HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3174 - Northside Apartments - Decision Ltr
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3174
Applicant: Ithaca Housing Authority
Property Location: 503 Hancock Street; 508-28 Hancock Street; 625 Hancock Street
Zoning District: R-3b
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 4, 11, 12, 13, and 14/15.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off-Street Parking, Front Yard, 2nd Front Yard, 3rd Front
Yard, and Rear Yard.
Publication Dates: January 28, 2021 and January 30, 2021.
Meeting Held On: February 2, 2021.
Summary: Appeal of Ithaca Housing Authority for area variances from Section 325-8 of the Zoning
Ordinance, as follows:
• 503 Hancock Street: Column 4, Off-Street Parking, Column 11, Front Yard, and Columns 14/15,
Rear Yard requirements;
• 508-528 Hancock Street: Column 4, Off-Street Parking, Column 11, Front Yard, Column 12, 2nd
Front Yard, Column 13, 3rd Front Yard, and Columns 14/15, Rear Yard requirements; and
• 625 Hancock Street: Column 4, Off-Street Parking, Column 11, Front Yard, Column 12, 2nd Front
Yard, and Columns 14/15, Rear Yard requirements.
The applicant proposes to demolish all existing Northside Apartment Buildings (14 buildings total,
containing 70 dwelling units and a community building) on the properties located at 503, 508-528, and 625
Hancock Street. The applicant then proposes to construct a new community building and 17 new apartment
buildings, containing a total of 82 dwelling units. The project will also include the construction of 82
parking spaces in three separate parking areas as well as 2 playgrounds, utility upgrades, and landscaping
improvements. While planned and programmed as a single site, the project encompasses three separate
parcels, each with its own yard regulations, and all three properties have at least two front yards. The
applicant has sited the buildings to be located along street frontages and parking areas within the interior of
the site. The proposed site layout of the buildings creates deficiencies in the required front yards and rear
yards of all three properties.
In addition, the applicant is proposing 20 1-bedroom units; 20 2-bedroom units; 20 3-bedrrom units; and
22 4-bedroom units. These 82 dwelling units require a total of 104 off-street parking spaces to be located
among the three properties. The applicant proposes the construction of 82 parking spaces, creating a
deficiency of 22 spaces.
The properties are located in a R-3b use district in which the proposed use is permitted. However, Section
325-32 requires that area variances be granted before building permits are 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
Public Hearing Held On: February 2, 2021.
Members present:
David Barken
Steven Henderson
Suzanne Charles, Chair
There were no comments in support of or in opposition to the requested variances.
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 on the proposal. The Department offered the following comment:
“The applicant correctly notes that the existing FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs) indicate that the project is located within the 500-year floodplain and as such there
are currently no special construction requirements. While this is true, we would like to
support the City of Ithaca’s Local Flood Hazard Analysis (2020) and encourage the
applicant and the Zoning Board to consider the model’s projected widespread inundation
under certain conditions around Cascadilla Creek, including the parcels for this proposed
project, in the review of the proposal. While use of this information isn’t required, there
may be additional design elements that could be incorporated to reduce future flood risk.”
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
December 15, 2020.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts and strongly supports
this appeal. Many aspects of the design for which variance are needed, improve the aesthetics,
compatibility and livability of the project.
• The incorporation of porches and individual entrances (for which front yard variances are required)
make the multi-family project highly compatible with the surrounding residential character and
provide more amenity for residents.
• Since the project site occupies two entire blocks, complying with rear yard setbacks would not
allow for street-facing buildings on all sides of the block and would result in an inferior urban
layout – with large areas of open space along the street. The Board prefers the proposed layout that
is more typical of residential character, with buildings lining the street and internal private
greenspace for residents.
• The Board finds the applicant’s justification for a parking variance very compelling. IHA’s
Executive Director states that in her 15 years managing this and other IHA projects, the allocation
of one parking space per unit best meets the needs of the residents of the project. Reducing parking
to accommodate actual demand also allows for more greenspace, preservation of trees and outdoor
recreation areas for the tenants.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable. The properties are not located in a locally designated historic district and are not local
landmarks.
Motion: A motion to grant the variance request was made by S. Henderson.
Deliberations & Findings:
Parking
The Ithaca Housing Authority Director’s testimony to the actual parking demand indicated that the
proposed parking would be more than sufficient to cover the needs of residents and their guests. The Board
has never observed parking areas at or over capacity, and the on-street parking does not appear overly
congested. It would be a benefit to the neighborhood to provide more green space and build less
parking/asphalt on the corner sites. The Board believes that the appellant has clearly demonstrated that
parking is over built and that the relocation of the parking is an improvement for the neighborhood.
Setbacks
The applicant cannot keep the existing buildings due to structural issues that cannot be resolved. The
existing buildings do not meet the yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance but because the
applicant is choosing to demolish the structures, any established rights are waived. The Board debated the
significance of the variance requests in relation to the proposed benefit. Members agreed that that the
project is overall a benefit to the neighborhood, the community as a whole, and many individuals/families,
but the requested yard variances are significant in some instances. Overall the Board agreed the project is
appropriate for the neighborhood and encouraged the City to reconsider the yard setback requirements in
the residential districts.
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 Northside Apartments are located on three separate properties: 503 Hancock Street, 508-28 Hancock
Street, and 625 Hancock Street. The proposed project involves the demolition of the Northside Apartments
and construction of 17 new apartment buildings and a community building. The project site currently
contains the existing Northside Apartments with 14 apartment buildings and a community building. The
three properties have existing deficiencies in off-street parking, front yard, 2nd front yard, 3rd front yard, and
rear yard. The new site layout exacerbates most of these existing deficiencies and creates one new yard
deficiency (2nd front yard at 503 Hancock Street).
The new apartment complex will provide 82 of the 104 required parking spaces, resulting in a deficiency
of 22 spaces.
The new apartment complex is designed to locate buildings along the street, relocate parking areas to the
interior of the site, and provide ample green space and play areas for residents. As evidenced by the
submitted plans, site renderings, and applicant testimony, the requested variances will not produce an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to nearby properties.
The Board finds that the proposed project will improve the site by relocating the parking areas and providing
green space and will provide high-quality affordable housing that is compatible with the existing character
of the neighborhood.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
The applicant could construct an apartment complex that meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
This as-of-right design would result in fewer housing units, less greenspace and excess parking and would
not meet the programmatic and financial requirements of the property owner. The Board finds that the
requested variances are preferrable to the as-of-right scenario or the applicant opting to not do the project.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The requested variance would allow the applicant to provide 82 of the required 104 parking spaces or 79%
of the off-street parking required by the Zoning Ordinance. This request is substantial but the applicant has
demonstrated that the proposed parking is sufficient to accommodate the demands of residents, guests, and
staff.
The proposed front and rear yards range in size, and the applicant proposes to provide anywhere between
10%-64% of the required yard. These requested variances are substantial but the proposed site design will
improve existing conditions, provide significant community benefits, and are comparable to current
conditions.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
The proposed construction of the new Northside Apartments (including the requested area variances) are
considered a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance and the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, and the Planning and Development Board, acting as Lead
Agency, has determined the project will not result in any significant adverse impacts. Furthermore, the
Board’s review of the submitted site plans and renderings, testimony from the applicant, and consideration
of existing conditions have not have not provided evidence of adverse physical or environmental impacts.
In fact, the Board finds the increased greenspace that will be provided as part of the proposal to be a major
community benefit for both residents of the housing complex and surrounding area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant could design a project that meets the zoning
requirements. However, this would not meet the applicants’ goals for siting buildings along the streets and
relocating parking to interior spaces. This goal is also supported by the Planning and Development Board,
as evidenced by their recommendation on the requested variances. The Board finds that the requested
variances are the minimum need to meet the goals of the project while avoiding negative impacts on existing
neighborhood character,
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by D. Barken.
Vote: 3-0-0
David Barken YES
Steven Henderson YES
Suzanne Charles, Chair YES
Determination of the BZA Based on the Above Factors:
The BZA, taking into 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, §325-8, Columns 4, 11, 12, 13, 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.
___________________________ February 2, 2021
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals