HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3172 - 430-444 W State Street - Decision Ltr
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3172
Applicant: Arnot Ithaca 2, LLC
Property Location: 430-444 W. State Street
Zoning District: B-2d and CBD-50
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Column 9.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Height in Feet.
Publication Dates: October 28, 2020 and October 30, 2020.
Meeting Held On: November 3, 2020.
Summary: Appeal of property owner Arnot Ithaca 2, LLC for an area variance from Section 325-8,
Column 9, Height in Feet requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to demolish the
existing commercial and residential buildings on the property at 430-444 W. State Street and construct a
new 4-5 story mixed-use building on the same site. The property is a through-lot that spans the block and
connects W. State Street and W. Seneca Street. It is located in two zoning districts, with the northern 70
feet of lot depth in the B-2d district and the remainder of the property in the CBD-50 district. The proposed
building will be in both zones, and the building must meet the zoning requirements for the district in which
it is located. The portion of the building in the CBD-50 district will be 5 stories and 52’ in height, as
allowed in this district. The portion of the building in the B-2d district will be 4 stories and 42’ in height,
and the applicant is seeking a variance from the Heigh in Feet requirements to construct the building to be
42’ instead of the 40’ allowed by zoning. The purpose of the requested variance is to align the floor plates
throughout the building while meeting the story height requirements of the CBD-50 zone.
The property is located in CBD-50 and B-2d use districts in which the proposed uses are permitted.
However, Section 325-32 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: November 3, 2020.
Members present:
Suzanne Charles
Teresa Deschanes, Acting Chair
Stephanie Egan-Engels
Marshall McCormick
Steven Wolf
There were no comments either in support of or in opposition to the requested variance.
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
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
The Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability has reviewed the applicant’s variance
request and has no recommendations or comments on the proposal.
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 October
27, 2020.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts and supports this appeal. The
applicant proposes to preserve and retain two facades of the historic corner building. The variance is needed
to make the floor levels consistent, thus preventing the need for stairs or ramps, which would affect
accessibility. Common Council recently increased the height of the CBD zones by 2’ to allow for a taller
ground floor. As this project is in the CBD-50 (which allows a height of 52 feet) and the B-2d zone, allowing
40’, the request is consistent with this recent change. In addition, the Board supports new housing within the
downtown area.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by S. Charles.
Deliberations & Findings:
Very unique case that the zoning would never have tried to plan
42’ building is largest along Seneca Street but the 2’ variance does not change this significantly and the
benefits of allowing the two feet greatly outweigh the impact of the additional height.
Area will likely change and will not be the largest building forever
Unique that the property and building spans 2 zones
Variance requested on a percentage basis is very small.
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 project will involve the construction of a mixed-use building that is located in both the CBD-50 and
B-2d zones, a unique case, and will meet the requirements of the applicable zone, with the exception of the
requested variance for an additional 2’ of building height on the B-2d portion of the property. The
surrounding neighborhood includes a variety of commercial, residential, and community service buildings
that range in height from one story to four stories as well as quite a bit of surface parking. The requested
variance for an additional 2’ of building height on the four-story portion of the building will not have an
undesirable change on the character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to nearby properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
The applicant could construct a building that meets the maximum building height allowed as of right.
However, this would create a considerable hardship for a building that spans two zones. The two-foot
height difference between floors would require stairs and impact accessibility. The additional height allows
the applicant to align the building floors and creates a more functional building.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The request variance is for an additional 2 feet of building height on the portion of the lot zoned B-2d. This
would allow for the construction of a 42’ building, as opposed to the 40’ allowed as-of-right. The Board
does not consider this a substantial variance.
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.
Furthermore, the Board’s review of the submitted plans, testimony from the applicant, and consideration of
existing conditions have not provided evidence of adverse physical or environmental impacts.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The property owner could chose to construct a building to the maximum height allowed under zoning or
lose 4 units by removing a floor on the Seneca Street side of the building. However, there are no
significant adverse impacts on the neighborhood, adjacent properties, or the environment and the
requested variance improves the overall function of the building.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by S. Egan-Engels.
Vote: 4-0-0
Suzanne Charles YES
Teresa Deschanes, Acting Chair YES
Stephanie Egan-Engels YES
Marshall McCormick YES
Steven Wolf YES
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, Column 9, 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.
___________________________ November 4, 2020
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals