Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA 3209 - Catherine Commons - Decision1 CITY OF ITHACA BOARD of ZONING APPEALS Area Variance Findings & Decision Appeal No.: 3209 Applicant: Trowbridge Wolf Michaels on behalf of property owners Coll-Cath Associates, LLC and Cook Coll LLC Property Location: Catherine North: 120 Catherine Street, 122 Catherine Street, 124 Catherine Street, 128 Catherine Street, 302 College Avenue, 304 College Avenue, and 306 College Avenue Catherine South: 118 Cook Street, 202 College Avenue, 204 College Avenue, 206 College Avenue, and 210 College Avenue Zoning District: CR-3, CR-4, MU-1, MU-2 Applicable Section of City Zoning Code: Section 325-45.2E; Section 325-45.2F; and Section 325-45.2G Requirement for Which Variance is Requested: Off-Street Parking; Building Height in Feet; Building Height in Stories; Rear Yard; Required Vegetative Buffer; Required Corner Chamfer or Setback in the MU- 2 District. Publication Dates: January 26, 2022; January 29, 2022; February 24, 2022; and February 26, 2022. Meeting Held On: February 1, 2022 and March 1, 2022 Summary: Appeal of Trowbridge Wolf Michaels on behalf of property owners Coll-Cath Associates, LLC and Cook Coll LLC, for an area variance from Section 325-45.2E, Collegetown Residential 3 District Standards for Off-Street Parking and Rear Yard; Section 325-45.2F, Collegetown Residential 4 District Standards for Rear Yard; and Section 325-45.2G, Mixed Use District Standards for Building Height in Feet, Building Height in Stories, and Required Corner Chamfer or Setback in the MU-2 District requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to consolidate the parcels at 118 Cook Street, 202 College Avenue, 204 College Avenue, 206 College Avenue, and 210 College Avenue into a single parcel with primary frontage on College Avenue, forming the Catherine South project site. The applicant also proposes to consolidate 120 Catherine Street, 122 Catherine Street, 124 Catherine Street, 128 Catherine Street, 302 College Avenue, 304 College Avenue, and 306 College Avenue into a single parcel with primary frontage on College Avenue, forming the Catherine North project site. All existing structures will be demolished, and the applicant proposes to construct six new buildings along Cook Street, Catherine Street, and College Avenue, including (1) one three-story multiple dwelling in the CR-3 district; (2) two four-story multiple dwellings in the CR-4 district; (3) two seven-story multiple dwellings in the MU-1 district; and (4) one eight-story mixed use building in the MU-2 district. The project will require several variances to be constructed as proposed: CATHERINE SOUTH: Off-Street Parking; Rear Yard; Required Vegetative Buffer; Building Height in Feet and Stories. 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 2 CATHERINE NORTH: Building Height in Feet and Stories; Rear Yard; Required Corner Chamfer or Setback in the MU-2 District The Catherine Commons project site includes 12 parcels (118 Cook Street, 202 College Avenue, 204 College Avenue, 206 College Avenue, 210 College Avenue, 120 Catherine Street, 122 Catherine Street, 124 Catherine Street, 128 Catherine Street, 302 College Avenue, 304 College Avenue, and 306 College Avenue) located in the CR-3, CR-4, MU-1, and MU-2 districts in which the proposed uses are permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that area variances be granted before a building permit is issued. Public Hearing Held On: February 1, 2022-March 1, 2022 Members present: Michael Cannon Steven Henderson Joseph Kirby Marshall McCormick, Acting Chair The following interested parties submitted comments in support of the appeal: - H. Matthys VanCort, 102 Irving Place - 2 petitions from Collegetown property owners (unverified) No comments were received in opposition to the appeal. Tompkins County Review per Section 239 -l & -m of New York State General Municipal Law: Not applicable. 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 February 22, 2022. Planning and Development Board Recommendation: The Planning and Development Board appreciates the activation of the street, the many community spaces, quality building materials, building design and details implemented to mitigate scale, and the green spaces this proposed project affords and therefore supports the appeal. Further, they find the buildings and design consistent with the existing neighborhood character and believe many of the variances are not perceptible at the street level. The project site is walkable and the applicant has shown ample mitigation measures such as a private shuttle, available parking in another development and public transportation for the off- street parking variance. The Board finds no long-term negative impacts to planning. Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission Recommendation: See attached. Motion: A motion to grant variance #3209 for Catherine Commons was made by M. Cannon. Deliberations & Findings: Board members noted that they were struck by how little public comment had been heard on this project, given the size and scale of the proposal. All public comment was in support of the project. The Board noted that many of the requested variances are substantial and larger than requests typically granted by the Board. However, the community benefits provided by the project are also unique and not commonly included in other development. It was noted that many of the requirements that are not met are 3 mitigated by a shifting of the requirement to another portion of the site. For example, the vegetative buffer is not provided in its entirety but the project exceeds the amount of green space required for the site. Similarly, the height variance shifts a significant amount of habitable space into the additional stories but then provides a large amount of public amenity at the street-level story. Significant effort has been made to mitigate any impacts of requested variances, and, as noted by the Planning Board, the variances will not be perceptible from the street-level and will not have a negative impact on the neighborhood character. 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 majority of the project site is located in the CR-4, MU-1, and MU-2 districts, all of which are areas targeted for redevelopment and increased density. As stated in the “Collegetown Area Form Districts,” the purpose of the MU districts is to create a dynamic urban environment in which uses reinforce each other and promote an attractive, walkable neighborhood. Redevelopment is anticipated and encouraged (with the exception of designated local landmarks), and the intent is to concentrate the majority of additional development within these districts. Similarly, the CR-4 districts are identified as areas for redevelopment and serve a critical role in concentrating additional development in the core of Collegetown. While the proposed project represents a significant departure from existing conditions, it is consistent with the goals and objectives of both the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Guidelines” and the Collegetown Area Form Districts. The project, which proposes a substantial number of improvements that will benefit the public such as additional green spaces and streetscape improvements, will have a positive impact on the neighborhood as it helps implement the vision for the future of Collegetown. • A small portion of the project site is located within the CR-3 district, a zone where new development should reflect the existing neighborhood character and scale of development. Building 4 has been designed to reflect the current neighborhood context and is sited similarly to the current structure on the site. While redevelopment is not encouraged in the CR-3 district, Building 4 meets this primary objective for new development in the district. The Board therefore finds that no undesirable change would be produced in the character of the CR-3 portion of the neighborhood. • As evidenced by the testimony of interested parties throughout the public hearing, there is community support for the project and the positive change it will bring to College Avenue. The Board has received no negative public comments on the proposed project, further indicating that there will no negative impacts on the character of neighborhood. The project has been under consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals for months, and there has been ample opportunity for public input. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes No • The requested variances are for new construction, and it is feasible to design a project that meets the requirements of the Collegetown Area Form Districts on the project site. However, the requested variances will enable the project to provide added benefits to the community and residents as contemplated by the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Conceptual Design Guidelines”, including additional green space throughout the project, public open spaces, and streetscape improvements. These improvements, which benefit both the applicant and the community, would not be feasible with a zoning-compliant project. In addition, the applicant has made many efforts to mitigate the impacts of the requested variances. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No (see below for each variance) • Building 4 is located in the CR-3 district, which is the only portion of the project site that requires off-street parking. A total of 13 off-street parking spaces are required. The applicants propose to construct 2 off-street spaces on site and seek a variance for the remaining 11 spaces or 84.6% of the required parking. The requested variance is for a substantial portion of the required off-street 4 parking. However, the project site is located in one of the most walkable neighborhoods in the city. It is also located along several TCAT bus routes, will be served by a shuttle operated by the property owner, and is sited near Ithaca Car Share locations. In addition, the property owner proposes to provide off-site parking, accessible by shuttle or a short walk, for those residents that require it at the nearby Collegetown Terrace property. While the request is substantial in relation to the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, it is anticipated that the off-street parking variance will have minimal impact on the neighborhood. • The CR-3 district regulations require a 10’ vegetative buffer along the rear yard of all properties in the district. The project meets that requirement for a portion of the lot; however, Building 4 will be located 5’ from the rear property line and the vegetative buffer is reduced to 5’ in width for the full length of the building. This deficiency will not apply to the entire rear yard. In addition, the amount of green space provided by the project will exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The green space will be located throughout the project site, including areas that are currently paved. The Board does not consider this to be a substantial variance and finds that the benefits of the current landscaping plan outweigh any potential impacts of the deficient rear yard vegetative buffer. • The Collegetown Area Form Districts regulates building height in both stories and feet; a building cannot exceed either requirement. Buildings 3A and 3B in the MU-1 district are designed to be 7 stories in height, which exceeds the 5 stories allowed by 40%. The buildings will be 78’ in height, which exceeds the 70’ allowed by 11.4%. Similarly, Building 1 in the MU-2 district is designed to be 8 stories in height, which exceeds the 6 stories allowed by 33.3%. The buildings will be 90’ in height, which exceeds the 80’ allowed by 12.5%. These requested variances are substantial. However, the Board notes that additional height enables the project to have a smaller ground floor building footprint and dedicate additional area to public open spaces, streetscape improvements, and wider sidewalks. Without the additional building height, it would be more difficult to provide these amenities to the neighborhood. • The lot consolidation will create a rear yard between the current 118 Cook Street parcel and the neighboring property at 116 Cook Street; this space is currently a side yard. Building 4 will be sited 5’ from the rear yard, creating a rear yard deficiency of 15’ or 75% of the required yard. Similarly, the consolidation of the Catherine North parcels will create a rear yard between the current parcels at 120 &122 Catherine Street and the neighboring property at 118 Catherine Street; this space is currently a side yard. Building 2B will be sited 5’ from the rear yard, creating a rear yard deficiency of 15’ or 75% of the required yard. While these are proportionally substantial requests, the Board notes that the siting of the new buildings reflects the siting of existing structures and are a product of the lot consolidation rather than any additional deviation from the current built environment. • The Collegetown Area Form Districts require all buildings at corner lots within the MU-2 district to either (1) have a chamfered corner of at least 10’ from the ground to the top of the building or (2) be setback at least 5’ from both street frontages for the full building height. The intent of this requirement is to provide additional light and air within the dense Collegetown core and improve visibility at busy intersections. The first story of Building 1 is set back 25’ from College Avenue, but the upper stories have a 0’ setback from both street frontages. The ground floor of Building 1 is set back well beyond what is required by the Zoning Ordinance, achieving the Zoning Ordinance’s objective of improved visibility at the intersection and offsetting the impact of the 0’ setback on the upper stories. The Board therefore finds that the requested variance will not be substantial. 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 an appropriate environmental review and has determined that the granting of the requested variances will not have an adverse impact on the environment. • The project will create additional green spaces within the neighborhood. While the portion of the project site in the CR-3 district is deficient in the required vegetative buffer, additional green space 5 is provided in other areas of the project site, and the overall provided green space will exceed the amount required by the Zoning Ordinance and therefore positively impact environmental conditions. • The proposed project includes new public open spaces and streetscape improvements that will enhance the public realm along College Avenue and will directly implement recommendations of the “2009 Collegetown Urban Plan & Design Guidelines.” The requested height variances make it financially more feasible for the project to include these improvements, which will have a positive impact on the physical environment. • The requested rear yard variances are not anticipated to have any adverse physical or environmental impacts as existing buildings are located in similar locations. The consolidation of the parcels creates rear yards in the CR-3 and CR-4 districts in locations that are currently side yards. While this creates new zoning deficiencies, it does not create new adverse physical or environmental impacts. • The off-street parking variance is not expected to have any adverse physical or environmental impacts. As noted above, off-street parking is required for Building 4 only, and additional parking demand is not anticipated due to the location of the project, transportation alternatives, and off-site parking available to residents. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No • The alleged difficulties are self-created in that the applicant is proposing new construction that does not meet the zoning requirements of the districts in which the project is located. However, the benefits to both the community and the applicant outweigh the fact that the hardships are self- created. Second Motion to Grant Variance: Made by J. Kirby. Vote: 4-0-0 Michael Cannon YES Steven Henderson YES Joseph Kirby YES Marshall McCormick, 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 §325-45.2E, Off-Street Parking, Rear Yard, and Required Vegetative Buffer in the CR-3 district; §325-45.2F, Rear Yard in the CR-4 district; and §325-45.2G, Building Height in Feet and Stories and Required Corner Chamfer or Setback in the MU-2 District 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. ___________________________ March 1, 2022 Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals