HomeMy WebLinkAbout20221094 112 Fifth Garage updated application Trevor Flynn
From: Patrick Cogan <patrick.cogan@saratoga-springs.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2023 2:18 PM
To: Trevor Flynn
Cc: Aneisha Samuels
Subject: Re: 112 5th Ave - Front Yard Set back
Attachments: 114_FIFTH_2005 Variance.pdf, 102_FIFTH_Final_Survey.pdf
Trevor,
Based on a final survey from 2010 (attached), the front setback of 102 Fifth Ave was 23.2'. 114 Fifth
Ave had an approved variance for a front setback of 23.8' during reconstruction, but the actual front
setback ended up at 23.2'. They had to get revised variances to account for the as built conditions in
September of 2005.
Based on the information provided, and my own research, 112 Fifth Ave does qualify for a modified
front setback per Section 3.3.13 of the UDO. The revised minimum front setback dimension applicable
to 112 Fifth Ave would be 23.2'.
Thank you,
Patrick Cogan
Zoning and Building Inspector
City of Saratoga Springs
(518) 587-3550 x2491
From: "Trevor Flynn" <tflynn@flynndesignstudio.com>
To: "Patrick Cogan" <patrick.cogan@saratoga-springs.org>
Cc: "Aneisha Samuels" <aneisha.samuels@saratoga-springs.org>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 9.51.50 AM
Subject: 112 5th Ave - Front Yard Set back
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if
it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links.
Patrick,
Following up to see what the next steps are to determine the allowable front yard setback for 112 51"Ave. We are
looking to see if the Town has additional site information on 102 51"Ave which was recently built in the past 3-5 years?
To Aid in the Average setback determination.
We are referencing.
Article 3.3 Residential districts dimensional standards
• 3.3-13.1 Front setback reduction Urban Residential District
If neither of the lawfully existing principal buildings on the immediately adjacent lots located to either
side of the subject lot, and fronting on the same blockface as the subject lot, meet the required
1
minimum front setback of the district,then the required minimum front setback may be reduced to the
average of the two front setbacks.
Thank you,
Trevor Flynn, RA
Flynn Design Studio
Net Zero&Passive House Certified Designer
Tel: 518-964-2060 Ext 1
www.FlynnDesignStudio.com
Confidentiality/Privilege Notice:This e-mail communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and
confidential information from the City of Saratoga Springs and are intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or
entity to which it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution, or taking any other action with respect to the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return e-mail.Thank you for your
cooperation.
2
ti
..F:�.• a
to
Y 5
7 to
. t}�.��•1i5` ._.�" �,M'f .off,
tw
LLI
LLI
•
*.f
P
1
/ , � •�
le
zo
+ r 4
g
>—
Q o
� N
t C-Lo
I. 0 o
n
oz
� s
o
tw
o
a lo
,0 1
�I
w
Q I F !}I Q
a
�,nM�uo� o �• m �e
I
m
e�W
it iilz
Iz
— — — — — — — — --°o w= 0 0
2
� N
LL II%
LL LU
OE
s= Z O
0
J :D
LL cn
a a
> t
s C�
No
LA o s
Y Z
N
— ogg
—
d oo
- -
a oo =mww
r o z z 3 w o o 0
,^.v;° f°t 9.
o� o
3 tl
5 o a
7�io o
o Q)
H
�I O
CL
LU
> I I
o w� LL
a
.,nM�uo� o �• — a
I II� v
� x III
m
a
3 � II IIl o
i IIIz
II;I
_ _ ___ !I Z
2 II N
LL L U
LL
OE
s= Z O
0
J :D
O
LL c
to
Qz
No
Ln o 0
Y Z
N
r-I N
. o
- raE
o
LL
4
7
W
= Zy -
` LL can
r
> w
Q o
ham= N
bA ao 0
N 0a
� N *
°Ln M o
rn
I� O N N p
+
a N �
7�
0 aA aA aA aA
O co co Co Co ,� rn Ul -�
a a
cri , O O L f
O U U N U N M M M M
p� O O O +
a Z Z Z Z
o
O t8
7� v
a
LL Qa m
Cn V 4
O O N
Z c-I �l I� N
L11 00 O M �
N 0 0 CYl 00 � � � N 00 M N
N r-I N M N M w
X O o
W � � x 0)
0 LL
CL W N O O
O O O O N N O 00 0 0 � o
p M M r-I r-I M N Lf L n N
J N M
Q
U •�
Y�
Lu .� .
W � :,x
�
s o ) 5 L/
m W W
Q ZO Q Q
N w d OC OC o p
vu Q > >
Z 0 0
Z = oC U U N
Ln (n o
w 0 Y LL Z_ Z_ D
z N Q Z
Q da Z OC v~ ~ LQJJ O— O
co
O Co Co CA JW> Q = N QW
M cUv�Ci aO�
x+a��
v
UAj W > DD
WW <
Z � 0 OCoo� Z
Z Z Z WW W W X X X X zQ Q Q Q0 O
M
r-I Vf N 2 2 21 LL = cn cn cn —j 2 2 2 2 d cri � Z O
0
J :D
LL c~n
Q w g
J LU
0
Fr
Q Zto
W
N
Q Z
N O
LOOZ L / a0~O
0 .
❑ r-I
s M„00,9z.gos
El NNII NIVHO
00'OOl Lx x—x x—x x—x x—x x—
6Z
s
�> p
Q� a
�o � V
> O
N
�J o
uj
ffi _ z
w� a
p W N F--
0 5 z O LL
>Z� O J
LL>Q O (n
O0 O O
NIVM ONOO ¢ fJ LL N
o Z w Z O O
Q zW z u
0
Q 0 W Lu
Ol
� Q
O
Q
V
Q
O O
O O
m
Teti 6E
Q 0 t�
W
S Z
Z°
J �
oo'oo El --- ----- 3<< LL N
El El El El El El El El El El EI]DqJj OPJDM El El El
Q w g
J lL
O �
} w
Q zto
w
N
Q Z
N O
O
Mz D30
Ln 0 .
N
WU � u
�
W
U Y
Z Z
Z
} Q
M„00,9Z.SOS
30N33 NNII NIVHO
H ®`
w�
F3
W
�¢ Z
U
Ul
a
— N
.i/[s-s Ol
LL
HIM11,11411, W
0
CL
' O
W
3 V 03
w zzo
a
_ c
3 Q 3 a Z LL
LN
Z o d
Q
O 0 c c
1iIVM 'ON00 � N d N O _
1�L—zi FFr-� Z LJ Z O O
2' Z JAW o
W
6 z W LU
m�Z Q Q
AIM
07 O
m"
0s °
m
m
w
w s
� m
¢w
� o �
¢ .A
� v,
z
O LI
N � N
z
`z°_
RLL :D
,00.001 3" N
30N33 DOOM
W } "
Z
Q e�-0 N
Qz
N o
g0
L A 0 O
Y/ v) Z
t
0
R
_Q r o
O �
o
}+ V
W
� N
W o
N
Ol
r O
® XMA
W
Z
V
LU
Z
Z°
0
J :D
LL c~n
- -r7Qz�
�x
t_
C �
L, 0o
o =
Y
x i
li
\ H u
Ou
N
_ /�! o
M`
A/ N
W �
--
-lam
qFL
O
0 }e O
i
- !�
r
Z
to
w
Z °
- J �
ti
..F:�.• a
to
Y 5
7 to
. t}�.��•1i5` ._.�" �,M'f .off,
tw
LLI
LLI
•
*.f
P
1
/ , � •�
le
zo
+ r 4
��• ; Of � 33
j
Vf V k j I
ly _
1 6 +
AI `1��i it go h
�';• yll
r
r _ '
FLYNN [DESIGN
STUDIO
March 9th, 2023
Zoning Administrator
Saratoga Springs NY
112 5t"Ave: Zoning Board of Appeals Application
To Whom it May Concern,
Our client is requesting the proposed updates to the area variances for the residence located on 112 5`h
Ave Saratoga Springs, NY 12866. We recently presented during the February 6t", 2023 and tabled our
submission on February 27t", Zoning Board of Appeals meetings. After that meeting it was discovered
that the client's current vehicles do not fit in the depth of the garage. We were also waiting a
determination from the from the Town indicating the allowable front yard setback of 23.2ft. It is our
understanding that a front yard setback variance is not required. However with increasing the depth of
the garage the Maximum building coverages were updated. We are proposing to update our application
as follows:
Zoning Term Allowed Previously Proposed Proposed
Min. Front Yard Setback 30 29.1 (No Change) 23.5
Max. Building Coverage (%) 28 29.6% 30.9%
Max. Building Coverage (SF) 2,800sf 2,960sf 3,094sf
Side Yard Setback 12 4.5 4.5 (No Change)
Total Side Yard Setback 30 29.7 29.7 (No Change)
Please see the narratives below responding to the application inquires for those sought variances: (Updates to the
Narratives are indicated in Blue)
1.Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other feasible means.Identify what
alternatives to the variance have been explored(alternative designs,attempts to purchase land,etc.)and why
they are not feasible.
No,all possible locations for a proposed garage addition require an area variance as the existing structure is non-
conforming.We sought the most unobtrusive location and are asking for the least amount of variance.
Other potential locations were explored; was locating the garage on the West side of the house, however a side
yard and total side yard setback variances would be required that would be more substantial.As well a total
reconfiguration of the floor plan and relocation of the driveway would be required,causing the client more
expenses.
Based on the current depth of vehicles today we believe the additional relief requested is warranted to build a
usable/functional garage with storage and walkable areas around the vehicles.Typical garages are+/-23ft deep
we are asking for that minimum interior depth.The existing depth of the garage was 18'-0"after proper clearances
from the garage door.
1IPage
FLYNN [DESIGN
STUDIO
2.Whether granting the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties.Granting the variance will not create a detriment to nearby properties or an
undesirable change in the neighborhood character for the following reasons:
No,the granting of the variance will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties.We feel that the proposed addition reacts in a positive way to the current
aesthetic of the existing residence and nearby properties by using existing architectural elements and materials
currently used.The proposed addition will not negatively impact views from adjacent properties.We aimed to
position the addition to be screened by existing vegetation. The updated proposal does not change the previously
proposed exterior and massing.Again our hope is to update an existing structure and not tear down and build
new.
3.Whether the variance is substantial.The requested variance is not substantial for the following reasons:
The requested variance is not substantial.The proposed addition wishes to minimize impact on the existing site
and character of the surrounding area by only requesting enough square footage for use of a two-car garage.The
additional building coverage is minimal asking for 1.6%relief and would not require a variance if the lot was
conforming. Similarly the total interior side setback is minimal due to the size of the existing non-conforming lot
and only asking for.3 ft relief We believe we are asking for the minimal depth required for a garage based off a
typical/average vehicle depth of a full size truck.
4.Whether the variance will have adverse physical or environmental effects on neighborhood or district.The
requested variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district for
the following reasons:
No,the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in
the neighborhood or district. Due to this minimal change to the building footprint we believe there will not be any
adverse physical or environmental impact on the site or adjacent sites.The client aims to replant new native
vegetation enhancing the existing landscaping.
5.Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created(although this does not necessarily preclude the granting of an
area variance).Explain whether the alleged difficulty was or was not self-created:
The alleged difficulty was self-created.The owner recently purchased residence and is looking to retire on the
premises.The house is one story,and they are looking to the future of how they may be able to age in place. For
this to occur,they are looking into means to make the entire residence accessible while upgrading the structure to
modernize and create a code compliant and occupiable interior and exterior spaces and covered parking for their
vehicles.The existing structure does not currently have any covered exterior spaces,to experience the outdoors.
We believe the proposed renovations and additions are in an effort to mitigate the existing non-conforming
structure while upgrading the exterior aesthetic.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Trevor Flynn RA
Flynn Design Studio
2 1 P a g e