HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3238 - 445 E State Street - Decision-1
1
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3238
Applicant: McKinley Development Companies on behalf of property owner BVSHF III Ithaca, LLC
Property Location: 445 E. State Street
Zoning District: CBD-60
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Column 9.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Maximum Building Height in Feet.
Publication Dates: October 28, 2022 and November 1, 2022.
Meeting Held On: December 6, 2022.
Summary: Appeal of McKinley Ithaca, LLC on behalf of property owner BVSHF III Ithaca, LLC for an
area variance from Section 325-8, Column 9, Maximum Building Height in Feet requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant proposes to construct a new 7-story residential building on the property located
at 445 E. State Street (previously addressed 401 E. State Street). The project will include multiple levels
of structured parking that will serve the residents of the new buildings as well as surrounding businesses
and uses immediately adjacent to the site. Other components of the project include reconstruction of the
Six Mile Creek trail within the limits of the side, including additional landscaping, seating, and pedestrian
lighting. The proposed building will be 72’ and seven stories in height on the western side. The eastern
portion of the building will meet the height requirements of the CBD-60 zone.
The applicant applied for a maximum building height variance in June 2021 (BZA 3189) to construct the
entire building at 71’ in height. Following concerns raised by BZA members, the application was
withdrawn, and the project was redesigned to meet all requirements of the CBD-60 district. This project
was granted final site plan approval by the Planning and Development Board on August 24, 2021. The
applicant is now seeking the current variance from the maximum building height requirement for a portion
of the building due to design challenges of the site and increased construction costs.
The applicant presented this appeal at the November 1, 2022 BZA meeting. Board members raised several
concerns about the apparent self-created nature of the hardship and financial need as a primary driver of
the request. The Board tabled the appeal to allow the applicant to submit additional information to justify
the request.
Public Hearing Held On: November 1, 2022.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
Megan Wilson, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org
2
Members present:
David Barken, Chair
Michael Cannon
Donna Fleming
Andre Gardiner
Joseph Kirby
The following interested parties submitted comments or spoke in support of the appeal:
• Gary Ferguson, Executive Director, Downtown Ithaca Alliance
No interested parties submitted comments or spoke in opposition to the appeal.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
The Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability has reviewed the review the variance
request and has no comments or recommendations 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 May 25, 2021.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation: The Board finds many positive long-term planning
impacts with this proposal and supports the appeal. The Board further finds this building with the high-
quality materials will, along with ironworks, make a nice “book end” on the other side to the City. The
Planning Board has worked with the applicant over many months, including going through the Design
Review process, to refine the design and minimize the perceived mass and height. This is documented in
the FEAF Part 3 narrative, particularly in the sections pertaining Impacts to Aesthetic Resources and Impact
to Historic Resources. The Board balanced some of the following factors:
• Architectural changes made by the applicant to reduce the mass and scale of the building, including
• Changing the building construction type so that the width of fire lane could be reduced from
26’ to 20’ and adding additional greenspace
• Adding a terraced planting area on the face of the retaining wall at the south end of the site
• Façade modulation on the South Elevation/Creekside
• Reducing the height of the parapet and changing materials colors and application on the North
Elevation/State St Side
• The west wing is proposed as 7-stories whereas the east wing is proposed as 6-stories which
creates an undulating roof line
• The 6-story side of the building is nearest to residential areas and the 7 -story is closer to
downtown
• The topography minimizes the look of the building from the public way.
• The width of the building is dictated by the dimensional requirements of the internal parking decks-
meaning there is little flexibility to make the building narrower.
• The parking program has benefits to the general public as it is preferable to surface parking,
increases the parking supply in the downtown core without City investment and potentially relieves
pressure from the existing City-owned downtown garages.
• The applicant has worked with the Fire Chief to devise a layout that allows for trees and other
landscaping to be planted in front of the building as well as in a 5’ planting strip between the road
and the trail. Although 5’ is not ideal, structural soil will be used to provide adequate soil volumes
3
for successful growth. The road also incorporates areas of stamped concrete for variation and
interest and to create a plaza-like feeling
• The enhanced public access and trail into City property is a great benefit to the community.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation: The Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Commission conducted an advisory review of the revised 445 East State Street Project (previously
addressed as 401 East State Street). The project site is immediately adjacent to the National Register-listed
and locally designated East Hill Historic District and has the potential to impact these historic
resources. This project was previously reviewed by the Commission in January 2021, and the attached
comments were submitted to the Planning Board at that time. The Commission believes these comments
are applicable to the current proposal under consideration, particularly those related to the size, scale, and
mass of the building, and wishes to resubmit them for consideration. With respect to the current proposal,
the Commission was not supportive of the request to increase the height of the western half of the building
from six to seven stories. They noted the following concerns: the approved project is already out of scale
with all of its surrounding properties and the additional height will exacerbate this condition; and the added
height will further compromise important viewsheds of the Six Mile Creek gorge and South Hill from East
State Street and the East Hill Historic District.
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3238 for 445 E. State Street was made by M. Cannon
Deliberations & Findings:
The Board discussed how there is a feasible alternative to this request, as the applicant has a pr eviously
approved project for the site that meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Several Board members
noted that the unique conditions of the site, including the topography of E. State Street, the elevation of the
site, and the required location of the fire escape add physical and economic challenges that justify the
variance request. The Board noted that the height of the proposed building is appropriate within the existing
context.
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 property at 445 E. State Street is located on the edge of the downtown urban core in the CBD-60 district
and near the transition to residential zoning on East Hill. The proposed project will feature new seven-story
residential building with structured parking that will be visible from the public way of E. State Street.
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. The
building will not extend above the roof level of the buildings on E State Street, and the roofline is not
substantially different from the Gateway Center and Gateway Plaza buildings to the west.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
The applicant has all required approvals for a project that meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
However, the applicant is now seeking a variance for additional building height on the west wing of the
project to provide additional housing units as an offset related to difficult constraints on the site. The
applicant has also indicated that it is not possible to expand the footprint of the building due to the location
of the fire access lane and setback requirements.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
4
The applicant is seeking an additional 10’ of building height to construct a 72’ building in the CBD-60
zone. The height variance would allow the construction of one additional story or an additional 16% of
height in feet on the western wing. Due to the sloping grade of E. State Street at this location, the additional
height will have minimal visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood.. The Board finds that this is not
a substantial variance request.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
The proposed construction underwent an extensive environmental review with the Planning and
Development Board acting as lead agency. The Planning Board has also reviewed the proposed variances
and supports their approval. Furthermore, 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 alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant has an approved project for new construction on
this site and is seeking a height variance to provide additional housing units. However, it is not substantial
request and will have minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by J. Kirby
Vote: 4-1-0
Michael Cannon YES
Donna Fleming YES
Andre Gardiner YES
Joseph Kirby YES
David Barken, Chair NO
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, Column 9, 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.
___________________________ December 6, 2022
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals