HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3193 - 510 W State Street - Decision Letter
CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS
Area Variance Findings & Decision
Appeal No.: 3193
Applicant: Ithaca Office Space, LLC, Property Owner
Property Location: 510 W. State Street
Zoning District: CBD-50 & B-2d
Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: §325-8, Columns 9 and 14/15.
Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Building Height in Feet; Rear Yard.
Publication Dates: July 29, 2021 and July 31, 2021.
Meeting Held On: August 3, 2021.
Summary: Appeal of property owner Ithaca Office Space, LLC for an area variance from Section 325-8,
Column 9, Maximum Building Height in Feet, and Column 14/15, Rear Yard, requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. The applicant proposes to consolidate the lots at 507 W. Seneca Street and 510 W. State Street
and construct a new 4-5 story mixed-used building on the combined lot. The consolidated property will be
a through-lot that spans the block and connects W. State Street, N. Corn Street, and W. Seneca Street. It
will be 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’ 7” in height, exceeding the maximum building height by
7”. The portion of the building in the B-2d district will be 4 stories and 44.5’ in height, exceeding the
maximum building height by 4.5’. The applicant is seeking a variance from the Heigh in Feet requirements
for an additional 7” in the CBD-50 and an additional 4.5’ in the B-2d. 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; to provide taller ceiling heights in the apartments; and to address changing topography across the
site.
In addition, the applicant is seeking a variance from the Rear Yard requirements. The property will have
frontage on three streets, with front yards on W. State Street and N. Corn Street and the rear yard facing W.
Seneca Street. The applicant is proposing to treat this yard as a third front yard, and the proposed building
will be located 10’ from the property line. The B-2d zoning regulations require a 10.5’ rear yard on this
property, and the applicant requests an area variance for the 0.5’ rear yard deficiency.
The property is located in both the CBD-50 and B-2d use district in which the proposed uses are permitted.
However, Section 325-38 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued.
Public Hearing Held On: August 3, 2021.
CITY OF ITHACA
108 E. Green Street — 3rd Floor Ithaca, NY 14850-5690
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Division of Zoning
Megan Wilson, Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals
Telephone: 607-274-6550 Fax: 607-274-6558 E-Mail: mwilson@cityofithaca.org
Members present:
Stephen Henderson
Stephanie Egan-Engels
David Barken, Acting Chair
There were no comments in support of or in opposition to this appeal.
Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law:
The Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability had no recommendations or comments on
the proposal.
Environmental Review: This variance is a component of an action that also includes subdivision and 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 July 27, 2021.
Planning & Development Board Recommendation:
The Planning Board does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts and supports this appeal.
They determined that the height variances are not impactful to the site as there is a two-foot drop on the site
and it is important to maintain consistent floor levels across the building and ample ceiling heights for
future tenants; as well, the rear yard variance is not impactful as it is a thru site and the character of the
neighborhood is such that houses are close to the street line.
Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation:
Not applicable
Motion: A motion to grant variance #3193 for 510 W. State Street was made by D. Barken.
Deliberations & Findings:
The proposed project will create 57 affordable units with high ceiling heights. The requested height
variance is not an attempt to add additional units, and the appellant is not attempting to reduce ceiling
heights to uncomfortable heights to meet zoning.
None of the requested variances are significant, and the Board does not identify any potential impacts from
granting the variances.
The Board noted that the floor-to-floor height requirements for the CBD-50 zone are causing construction
difficulties on larger lots in two zones, resulting in either impractical building design or a need for an area
variance. The Board recommended that the City revisit this requirement and evaluate the impacts.
Factors Considered:
1. Whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties: Yes No
This area is an evolving neighborhood with several new mixed-use buildings. The proposed building will
be in keeping with this changing character, and the building design and treatment of street frontages will
create a positive change.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the
variance: Yes No
This particular site face several challenges including topography and a location split between two zones.
The variance is required due to the different zoning requirements, particular the CBD-50 floor-to-floor
requirement, and the grade change across the block. In addition, the funding for the affordable housing
project requires additional ceiling heights that are difficult to accommodate with the zoning without
negatively impact design and construction.
3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No
The Board finds the 7” height variance in the CBD-50 and the 6” rear yard variance to be unsubstantial.
The 4.5’ height variance in the B-2d is more significant but is warranted in this particular case and the
impacts are mitigated by the project as a whole.
4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood: Yes No
The Planning Board has completed appropriate environmental review and has determined that there will be
no significant impacts on the physical environment. In addition, the appellant has worked extensively with
the Planning Board to ensure less impactful construction practices.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No
The alleged difficulty is self-created, as the appellant could build a smaller building or pursue a different
design. However, the Board finds that the benefits of the project to the community and the appellant
outweigh any impacts of the requested variances.
Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by S. Henderson
Vote: 3-0-0
Stephen Henderson YES
Stephanie Egan-Engels YES
David Barken, Acting 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 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.
___________________________ August 3, 2021
Megan Wilson, Senior Planner Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals