HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3056-301 E. State St.-dec ltr-2-7-2017CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
GINO LEONARDI, SECRETARY, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Telephone: Planning & Development — 607-274-6550 E -Mail: dgrunder@cityofithaca.org
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3056
Applicant: Marc Newman for Trebloc Development Co., Owners
Property Location: 301 East State Street
Zoning District: CBD -120
Publication Dates: January 27, 2017 and January 30, 2017.
Meeting Held On: February 7, 2017.
Summary: Appeal of Marc Newman on behalf of the owner Trebloc Development Co. for an area
variance from Section 325-8, Column 14/15, rear yard requirements of the zoning ordinance. The
applicant proposes to demolish the existing building located at 301 E. State Street and construct new 8
story mixed use building. The proposed building will contain below grade parking for 68 cars, multiple
retail spaces on the first floor, and 193 apartments on the remaining 7 floors.
The 301 E. State Street lot is located on the triangular parcel of land bordered by E. State Street, S.
Aurora Street, and E. Green Street. The rear yard of the building will be located on the E. Green Street
portion of the lot which abuts land owned by NYS Department of Transportation. The DOT parcel is part
of the NYS Route 79 right-of-way and varies in width from 12.8'- 36.8' from the curb to the rear property
line of the 301 E. State Street parcel. The applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the DOT land for
access to the underground parking and landscape the remaining area as an open buffer between the
sidewalk and the new building. In order to provide ample parking for the residents and size the building
accordingly, the applicant proposes to construct the new 8 story building 1'- 7" from the rear property
line. The zoning ordinance requires a 10' rear yard.
The property is located in a CBD -120 use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However,
Section 325-38 requires that a variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Rear Yard
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 14/15.
Public Hearing Held On: February 7, 2017.
No public comments in favor or in opposition.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Teresa Deschanes
Marshall McCormick
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -1 & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
Tompkins County has review the proposal as submitted and has determined that it has no negative
intercommunity, or county wide impacts.
Environmental Review: Type I
The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board determines the proposed project will result in no
significant impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the
Environmental Conservation Law be filed in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board strongly recommends approval of this variance. The project site is highly visible and
the building will have major facades on all streets, including Green. Additionally there is a large swath of
DOT property located between the project site and the sidewalk on the Green Street- which functionally
acts as a rear yard — and which will be landscaped by the applicant
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes.
Deliberations:
Discussion included: DOT easement, transition and landscape of DOT land, distance from curb to
building, underground parking garage and the relationship to property line, use of court yard and access
from Aurora Street, and the building step -back.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes ❑ No ❑
Findings: The applicant gave evidence that without the variance, the building would have to be shifted
toward the other edges of the lot to provide the required rear yard. This would causing narrow
sidewalks on the other street facing sides of the building along E. State Street and S. Aurora Street.
Granting the variance is much more desirable for the neighborhood because the alternative would
reduce the sidewalk width. Allowing the rear yard variance would improve the character of
neighborhood and the nearby properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance:
Yes ❑ No
Findings: Evidence was provided by the applicant that they cannot achieve the desired results without
this variance. The Planning Board requested that the building be stepped -back on the upper portion of
the building to make less of a canyon affect. This required that the applicant gain space in another area
in order to make the project economically viable. This small variance allows them to achieve the results.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes ❑ No
Findings: The variance is not substantial even though it is a large percentage of the required rear yard. It
is mitigated by the DOT easement along the rear yard that provides more space than what is required by
the zoning ordinance. The DOT property is going to be improved and will not be used for any other
purpose than the buffer it provides.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes ❑ No
Findings: It would be an improvement on the physical conditions. The DOT property seems to be
neglected and is rather a steep slope with signs of erosion. The physical environment will be improved
by the proposed landscape.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes ® No ❑
Findings: A building could be designed without requiring a variance, but this factor is outweighed by the
other factors.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Marshall McCormick.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair: Yes
Teresa Deschanes: Yes
Marshall McCormick: Yes
Determination of BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into consideration the five factors, finds that the Benefit to the Applicant outweighs the
Determinant to the Neighborhood or Community. The BZA further finds the variances from Zoning
Ordinance, Section 325-8, Column 14/15 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.
yyv/zx��','
"e February 11, 2017
Se ry, rd of Zoning Appeals
Director ( oning Administration