Henderson
Stephanie Egan-Engels
David Barken, Acting Chair
Board of Zoning Appeals
8/3/21 Meeting Minutes
7
There were no comments in support of the appeal.
Mary Paisley, 121 E. York Street, submitted a letter in opposition to the appeal.
Planning Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts with this appeal.
It is improving the property by turning an unusable portion of the front yard into a usable area.
The submitted drawings lack detail; better drawings and visualizations would be helpful to fully
understand the project.
Deliberation & Findings:
Several Board members expressed concern about the proximity of the porch to the property line and the
sidewalk. Given the proximity and the height of the porch, there was concern that the new porch would
have a significant impact on the character of the neighborhood and be imposing to pedestrians. The Board
discussed other possible solutions to meet the needs of the daycare, including an at-grade patio in the
same location and the addition of a rear porch.
The applicant requested that further review of the appeal be postponed so he could consider the Boards
comments.
APPEAL # 3193 510 W. STATE STREET
Appeal of property owner Ithaca Office Space, LLC for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 9,
Maximum Building Height in Feet, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The
applicant proposes to consolidate the lots at 507 W. Seneca Street and 510 W. State Street and construct
a new 4-5 story mixed-used building on the combined lot. The consolidated property will be a through-lot
that spans the block and connects W. State Street, N. Corn Street, and W. Seneca Street. It will be located in
two zoning districts, with the northern 70 feet of lot depth in the B-2d district and the remainder of the
property in the CBD-50 district. The proposed building will be in both zones, and the building must meet the
zoning requirements for the district in which it is located. The portion of the building in the CBD-50 district will
be 5 stories and 52’ 7” in height, exceeding the maximum building height by 7”. The portion of the building
in the B-2d district will be 4 stories and 44.5’ in height, exceeding the maximum building height by 4.5’. The
applicant is seeking a variance from the Heigh in Feet requirements for an additional 7” in the CBD-50 and an
additional 4.5’ in the B-2d. The purpose of the requested variance is to align the floor plates throughout the
building while meeting the story height requirements of the CBD- 50 zone; to provide taller ceiling heights in
the apartments; and to address changing topography across the site.
In addition, the applicant is seeking a variance from the Rear Yard requirements. The property will have
frontage on three streets, with front yards on W. State Street and N. Corn Street and the rear yard facing W.
Seneca Street. The applicant is proposing to treat this yard as a third front yard, and the proposed building
will be located 10’ from the property line. The B-2d zoning regulations require a 10.5’ rear yard on this
property, and the applicant requests an area variance for the 0.5’ rear yard deficiency.
The property is located in both the CBD-50 and B-2d use district in which the proposed uses are permitted.
Board of Zoning Appeals
8/3/21 Meeting Minutes
8
However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: August 3, 2021.
Members present:
Steven Henderson
Stephanie Egan-Engels
David Barken, Acting Chair
There were no comments in support of or in opposition to this appeal.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
The Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability had no recommendations or comments on
the proposal.
Environmental Review: This variance is a component of an action that also includes subdivision and site
plan review. Considered together, this is a Type 1 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 Determination of Environmental Significance
on July 27, 2021.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long- term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
They determined that the height variances are not impactful to the site as there is a two-foot drop on the
site and it is important to maintain consistent floor levels across the building and ample ceiling heights
for future tenants; as well, the rear yard variance is not impactful as it is a thru site and the character of
the neighborhood is such that houses are close to the street line.
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3193 for 510 W. State Street was made by D. Barken.
Deliberations & Findings:
The proposed project will create 57 affordable units with high ceiling heights. The requested height
variance is not an attempt to add additional units, and the appellant is not attempting to reduce ceiling
heights to uncomfortable heights to meet zoning.
None of the requested variances are significant, and the Board does not identify any potential impacts from
granting the variances.
The Board noted that the floor-to-floor height requirements for the CBD-50 zone are causing construction
difficulties on larger lots in two zones, resulting in either impractical building design or a need for an area
variance. The Board recommended that the City revisit this requirement and evaluate the impacts.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
This area is an evolving neighborhood with several new mixed-use buildings. The proposed building
will be in keeping with this changing character, and the building design and treatment of street
Board of Zoning Appeals
8/3/21 Meeting Minutes
9
frontages will create a positive change.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
This particular site face several challenges including topography and a location split between two
zones. The variance is required due to the different zoning requirements, particular the CBD-50 floor-
to-floor requirement, and the grade change across the block. In addition, the funding for the
affordable housing project requires additional ceiling heights that are difficult to accommodate
with the zoning without negatively impact design and construction.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The Board finds the 7” height variance in the CBD-50 and the 6” rear yard variance to be unsubstantial.
The 4.5’ height variance in the B-2d is more significant but is warranted in this particular case and the
impacts are mitigated by the project as a whole.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
The Planning Board has completed appropriate environmental review and has determined that there
will be no significant impacts on the physical environment. In addition, the appellant has worked
extensively with the Planning Board to ensure less impactful construction practices.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created, as the appellant could build a smaller building or pursue a
different design. However, the Board finds that the benefits of the project to the community and the
appellant outweigh any impacts of the requested variances.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by S. Henderson
Vote: 3-0-0
Steven Henderson YES
Stephanie Egan-Engels YES
David Barken, Acting Chair YES
APPEAL # 3195 1204 N. Tioga Street
Appeal of property owner Erik Herman for an area variance from Section 325-8, Column 11, Front Yard, and
Column 14/15, Rear Yard, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to demolish the
existing front porch and steps and construct a new porch on the single-family home located at 1204 N. Tioga
Street. The current porch is approximately 8’ deep by 14’ wide with steps to grade at the front of the porch.
The existing wood steps cover the original concrete step and extend beyond the property line, resulting in
an existing front yard of 0’. The applicant proposes to construct a new porch that will be the same 8’ depth
but will span the front of the home (approximately 18’). The new porch steps will be located at the side of
the porch and will project into the side yard. The porch itself will be set back 1’ of the 10’ required from the
front property line. While there is an existing front yard deficiency, the project is considered new
Board of Zoning Appeals
8/3/21 Meeting Minutes
10
construction resulting in the creation of a front yard deficiency. The property also has an existing rear yard
deficiency that will not be exacerbated by this proposal.
The property is located in a R-2b 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: August 3, 2021.
Members present:
Steven Henderson
Stephanie Egan-Engels
David Barken, Acting Chair
Mary Paisley, 121 E. York Street, submitted comments in support of the appeal.
There were no comments in opposition to the appeal.
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.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts and supports this
appeal for the following reasons:
1. The project brings the front yard deficiency closer to compliance than existing conditions
2. The Board supports well designed investments in homes that increase their attractiveness and
functionality
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3195 for 1204 N. Tioga Street was made by S. Henderson
Deliberations & Findings:
Board members noted that the variance request has merit in moving the stairs off the sidewalk alone. In
addition, the proposal will improve the porch for the applicants use, enhance aesthetics of the property
and improve safety of the porch stairs.
It is possible that the porch may be repairable, but the proposal makes the porch safer and brings the
property closer to compliance.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
Board of Zoning Appeals
8/3/21 Meeting Minutes
11
There is no evidence to indicate that the granting of the variance will create an undesirable change in the
neighborhood. In fact, the project will produce desirable change by relocating the porch steps so they do
not encroach on the sidewalk. The new porch is aesthetically appealing and compatible with the
neighborhood as well as more functional for the property owners.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance:
Yes No
The property has existing front and rear yard deficiencies. The home is sited so that the main façade is 9’
from the front property line, and any alteration to the front of the home or porch will require a front yard
variances. This proposal does not exacerbate the existing rear yard deficiency.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The variance request is substantial in terms of the deviation from the front yard requirements of the R-2b
zone. However, this is largely due to existing deficiencies, and while still deficient, the current appeal
brings the property closer into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance while also
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
There is no evidence that the proposed project will have an adverse physical or environmental impact.
The porch footprint is largely the same as the existing porch. The stairs are being located to the side of
the new porch, which will have a positive impact.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is choose to enlarge the porch and relocate the
stairs. However, the property is nonconforming in its current configuration, and this existing deficiency
predates the Zoning Ordinance.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by S. Egan-Engels.
Vote: GRANTED 3-0-0
Steven Henderson YES
Stephanie Egan-Engels YES
David Barken, Acting Chair YES
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS- NONE
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – NONE
VI. ADJOURNMENT
David Barken adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m.
Board of Zoning Appeals
8/3/21 Meeting Minutes
12
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________ August 3, 2021
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals
BZA 3185 – 106 Cascadilla Park Road
Megan and Board Members,
The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission (ILPC) was scheduled to review and provide
advisory comments on the construction of a carport at 106 Cascadilla Park Rd at both their July
20th and 28th meetings. Both were cancelled due to a lack of quorum, and the members were
unable to collectively draft comments that could be shared with the applicant and the BZA.
Staff has requested individual comments from the members and hope some will be submitted
before tomorrow evening's meeting.
Absent the collective comments from the ILPC, staff has prepared the following observations
and comments to aid in the BZA's consideration of the proposal:
• Cascadilla Park Rd is a unique residential development that was established during the
early-20th century. Houses along the street were built in a narrow range of
architectural styles, including Craftsman and Colonial Revival, and many of the homes
included accommodations for the latest advancement in personal transportation, the
automobile. Some homes were built with integral or stand-alone garages or off-street
parking areas while others added these features within a few decades of their
completion. Presumably due to the steep slope, neither a garage nor an off-street
parking area was constructed at 106 Cascadilla Park Rd.
• Garages along the street all reflect the architectural vocabulary, including details and
materials, of their respective homes and the streetscape as a whole. Some parking areas
incorporate pergolas structures that are also visually compatible with the architecture of
the street.
• The steep topography of the street necessitates the use of retaining walls. Many of
these walls are constructed of stacked field stone and concrete; both materials were
commonly used in the early-20th century for this use. Some of the homes along the
street, including 108 Cascadilla Park Rd, have large retaining walls in their front yards.
• The location of the proposed carport at 106 Cascadilla Park Rd is uncharacteristic of the
street. It is located in the front yard while most others are located in the side yard. The
carport could be moved to the west, but this would result in the removal of a large
maple tree and would significantly block views of the home when viewing the property
from University Avenue.
• The roof structure of the proposed carport will partially block views of the house, but
the elements that will be blocked from public view appear to be isolated to some porch
skirting and support piers.
• Despite its less-than-ideal location, the proposed carport's high design and visual quality
are reflective of and compatible with the character of the street. The proposed
retaining walls are characteristic of the stone walls found in the front yards of many of
homes along the street. The use of natural stone for the stair treads, wall facing, and
paving speaks to the abundant use of natural stone throughout the neighborhood, and
the wood and copper Craftsman-style elements of the roof structure speak to the
prevalence of this design influence on the street. The roof structure also mirrors the
designs of pergolas found on homes and above other parking areas on the street.
BZA 3185 – 106 Cascadilla Park Road
• Although the proposed carport will significantly change the historic topography of the
property, this change is not without precedent. Most properties with steep slopes in the
front yard have retaining walls or other substantial hardscape elements that prevent
erosion and provide usable landscape areas.
In conclusion, the construction of the carport will not significantly impact the architectural
quality and character of the property or streetscape. The location is not ideal but does reflect
the constraints of the site. The thoughtful and sensitive design incorporates features and
materials found in the neighborhood that will help it blend seamlessly into the streetscape. The
proposed plantings will also help marry the new carport with the established neighborhood.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best,
Bryan
Bryan McCracken
Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Planner
Secretary, Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
Hi Bryan.
I would agree with your assessment. I walked up Cascadilla Park Road this morning to see how
the parking issue was dealt with at the other homes along the street. 136 CPR is the only house
with a carport structure. In that situation the flat roof is covered with rolled roofing, but this is
not visible except from a higher section of the road as it winds upward.
At 106 the surface of the roof will not be visible from the street. I’m not sure how successful
sedum roof top planting will be in this location, but if successful, it will help in softening the
look of the final product. The rest of the proposed structure appears to blend in well with the
general characteristics of the street. The new walkway up to the house will be an improvement,
and one of the great deficiencies of this particular property (no off-street parking) will be dealt
with.
Ed Finegan, Chair
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission
comment for public hearing on appeal regarding area variance for 109 E. York St.
Mary Paisley Fri 5/21/2021 11:50 AM
To: Zoning Division
<zoningdivision@cityofithaca.org>
RE: public comment for hearing on appeal regarding area variance for 109 E. York St., #3192.
I think a depth of 8 feet puts the deck too close to the sidewalk. A Three or 3.5 feet depth
instead would add a good amount of space to the already considerable space of the existing porch,
but allow for a a safer and more comfortable distance from the sidewalk. A smaller deck could still
serve the owner's purpose of making the porch more inviting for the people who live there.
Mary Paisley
121 E. York St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202105...
1 of 1 5/28/2021, 11:57 AM
BZA 3195 – 1204 N. Tioga Street
Comment for public hearing on proposal 3195: This proposal sounds to me like a great idea that
would, as he states, improve safety and beautify the front of the house. People could come out of
the house without stepping directly into the paths of people coming down the sidewalk.
Mary Paisley
121 E York St
Ithaca, NY 14850