HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA Decision Letter - Appeal 2986 - 210 Hancock St. (INHS)- 08-17-15
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Planning & Economic Development
JOANN CORNISH, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
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‐l 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
(INHS) 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 façade
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 façade 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 4/1/15 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 3/19/15, 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
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
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