Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Decision Letter - Appeal 2986 - 210 Hancock St. (INHS)- 08-17-15 CITY OF ITHACA O C 108 E. Green Street—3rd Floor Ithaca NY 14850-5690 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING,BUILDING,ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT V' S ,'' Division of Planning& Economic Development JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT RAT Telephone: Planning&Development—607-274-6550 Community Development/IURA—607-274-6559 Email: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org Email: iura@cityofithaca.org CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings & Decision Applicant: Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INHS) Appeal No.: 2986 Zoning District: B-2a Hearing Held On: July 7, 2015; continued on August 11, 2015 Property Location: 210 Hancock Street Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off-Street Parking Spaces, Off-Street Loading Spaces, Height in Feet Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 4; Section 325-8, Column 5; Section 325- 8, Column 9 Members Present: Steven Beer, Chair Moriah Tebor Teresa Deschanes Steven Wolf Hearing: On July 7, 2015, INHS presented its case for Zoning Appeal 2986 and a Public Hearing was held. Almost 3 hours of testimony was heard, from interested parties in favor and in opposition to the variance requests. Written testimonials were accepted as Exhibits by the Board. A number of petitions and letters for or against the proposed project at 210 Hancock Street were also submitted by non- interested parties. The Public Hearing was then closed. Before continuing the meeting for the deliberation and vote to approve or deny the petition, INHS was asked to provide the Board of Zoning Appeals an engineering analysis showing whether the number of piles needed for the proposed building constructed at 40 feet (the maximum height allowed in the B-2a Zone) and the depth to which the piles must be driven would differ for the proposed building to be constructed at a height of 46'6". INHS subsequently submitted a letter with attached technical data, dated July 24, 2015, from Elwyn & Palmer Consulting Engineers, PLLC, concerning the information requested by the BZA. This letter addressed the issue of how noise and vibrations from the traditional method of driving piles—concerns brought up in testimony at the July7, 2015 hearing— could be mitigated by using a vibratory method of installing piles, as opposed to impact driving. This letter and its attachments were sent to BZA members to review before the scheduled August 11, 2015 special meeting to continue Zoning Appeal 2986. Motion: At the August 11, 2015 special meeting, INHS presented the information requested by the Board at the closing of the July 7, 2015 hearing. The Board then questioned the applicant before deliberating. After deliberations, a motion was made by Teresa Deschanes to grant the variance requests, based on the following findings of fact: Tompkins County Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and-m,General Municipal Law: Tompkins County Planning Department reviewed the project and determined it has no negative inter- community or County-wide impacts. Environmental Review: This is a Type I Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance, §176-4 (h) (2), (k), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, §617.4 (9), and was subject to environmental review. On May 26, 2015, the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determined the proposed project will result in no significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law was filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Planning & Development Board Recommendation: Appeal of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INNS) for Area Variances for a proposed redevelopment of 210 Hancock Street. The applicant is requesting variances from Section 325-8, Columns 4, 5, and 9, Off-Street Parking, Off-Street Loading, and Height in Feet, respectively, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. INHS proposes to redevelop the block where the property 210 Hancock Street and 423 First Street are located. 210 Hancock Street is the address of the former Neighborhood Pride grocery store and includes 423 First Street, a small office building. Under INHS' proposed plan, these two existing buildings will be demolished with the intention of redeveloping the block into a mixed-use and mixed-income housing development. Along First Street, INHS wants to construct a four-story, approximately 65,000 SF, mixed- use building. This building will provide parking and three office spaces on the first floor(one for an Early Head Start facility) and one-and two-bedroom apartments on floors two through four. The Lake Avenue side of the proposed development will be composed of 12 owner-occupied townhouses and their associated off-street parking. The variances requested by the applicant are limited to the mixed-use portion of the project. The mixed-use development requires 84 off-street parking spaces. The applicant proposes providing 64 spaces for the mixed-use building, which will include housing, a daycare center, and offices. An INHS survey shows that persons living in INHS' low-income housing projects frequently do not own cars. Neighborhood residents have also commented on the proposed project and encouraged INHS to provide greenspace as an alternative to some of the required parking. The applicant also needs a variance from the off-street loading requirement, which requires five loading spaces for the mixed-use development. The applicant also believes that, due to the nature of the proposed development,four loading spaces will be sufficient for the project. Finally, the applicant requires a variance for the height of the proposed mixed-use building. Because much of the proposed development is in the 100-year flood zone, the mixed-use building must be constructed so the first floor is one foot above base flood elevation, determined by FEMA. To meet this requirement, the four-story building will require a height of 46'6". While a 4-story building is allowed in the Zoning District,the building height is limited to 40 feet. 2 The proposed mixed-use development is in a B-2a Zoning district where the proposed uses are allowed. However, Section 325-38 requires that variances be granted before a Building Permit is issued. The Planning Board strongly recommends granting the requested variances. The location of the site makes it an interface/transition the between primarily residential neighborhoods to the east and south and the more varied development to the north and west approaching the NYS Rte. 13 corridor. The Lead Agency finds the project sponsor has adequately mitigated these conditions in the following ways: • Establishing residential use on a formerly single-use commercial site. • Locating the larger mixed-use building on the western portion of the site, with the longest fagade fronting First St., while locating the smaller-scale townhomes on the east of the site fronting Cascadilla Creek. • Breaking up the massing of the mixed-use building by changes in facade planes and materials, and by providing pedestrian access through the building at three locations. • Designing the multi family building and townhomes to reflect, in materials and form, existing historic commercial buildings and houses in the surrounding neighborhood. • Conversion of Lake Ave. and Adams St. into a greenway and playground reinforces the transition to the creek and offsets the overall density of the site. Relative density (32.1/acre = 2.01 acre project site only AND 23.6/acre — including conversion of 0.77 acres of City ROW) [Rough Comparison: Cascadilla Green:23/acre, Housing Authority Housing:+/--20/acre.] Concerns have been expressed regarding the height of the mixed-use building and its potential impact on shading. The project sponsor has submitted a drawing titled "210 Hancock St. Redevelopment - Shade Studies,"dated 411115 and prepared by HOLT Architects. The drawing illustrates that shading effects will be minimal, except morning shading during the winter solstice. The project sponsor has stated the intention to provide the number of parking spaces required by zoning for the townhomes and commercial portions of the project, but believes parking demand for the multi- family units will be lower than required zoning. In a letter to Phyllis Radke and the Board of Zoning Appeals from Scott Reynolds, Director for Real Estate for INHS, dated 3119115, Reynolds provides the results of a vehicle survey conducted by INHS in 2014 to measure vehicle ownership rates at the agency's 244 rental housing units. The data collected shows approximately 41% of residents owned cars (12% or less owning two cars). It also showed that residents of smaller units and those closer to the central core were less likely to own vehicles. Based on these trends, the project sponsor anticipates total car ownership for the 53 multi family apartments will be approximately 42% or 22 cars. Accordingly, the approximately 64 proposed parking spaces should suffice to accommodate the project's parking needs. The project site is in a walkable neighborhood with a full sidewalk network, in close proximity to services, employment, schools, parks, shopping, and public transportation. In addition, the project sponsor is making the following improvements intended to facilitate all modes of transportation: • Conversion of Lake Ave. and a portion of Adams St. to a greenway with a bike/pedestrian pathway connecting to Conley Park to the north • Consolidation of curb-cuts • Providing a new covered bus shelter • Providing some covered parking 3 Factors Considered by Board of Zoning Appeals: 1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes ❑ No Fq Reasons: The applicant has provided ample evidence that the proposed project at 210 Hancock Street would produce a desirable change to the neighborhood. The project will replace the current blighting conditions of a large, vacant grocery story and parking lot where unsavory activities have been reported. The proposed mixed-use will offer both home ownership and low-income housing, and day care, which will improve the neighborhood. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes ❑ No Fq Reasons: The applicant has provided an alternate plan to develop this project, which would need none of the variances requested. However,this plan would mean that all the required parking is on a surfaced lot between the proposed buildings, would eliminate the proposed townhouses, and would decrease the amount of greenspace proposed under the plan requiring variances. 3. Whether the requested variances are substantial: Yes❑ No Reasons: The applicant is not asking for an increased height in the number of stories allowed in the B-2a Zone (4 stories). The applicant is asking for a variance for a building that will be 46.5 feet in height; it will be 6.5 feet higher to provide first-floor parking and to meet FEMA requirements because the project is in a flood zone. The height request is approximately 16% more than allowed in the B-2a Zone, so there is no substantial difference in the allowed maximum height of 40 feet and the proposed 46.5 feet. Furthermore, a shadow study submitted by the applicant's architect shows this height difference would not provide less light by shading neighboring buildings. The applicant has submitted evidence that the construction of the 46.5-foot tall building will be no more invasive than constructing the same building 40 feet in height. The off-street loading is internal and the lack of one space will not affect anything that is envisioned with this lot. The Board received information (parking study) from the applicant that in its multiple low-income affordable housing dwellings, tenants are less likely to own cars and drive, providing evidence the amount of parking proposed by the applicant will be sufficient. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood: Yes❑ No Reasons: The BZA has relied on the Planning Board, which conducted a full environmental review of the project, and the BZA believes this evidence is sufficient to conclude the project will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood 4 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created,-, Reasons.- The hardship is self-created. The applicant knew the limitations of the property when it purchased it. However, this fact is not determinative, as it is mitigated and outweighed by the other fact rs. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Steven of Motion to Amend Findings: Made by Steven of Amendment to Finding #4-, Will variances have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? It is our responsibility not to outsource our findings to another agency, in this case the Planning Board. The BZA recognizes the potential environmental and physical impacts caused by the project, expressed in the testimony and written comments received by the Board, and our decision should fully recognize that the Board has heard and read what issues the project might have. However,the Board believes these issues will be offset by the benefits of the project. Motion Accepted: Made by Teresa Deschanes However, she stated she wants the facts that the Planning Board is responsible for the environmental review and that the Planning Board made a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance added to the end of Wolfs amendment. Vote: Teresa Deschanes: Yes Moriah Tebor: Sustain Steve Beer: Yes Marshall McCormick: Yes Determination of BZA Based on Above Factors: Taking into consideration the five factors, the BZA finds 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, Columns 4, 5, and 9, Off-Street Parking, Off-Street Loading, and Height in Feet, 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. VARIANCES GRANTED August 17, 2015 Secr',t ry, Boar of Zoning Appeals, Date Direc or of Zo ng Administration 5