HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3155-101 Pier Rd.-Decision Ltr
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3155
Applicant: City Harbor, LLC, Owner
Property Location: 101 Pier Road
Zoning District: ND-Newman District
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-8, Column 8 and 9.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: 12 Foot Step-Back at Floors 2 or 3.
Publication Dates: May 27, 2020 and May 29, 2020.
Meeting Held On: June 2, 2020.
Summary: Appeal of City Harbor, LLC for an Area Variance from Section 325-8, Column 8 and 9,
Maximum Building Height for the Newman District, requirements of the zoning ordinance. The applicant
proposes construct two five story buildings at the property located at 101 Pier Road. The proposed buildings
will contain 96 residential units and ground level restaurant, retail, and commercial space. The buildings
will be positioned along the waterfront and exceed the Newman District waterfront setbacks. The Newman
District requires all new construction to meet an additional 12 foot step-back at the second or third floors.
The purpose of the step-back was to accommodate a reduced visual crowding along the shoreline. The
applicant proposes to construct the buildings without the step-back and mitigate the visual crowding by
providing a larger distance between the top of the bank and the building façade. Currently, Common
Council is considering an amendment to the zoning ordinance to eliminate the step-back requirement for
the Newman District in the near future, but the applicant would like to proceed with the variance to meet
their construction deadlines.
The property is located in an ND-Newman use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However,
Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: June 2, 2020.
There were no comments in support of or in opposition to the requested variances.
Members present:
Steven Beer, Chair
Suzanne Charles
Teresa Deschanes
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: The
Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability has reviewed the area variance request and has
determined that it has no negative inter-community or county-wide impacts.
CITY 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 to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: gleonardi@cityofithaca.org
Environmental Review: This variance is a component of an action that also includes 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
26, 2020.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
The Applicant has demonstrated, as described and documented in the FEAF Part 3, that the proposed project
provides a generous and open public space along the water’s edge by pulling the buildings back much
farther than is required by zoning. In particular, the Applicant presented a visual study (attached) showing
that pulling the buildings back results in a greater positive impact than a stepback and an overall more
attractive building. The Board appreciates the thoughtful, specific and contextual design of the buildings.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by Teresa Deschanes
Deliberations & Findings:
The applicants met the burden of evidence that they needed to show. In particular, they showed what they
would have needed to do to accommodate the step back. The impact would not just be financial but rather
it would impact unit types and create housing that would not in the public interest. A 12’ step back is
difficult on housing unit design.
The intent of step back is to avoid a high street wall along the walkway and allow light. The proposal
addresses the intent and spirit of the requirement.
The request has the support of the Planning Board, and the Common Council is considering changing in
the zoning that would allow the applicants to construct the proposed building as of right. The requested
variances are an appropriate way of satisfying developer concerns while meeting the intent of the underlying
zoning.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
There is no evidence of any undesirable change. In fact, evidence suggests that the character of the
neighborhood will be improved by the way the applicant is dealing with the building outline.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
There is evidence that the step back would require the applicant to reconfigure how to stack mechanicals
for the residential apartments and would produce undesirable units that would not follow best practices of
residential design.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The evidence demonstrates that the request is not substantial. The applicant conducted detailed studies
show little difference in shadows between the building designed to meet existing zoning and the building
proposed with the requested variances. This is due to the applicants’ provision of an increased setback,
yielding similar result as though the zoning was followed.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
All evidence suggests that the applicants are improving environmental conditions. Reconfiguring this
building allows them to incorporate green mechanicals, which take up more space but provide greater
neighborhood benefits.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The difficulty is self-created since the applicants could design a building that meets the zoning
requirements. However, this is outweighed by the benefits in this case, as described in 1-4 above.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by Suzanne Charles.
Vote:
Steven Beer, Chair Yes
Suzanne Charles Yes
Teresa Deschanes Yes
Determination of the BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into consideration 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, Section 325-8, Columns 8 and 9, are 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.
___________________________ June 5, 2020
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Acting Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals