HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3162 - 120 E. Green Street - Decision Ltr1
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3162
Applicant: Vecino Group
Property Location: 120 E. Green Street
Zoning District: CBD-140
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 9 and 14/15.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Height in Feet and Rear Yard.
Publication Dates: September 30, 2020 and October 1, 2020.
Meeting Held On: October 6, 2020.
Summary: Appeal of the Vecino Group, in partnership with property owner the Ithaca Urban Renewal
Agency, for area variances from Section 325-8, Column 9, Height in Feet, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard,
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to demolish the western third of the Green
Street Parking Garage and construct a new mixed-use building on the same site at 120 E. Green Street. The
first three floors of the building will house a 49,000 SF conference center while floors 4-12 will provide
218 affordable housing units. The project will build upon the existing center section of the Green Street
Parking Garage to provide a total of 350 spaces of structured parking. The existing parcel will be
subdivided, and the Vecino Group will take ownership of an approximately 55,000 SF parcel that includes
the existing western and center sections of the parking garage; the proposed building will be constructed
on this site. The City of Ithaca will retain ownership of the remainder of the site, including most of the land
used for the City Hall Parking Lot and the alleyway between the existing parking garage and adjacent
buildings on the Commons.
The first three floors and a portion of the fourth floor will be constructed on the rear property line of the
subdivided parcel, providing 0’ of the required 10’ rear yard. The applicant is requesting a variance from
the rear yard requirement in order to accommodate the rooms sizes needed to support the conference center
and to allow for the provision of a community room on the fourth floor. The remainder of the fourth floor
and floors 5-12 will be set back 10’ from the rear property line and will meet the requirement of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The applicant also proposes to exceed the maximum 140’ building height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.
The southwest corner of the building will be 150’ in height to allow for taller floor-to-ceiling heights in the
proposed Sky Terrace on the 12th floor.
The property is located in a CBD-140 use district in which the proposed uses are permitted. However,
Section 325-32 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
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
2
Public Hearing Held On: October 6, 2020.
Members present:
Suzanne Charles
Teresa Deschanes, Acting Chair
Stephanie Egan-Engels
Steven Wolf
Joe Wetmore, 115 E. State Street, submitted a two-part written comment in opposition to the requested
variance.*
Jonathan Jedd & Robert Masse, 141-143 E. State Street, submitted a written comment in opposition to the
variance.*
* Neither comment was directly related to the requested variance; however, the Board classified them as
comments in opposition because (1) they were not in support of the variance and (2) it proved the
applicant with the opportunity to respond during Rebuttal.
Rebuttal
The applicant responded that he has responded directly to Mr. Wetmore. He has met with both Mr.
Wetmore and the owners of the Yellow Deli in the past. The only portion of the building that will encroach
into the easement are footers that will be 4’-5’ below ground; there will be no above-ground encroachments
into the easement. The project team has an agreement drafted for use of the easement area and are currently
working with City staff on some of the issues in the agreement. They will be meeting with adjacent property
owners in the near future.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
The Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability reviewed the proposal and had no
recommendations or comments on the requested variance.
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
September 22, 2020.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
The Board has considered all the information provided by the applicant and balanced the following priorities
• The need for housing, particularly affordable housing.
• A community conference center of a particular size to be located in the downtown core.
• The need for adequate space, light and air between buildings for the comfort of building residents, as well
as downtown workers and visitors.
• The need for a vibrant, safe and interesting pedestrian zone
The following information is in the FEAF Part 3 and explains the Board’s reasoning and process for supporting
the massing and design of the building, including the required variances:
The design of the Asteri Project was recently changed to address Lead Agency feedback regarding the limited
space between the Asteri Project and a recently constructed building located to the north (“Harold’s Square”).
Harold’s Square received a rear yard variance and was built close to its southern property line. Likewise, the
Asteri Project requested relief from the 10' rear yard setback in order to accommodate the space requirements for
the community conference center and maximize the number of affordable housing units. Complete relief from
3
the rear yard setback would allow the Asteri Project to be built 12’ from Harold’s Square for the full height.
However, although the first 3 floors (containing the community conference center) were designed to be
approximately 14’ from Harold’s Square, the residential tower is U-shaped, providing light and air between the
buildings. The original design had a slight step back such that there was 19’ between Harold’s Square and the
closest walls of the New Building. Nevertheless, the Lead Agency asked the Applicant to explore a design that
would provide more space between the two buildings
Based on input during the public hearing and Lead Agency discussion, the Applicant presented a revised design
at a July 16, 2020 Special Meeting. The new design retains the encroachment in the rear yard for floors 1-4 but
steps back floors 5-12 an additional 10 feet to be well within compliance with the rear yard setback. The
Applicant stated that the step back was implemented on the fifth floor, rather the fourth floor (the first floor of
the residential tower) due to structural requirements pertaining to the size of the conference center ballroom.
The revised design is shown in drawings and visualizations contained in the presentation that was shown at a 7-
16-20 special meeting of the Planning Board and in application materials dated 7-23-20. The Lead Agency has
reviewed these section and plan view drawings that demonstrate the approximate 14' gap between floors 1-4 and
the approximate 24' gap between levels 5-12 of the New Building and Harold's Square. The Lead Agency also
reviewed drawings and visualization showing how the Applicant proposes to create more interest on the north
façade of levels 2-3 (facing Harold’s Square) and a more welcoming and dynamic pedestrian zone between the
two buildings. The pedestrian zone improvements include inset niches between building columns,
installation/relocation of public art, lighting and varied building materials. These design changes allow for
increased light and air between the buildings and enhance the pedestrian experience between these two buildings.
At the July 16 special meeting, the Lead Agency also considered a presentation by representatives of the
community conference center working group as well as the Ithaca Conference Center Market and Feasibility
Study prepared by Hunden Associates and dated April 2017, updated in 2019 (“Feasibility Study”) to estimate
the number, type and attendance of events. This information allowed the Lead Agency to understand the
relationship between the size of the ballroom required for a feasible facility and the size and footprint of the New
Building.
The Lead Agency has determined that the Asteri Project as a whole has many positive aesthetic benefits. Both the
Asteri Project and Adjacent Project will transform the north side of Green Street from primarily a service area
(parking garage) behind the Commons to an active and vibrant area that will complement development on the south
side of Green Street. While there are scenic resources noted in the EAF approximately 2 miles from the Site, the
New Building is not expected to be out of scale or character with surrounding structures in the City. The New
Building will include the Asteri logo, which has been designed to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the New Building.
The Lead Agency has determined that the above listed priorities have been balanced and any potentially minor
negative impacts to aesthetic resources have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable by redesigning the
New Building and activating the pedestrian zone. Accordingly, no significant adverse impact to aesthetic resources
is anticipated.
Deliberations & Findings:
Stepback has a significant impact on light and air at the ground level.
Members stated that the requested height variance is not substantial. The additional height will be limited
to one corner of the building and will serve a specific purpose. As such, there are no significant impacts to
the community from the additional height.
Members agreed that the rear yard request is a more significant request. The request is for 100% of the rear
yard, and the width of the alley will be reduced from 22’ to 12’. However, the Board noted that the primary
access to the Commons will be through Home Dairy Alley and not east-west travel through the alley
between the buildings. The existing parking garage already encroaches into the rear yard, and the lower
stories will be located at the same setback. The upper stories will be stepped back, and the step back has a
significant impact on light and air. It was noted that the nearby Harold’s Square building received an
identical rear yard variance. Both buildings will be allowed to have window openings due to the
4
maintenance of a public way between the structures. Board members felt this reduced the impacts of the
rear yard variance.
There was considerable discussion among Board members about the provision of the conference center,
particularly one of the size that is proposed as part of the project. One member believes that the convention
center is not in the public interest and the approval of the rear yard variance will allow for a larger facility
that will have greater impacts. The applicant and City staff noted that this issue has been discussed at length
by the Common Council and the Planning and Development Board, and the decision to support the
conference center has already been made by elected officials. As such, the Chair noted that the provision
of the conference center must be considered a community benefit. The project will also provide a significant
amount of affordable housing to the community.
The Board noted that it was telling that there were no comments in opposition to the requested variances.
The submitted comments were related to concerns over the use of the easement, and the Board noted that
the easement is a separate issue from the zoning variances and is outside of their consideration.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by S. Egan-Engels
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 footprint of the current garage is similar to the proposed footprint of the new building, and the rear
yard will be similar to the existing as well. The stepback of the residential tower improves the experience
both at ground level and within the upper stories of adjacent buildings, allowing more light and air between
the structures.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
There is strong evidence that conference center benefit cannot be provided without the 10’ rear yard setback.
This is the minimum variance that will allow them to achieve that. The applicant has not sought the benefit
for the apartments. The rear yard variance is necessary to provide a benefit required by the City for the
redevelopment of the parcel.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
With regard to the height variance, the additional height will be for a small portion of the building (less
than 5% of the building footprint) and is not substantial request.
The request height variance is substantial in that it is for 100% of the rear yard. However, the north wall
of the existing parking garage is located at the same setback and the new building will not reduce the width
of the alley any further from existing conditions. The request is for floors 1-4 only; the uppers stories will
meet the required rear yard requirement.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
The Planning and Development Board, acting as lead agency, has conducted appropriate environmental
review and has determined the requested variance will have no negative impacts on the environment.
The project meets the City’s goals for denser, mixed-use development in the downtown area and
improvements to public parking in the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
5
The applicant could construct a structure that meets the zoning requirements. However, the applicant is
providing a conference center at the request of the City and, as such, the alleged difficulty is not completely
self-created.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by S. Charles
Vote: 3-1-0
Suzanne Charles YES
Teresa Deschanes YES
Stephanie Egan-Engels YES
Steven Wolf NO
The BZA, taking into the five factors for an area variance, finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs
the deterimant to the neighborhood or community. The BZA further finds that the variances from the
Zoning Ordinance, §325-8, Columns 9 and 14/15, 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.
___________________________ October 7, 2020
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals