The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMN-PDB-2021-11-23 Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 1 Planning and Development Board Minutes November 23, 2021 Board Members Attending: Robert Aaron Lewis, Chair; Garrick Blalock, BPW Liaison; Elisabete Godden (arrived late); Mitch Glass; Emily Petrina; C.J. Randall Board Members Absent: McKenzie Lauren Jones, Vice Chair Board Vacancies: None Staff Attending: Lisa Nicholas, Deputy Director of Planning, Division of Planning and Economic Development Nikki Cerra, Landscape and Environmental Planner, Division of Planning and Economic Development Anya Harris, Administrative Assistant, Division of Planning and Economic Development Applicants Attending: Cayuga Park Jacob Von Metchow, Whitham Planning and Design Yifei Yan, Whitham Planning and Design Paul Levesque, Cayuga Medical Center John Gaetano, Cayuga Medical Center John Turner, Cayuga Medical Center Steven Knapp, Cayuga Medical Center Apartments (13 Units), 325 Dryden Road & 320 Elmwood Avenue Declaration Jason Demarest, architect Greg Mezey, Red Door Rentals and Chris Petrillose, AdBro Development Ithaca Farmers’ Market – Major Site Improvements & New Building, Steamboat Landing – 545 Third Street Kate Chesebrough, Whitham Planning and Design Yifei Yan, Whitham Planning and Design David Stern, Ithaca Farmers’ Market Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 2 Kelly Suave, Ithaca Farmers’ Market Catherine Commons Kathryn Wolf, TWMLA Arvind Tikku, iKon5 Architects Phil Proujansky developer John Novarr, developer Herman Sieverding, developer Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. 1. Agenda Review There were no changes to the agenda. 2. Public Comment Chair Lewis opened Public Comment. Mike Belmont of 1077 Taughannock Boulevard said he’s been working as a consultant to Mrs. Dennis and South Hill Living Solutions. He identified several concerns regarding the plan for an apartment building at 815 S. Aurora Street previously approved by the Planning Board. He said the green space is less than 25 percent, as required by the site plan ordinance. He expressed concerns about students gathering in the parking lot, which is within the fall zone of the cellular tower. He raised some questions about how the required setbacks were calculated, and if they were calculated and if variances should have been required. He also expressed concerns about environmental impacts and the SEQR process. He concluded by requesting the Board suspend the project’s building permits. Deputy Director Nicholas explained that because a group of neighbors has requested an appeal of the decision, the project is returning to the BZA for consideration, the Board has an opportunity to make recommendations regarding the proposed development. She said the Board does not have the authority to revoke the building permit. Russel Maines, attorney representing the neighboring apartments, South Hill Living Solutions, spoke about the proposed development. He said he thinks the setbacks were initially calculated incorrectly, which is why they are asking the BZA to re-examine the case. He said they think variances would be required as a result. Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 3 Cathy Crane of 108 Grandview Place submitted the following written comment which was read into the record: COMMENTS on CONSTRUCTION & ZONING SETBACKS As will be clear from the photos (included below) on October 24th, construction beyond the approved foundation construction was well underway. Already it was clear that the side yard which faces due East was not wide enough to accommodate the construction vehicle and consequently that boundary had been breached and trees felled. The video from November 2 shows that this breach continues. The final incursion documented in photos was the late-night laying of cement on November 17th which had blaring construction lights that fell across my house and that of my neighbors at 104 Grandview Place. I called Yarborough and left a message then walked to the site. I was told that construction (and the light) would continue until 8pm at which point the lights would be turned off. That was the case but is well beyond approved construction hours. The extreme proximity of these high-density buildings to the smaller single family home residents to the North was a concern I expressed in comments made in 2019 before the Planning Board. It is unclear what can be done to rectify the extreme proximity at this stage of construction. I would like to see, at minimum 1) modifications to the design as it pertains to any exterior lights to the buildings that will take that proximity into account (like directing light towards 96B or the interior grounds instead of anywhere out towards the NE quadrant of the 815 parcel and its single-family neighbors, and 2) some financial accommodation for reforestation to the Dennis family that owns the impacted Eastern parcel. Thank you for your service. Cathy Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 4 Oct 24, 2021 Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 5 Oct. 24, 2021 Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 6 Oct. 24, 2021 Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 7 Nov. 17, 2021 Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 8 Nov. 17, 2021 Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 9 Roger and Cathy Dennis (neighbors to the project) submitted the following written comment which was read into the record: There are many reasons this project should not have been approved. These issues still exist even though the project has been allowed however improperly, to commence construction. The many unresolved issues, several which should by code require a variance, include: - parking lot - driveway - snow removal - emergency vehicle access - plantings - gathering area under a cell tower - traffic flow - rear yard setbacks - transition to residential property - water supply As you know the project, by order of the NYS Appellate Division Third Department has been remanded back to the Ithaca BZA scheduled for December 7, 2021. The planning board should have denied both preliminary and final site plan approvals and certainly the building department should not have approved full building permits for Buildings A, B and most recently Building C which encroaches upon adjacent property knowing variances were necessary. I thought the planning board in large part exists for the protection of the neighbors and our property rights with over 500 citizens against this project embodying more problems than stated above and still, the Planning Board passed this project. There was a question on the color. The only way to pass this project was to bypass the BZA, which was done that lead to where we are here now! Again, the Appellate Court agreed that we were illegitimately tome barred from an appeal. The courts determined that this needed to go through the BZA. Yet again, we will delineate the many deficiencies and codes that were bypassed — especially the setbacks. This will lead to a the BZA needing to show why several City Building Codes are not required to be followed for this project. Quite frankly, this board should suspend the building permit now. When our voices are heard at the BZA and it is shown the deficiencies, the building permit should be revoked, and the entire process should begin again as if from scratch. We are only asking for adherence to our own municipal code. Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 10 The appellate court judges ruled in our case that this project’s approval process should have gone through the BZA and therefore the building permit should not have even been issued. To quote an Appellate Court Judge, who reflected on what happens when each board doesn’t stay in its respective lane, “Where do we end up, in La La Land?” And this is exactly where we are now on this project. There is more to these approvals than meets the eye. This developer should never have started construction. It was their choice to start construction and they were warned by their own contractor that they were proceeding at their own risk. To reiterate, this board should suspend the building permit today until the plans are changed in order to meet the City Building codes. Should this be allowed to proceed as-is, then all future development in the City, regardless of who the builder/applicant is, should be given the same rights and approvals. Lauren Baron, attorney with Weaver Mancuso Brightman, a law firm representing the developers of 815 S. Aurora St. reiterated that the Board does not have the authority to revoke the building permits, only to make a recommendation to the BZA, as it reconsiders the case. There being no additional members of the public appearing in order to speak, nor any more written comments submitted to be read into the record, Chair Lewis closed the Public Comment period. Deputy Director Nicholas said she would share the neighbors’ concerns about light, noise, and construction going on outside approved hours for work with the Building Division. 3. Board Response to Public Comment Chair Lewis said the Board would discuss their recommendations to the BZA at the end of the meeting. Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 11 4. Site Plan Review A. Cayuga Park (formerly Carpenter Circle Project), Carpenter Park Road by Andrew Bodewes for Park Grove Realty, LLC. Signage Design Updates. The The Planning Board granted final approval of Phase 1 of this project on September 22, 2020, and granted approval for minor changes to the residential building in Phase 1 and final approval for the two mixed-use buildings and associated site improvements on October 26, 2021. The applicants are now seeking input for building signage design updates for the Cayuga Medical Center building in the Cayuga Park project. The overall project was determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4(B)(1)(d), (i), (k), and (B)(6) and (8)(a) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4(b)(11) for which the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency, issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance on May 26, 2020. Applicants Jacob Von Mechow and Yifei Yan of Whitham Planning and Design; and Paul Levesque, John Gaetano, John Turner, and Steven Knapp of Cayuga Medical Center appeared in front of the Board to present the signage package. Board members said that the proposal is for six signs on the building, of which two are allowed by zoning. Consensus was that they would support a variance for an additional sign or two, but that the applicants should consider how to reduce the number. Godden joined the meeting at approximately 6:31 p.m. Deputy Director Nicholas said that while wayfinding is a purpose of the signage, the City doesn’t usually approve signs high up on buildings, and while the building does face a highway, the long-term goal is to transform Route 13 into an urban boulevard. Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 12 B. Apartments (13 Units). 325 Dryden Road & 320 Elmwood Avenue by Red Door Rentals/ AdBro Development. Potential Determination of Environmental Significance & Recommendation to BZA. The applicant has recently revised the project. The current proposal is to combine two existing parcels, 325 Dryden Road, zoned CR-3, and 320 Elmwood Ave., zoned CR-2, to create a new parcel totaling .23 acres (~10,000 SF). The applicant proposes to demolish (1) two-story residential unit located at 325 Dryden and (1) existing three-story residential duplex at 320 Elmwood Ave., and to construct two buildings: a three-story multiple dwelling with a footprint 2,857 SF containing eleven units on the CR-3 portion of the site, and a duplex with a footprint of 1,003 SF on the CR-2 portion of the site. Combined, the site will have 13 dwelling units with 29 bedrooms. The project will require several area variances, including lot coverage by buildings, the minimum amount for green space per lot basis, rear yard setback, and parking. The proposed design will provide four parking spaces, whereas zoning requires 13 parking spaces. It is also subject to Collegetown Design Guidelines. This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B.(1)(l) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4 b. (9) and is subject to environmental review. Jason Demarest, architect, Greg Mezey of Red Door Rentals, and Chris Petrillose of AdBro Development appeared in front of the Board to present project updates. The Board reviewed Part III of the FEAF. Board members requested a utility plan, a construction plan, and a better developed TDMP plan. Adopted Resolution of Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance On a motion by Godden, seconded by Petrina: WHEREAS: the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has one pending application for site plan approval for construction of a duplex and an apartment building (13 units) located at 325 Dryden Road & 320 Elmwood Avenue by Red Door Rentals/AdBro Development, and WHEREAS: the applicant proposes to combine two existing parcels, 325 Dryden Road, zoned CR-3, and 320 Elmwood Avenue, zoned CR-2, to create a new parcel totaling .23 acres (~10,000 SF). The applicant proposes to demolish (1) two-story residential unit located at 325 Dryden Road and (1) existing three-story residential duplex at 320 Elmwood Avenue, and to construct two buildings: a three-story multiple dwelling with a footprint of 2,857 SF and containing eleven units on the CR-3 portion of the site and a duplex with a footprint 1,003 SF on the CR-2 portion of the site. Combined, the site will have 13 dwelling units with 29 bedrooms. The project will require several area variances, including lot coverage by buildings, the minimum amount for green space per lot basis, rear yard setback, and parking. The proposed design will provide four parking spaces, whereas zoning requires 13 parking spaces. It is also subject to Collegetown Design Guidelines, and Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 13 WHEREAS: this is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B.(1)(l) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4 b. (9) and is subject to environmental review, and WHEREAS: the Tompkins County Department of Health and NYS DEC, Region 7 have been identified as potentially Involved Agency in Environmental Review, and WHEREAS: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board, being the local agency which has primary responsibility for approving and funding or carrying out the action, did on July 27, 2021 declare itself Lead Agency in Environmental Review for the project, and WHEREAS: the Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in Environmental Review, did on November 23, 2021, review and accept as adequate: a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF), Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Planning staff; drawings titled Boundary and Topographic Map No. 325 Dryden Road & 320 Elmwood Avenue, City of Ithaca, Tompkins, New York dated 03/10/2021 and prepared by TG Miller P.C.; Context Map and Context Photos (CS0.00) dated 06/15/21, Demo Plan (AC0.01) dated 09/17/21, Site Plan (AC1.00) dated 10/01/21, Site Details (AC4.00) dated 9/20/21, 325 Dryden Concept Plans (CS1.0A) and 320 Elmwood Concept Plans both dated 09/17/21, Exterior Elevations (A2.00) and Concept Renderings (CS0.01) dated 9/20/21, and Street Context Views all prepared by by Jason K Demarest Architecture, and other application materials, and WHEREAS: interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the proposed project, and any received comments have been considered, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the City Planning Board determined, as elaborated in the FEAF Part 3, that the proposed project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration for purposes of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law be issued in accordance with the provisions of Part 617 of SEQRA. Moved by: Godden Seconded by: Petrina In favor: Petrina, Randall, Blalock, Glass, Godden, Lewis Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Jones Vacancies: None C. Ithaca Farmers’ Market – Major Site Improvements & New Building. Steamboat Landing – 545 Third Street by David Stern for Ithaca Farmers’ Market. Design Review & Review of FEAF Part 3. The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story market building to allow for year-round commerce and programing, to reconfigure and pave the existing parking area and drive lanes, to create outdoor amenity space for dining and gathering, to install shoreline stabilization, and to make other site improvements. The project requires the demolition of most site features, relocation of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail, removal of numerous trees, and installation of enhanced stormwater infrastructure. The project is on City-owned land and requires approvals from Common Council, the Special Joint Committee of the Ithaca Area Water Treatment Plant, NYS DEC, and the Army Corps Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 14 of Engineers. The project site is in the Market District and is subject to Design Review. This is a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176- 4 B.(1)(b), (h)[2] and (i) and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4 b. (10) and (11) and is subject to environmental review. Kate Chesebrough and Yifei Yan of Whitham Planning and Design, and David Stern and Kelly Suave of the Ithaca Farmers’ Market appeared in front of the Board to present project updates. D. Catherine Commons, Intersection of Catherine Street, Cook Street, and College Avenue by Kathryn Wolf, Sponsor. Review of FEAF Part 3 Outline. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing (11) two-story wood frame houses and construct a primarily residential mixed-use development. The applicant proposes three multi-story buildings on the Catherine North Site and three multi-story buildings on the Catherine South Site (six buildings total) with a combined total gross floor area of 265,000 SF. The buildings will contain approximately 360 residential units, a 2,600-SF commercial space along College Avenue, a 1,600-SF private fitness center, and a small parking lot for ADA compliance and service vehicles. The project includes streetscape improvements, several ADA-compliant plaza spaces, pedestrian amenities, and public bus stop infrastructure. The project is in four Zoning Districts: the MU1, in which the maximum building height is five stories/70 feet; MU2, in which the maximum building height is six stories/80 feet; CR3, in which the maximum height is 35 feet; and CR4, in which the maximum height is 45 feet. The project will require several area variances including maximum building floors/height (two), minimum off-street parking, maximum street façade, doors and entries, recessed entry, chamfered corner, and rear yard setback (two). It is also subject to Collegetown Design Guidelines. The project involves 12 tax parcels totaling 1.45 acres, seven of which are located north of the Catherine Street /College Avenue intersection and four of which are to the south. Parcel consolidation will be required. This has been determined to be a Type 1 Action under the City of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review Ordinance §176-4 B(1)(h)[4], (k) & (n), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”) §617.4 (b)(5)[iii] and is subject to environmental review. Kathryn Wolf of TWMLA; Arvind Tikku of iKon5 Architects; and developers Phil Proujansky, John Novarr, and Herman Sieverding appeared in front of the Board to present project updates. Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 15 5. Recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals • #3202 815 S. Aurora, Appeal of Determination of the Zoning Administrator The Planning Board does not have any comments on this appeal. • #3203 325 Dryden Rd & 320 Elmwood Ave, Area Variance The Planning Board does not identify any negative long-term planning impacts and supports this appeal for the following reasons: • Spacing Between Primary Structures The Lead Agency finds that since these buildings are related structures on a consolidated lot the spacing is less of an issue and that the space actually becomes an amenity. The space acts as an activated courtyard and benefits the tenants in both buildings. • Off-Street Parking • The Lead Agency requested the applicant, and the applicant agreed, to further develop a TDM during site plan review. The TDM will include specific mitigations and strategies to rationalize reducing the demand for the 10 parking spaces they are not providing for the tenants. • Maximum Parking Area Coverage The Lead Agency agrees that creating a smaller paved area improves the existing site conditions. • Front Yard Setback The Lead Agency finds this deficiency is mitigated by the stepping façade. • Rear Yard Setback • The Lead Agency finds that full compliance is difficult due to the corner lot – which requires to the rear yard setback to be met from both streets. This is further exacerbated by the lot narrowing from west to use. • Required Vegetative Buffer • The Lead Agency uses the same rationale for the rear yard setback variance that the corner lot makes it difficult to meet this standard from both streets and the narrowing of the lot from west to use. As well, the Lead Agency requested a more detailed planting plan during site plan review. • Maximum Lot Coverage by Buildings • The Lead Agency does not see any negative impact to the general character of the neighborhood planning-wise with the proposed density. Collegetown is the place for student housing and this building answers this need in a compelling design. • Maximum Building Length The Lead Agency agrees with the applicant’s rationale that the stepping façade of 50% step back concept softens the massing impact of the building and with the difficulty of full compliance due to the corner lot requirement to meet this Approved by the Planning and Development Board February 22, 2022 16 standard from both streets. The Lead Agency also uses the same rationale for the maximum lot coverage by buildings above. In summary, the Lead Agency finds that the unique characteristics of the site as well as the mitigations provided by the applicant justify the variances and that the proposed variances have no significant impact on Community Plans. 6. Old/New Business • Catherine Commons Special Meeting – Thursday, January 13, 2022, 6:00-7:00 pm • Planning staff proposed a training from Adam Walters to be held jointly with the BZA. • Staff reminder of requirement to complete Workplace Sexual Harassment Training through the City or submit proof that you have completed such training through your employer by end of year. 7. Reports A. Planning Board Chair No report. B. Board of Public Works Liaison No Report. C. Director of Planning & Development No report. 8. Adjournment: On a motion by Godden, seconded by Petrina, the meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. 11/23/21, 10:53 AM Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQAGlUjQdTE9FLpJeKW1Q%2FR…1/2 Planning and Development Board —November 23, 2021 Michael Belmont <belmontjazz@gmail.com> Tue 11/23/2021 12:39 AM To: Anya Harris <AHarris@cityofithaca.org> Cc: Russ Maines <russ@ithaca.legal>; Sue Dennis <suzykdennis@yahoo.com>; Roger Dennis <roger@flytac.com>; Torrey Dennis <tkj8@cornell.edu>; Bear Smith <bear@js-architects.com>; Alan Knauf <aknauf@nyenvlaw.com>; John Snyder <john@js-architects.com>; Garth Dennis <garth@flytac.com>; Joe Allen <joe@ithaca.legal>; Jon Tantillo <jtantillo@nyenvlaw.com> To: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board Re: 815 S. Aurora Street, Visum development project. 1. The Ithaca city municipal code section 276–7[C](4) clearly states that the site plan must contain no less than 25% (read: more than) interior ground area. The plans as presented contain less than 25% of interior ground area. Further, the City’s municipal code does not give the planning board authority to vary this mandate. This is why a variance would be required if the zoning administrator would have followed the code and required the applicant to apply for a variance. 2. Even though several years ago the city of Ithaca significantly reduced the fall zone for the communications tower. There’s no doubt the ambiguity exists with respect to the definition in the code regarding the congregation area. However, the parking lot for this project is well within the fall zone of the tower. This is a College Community where it’s well-known that college students often gather in parking areas. Students gather before and after sporting events.Students gather for parties and for a variety of other reasons. This communications tower has been around for many years and is far from the most modern piece of engineering utilizing a guyed wire system for stabilization. Taking the stance that a development project supersedes the issues of student and resident safety is simply irresponsible. And further, it is as unreasonable to think that placing a sign in the parking lot stating something like “please don’t gather in this parking lot as it is near a cell tower or within a cell tower fall zone” as it is to post a sign at the gas pump while allowing customers to tap their phones on the payment screen. It’s simply unsafe. God forbid that tower or part of the tower fails and someone is hurt, I wouldn’t want it on my hands nor should the City of Ithaca. 3. If you have not reviewed the submission by John Snyder Architects with respect to the errors in determining the setbacks on this 7-sided property, please make sure to carefully consider this correction from Mr. Leonardi’s calculations. When the correct starting points on the lots lines are utilized to calculate the setbacks using the identical method of calculation performed by Mr. Leonardi there is a resulting 8.56’ difference from Mr. Leonardi’s incorrect initial lot line point calculation. Given the project is located against the setback there is an 8.56’ violation. John Snyder Architects provides this detailed analysis and clearly demonstrates this violation of City Code §325-8(A)(14)(a). This is yet another variance that would be required prior to having granted site plan approval let alone the issuance of a building permit. Issuing building permits for buildings a, B, and C without necessary variances is central to the nature of this process being arbitrary, capricious and unlawfully biased. 4. This project it is being built in a sensitive area on a steep rocky slope. Issuing a negative declaration with respect to SEQRA without careful analysis or an environmental impact study is insufficient and frankly, overlooks many potential negative environmental impacts. Upon review of the record, this board 11/23/21, 10:53 AM Mail - Anya Harris - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADcxOTc0NzI1LTA5YTMtNDI2YS05NDEzLWJkMDgyNTE4NGY5OQAQAGlUjQdTE9FLpJeKW1Q%2FR…2/2 simply dismissed the potential for negative impact out of hand. ItIt does not appear in the record that the environmental conservation laws were considered and followed. An Environmental Impact Study should be performed. If you take time to look at the property, you’ll see a clear and significant lack of storm water runoff mitigation even during the construction process, let alone a design that will ultimately properly mitigate storm water and snow over time. 5. It is very interesting and concerning, especially after some backtracking and editing of documents by Mr. Leonardi whereby he determined that Suzanne Dennis and Brian Grout were time barred from making an appeal to the BZA (a determination that was never filed and caused The NYS Appellate Division Third department to rule that their appeal must be heard by the BZA overturning a prior A78 decision by Judge Keene in Tompkins County Supreme Court) that a full building permit was issued for Building C On October 28, 2021 which was the same day that attorneys Maines and Tantillo presented Mrs Dennis’ and Mr Grout’s case for a stay/injunction before Judge McBride in Tompkins County Supreme Court. The appeal before the court was to stay or suspend the building permits until which time the BZA could hear their appeal on December 7, 2021. If there had been a building permit issued for Building C at the time of this hearing on October 28, 2021, attorneys Maines and Tantillo would have argued for a stay or an injunction for building C. The timing of the issuance of a full building permit for Building C is certainly questionable. It does not bode well for transparency in the process and calls into question integrity of those making decisions in the city of Ithaca building department. Knowing full well that a variance should be required for building C, it’s shocking that a full building permit was issued especially right after the court hearing on October 28, 2021. There are at least five reasons why these building permits should never have been issued in the first place. If the respective roles of this board and the Board of Zoning Appeals we’re honored and followed, all parties concerned would have been spared the time, money and stress caused by the lack of adherence to the City’s codes and the integrity of the process. Respectfully, Michael J. Belmont Sent from my iPhone John Snyder Architects 700 Cascadilla St., Suite 203 Ithaca, NY 14850 P: 607.273.3565 Page 1 of 3 To: Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) From: John Snyder, President and Principal of John Snyder Architects Date: November 22,2021 Re: Gino Leonardi’s Letter To BZA Titled “815 South Aurora Street Project Review John Snyder Architects (JSA) was requested by the applicant for BZA Appeal #3202 to provide a code analysis and review of the publicly available documents of the project located at 815 South Aurora Street. Therefore, JSA was requested to provide a respond to the BZA regarding the items addressed by Mr. Gino Leonardi in his letter to the BZA. 1) Mr. Leonardi states “The Project does not violate City Code §325-29.9 because there is no “congregation area” within the fall zone.” This topic was thoroughly reviewed by the City, the project development team, and JSA also reviewed all the available information. It has been acknowledged by Gino Leonardi that the ordinance lack’s a clear definition of the term “congregate area”. Based on there being opposing interpretations of “congregate area”, both of which have inadequate proof of definition, JSA will choose to abstain from providing an opinion on this matter. We feel that once a definition is established a determination could be made on this matter. 2) Mr. Leonardi states “The Project does not violate City Code §325-20F(3)(b)[2], Landscape Compliance Method. He later continues to say, “In addition, the plans must comply with all- other general standards and specific standards of 325-20 and with the District Regulations chart.” JSA acknowledges that the developer and their project design team choose to follow the Landscape Method outlined in §325-20 F(3)(b). JSA feels that more should have been required for compliance of this method given the objections from neighbors including the applicants. However, JSA recognizes there is little the applicant can do to protest this given the subjective nature of determining compliance on most items of this Method. It should be noted that if it is found that The Project does violate City Code §325- 20(D)(2)(e)[2][a] (Item 3A in Gino’s Letter) or City Code §325-20(E)(3) (Item 3B in Gino’s Letter), then City Code §325-20F(3)(b)[2] would also be in violation because the plan would not “comply with all-other general standards and specific standards of 325-20 and with the District Regulations chart.” 3) Mr. Leonardi states “The Project does not violate City Code §325-8(A)(14)(a) for the rear yard setback for onsite buildings. Mr. Gino Leonardi Incorrectly states that there are five lot lines when in fact there are 7. The Front Lot Line Mr. Gino Leonardi refers to as “A” is three separate lines as indicated in the property survey. The following is a list of the lengths and orientations of each of the lines. John Snyder Architects 700 Cascadilla St., Suite 203 Ithaca, NY 14850 P: 607.273.3565 Page 2 of 3 “A” 116.22’ N 26°05’47 E 100.72’ N 19°15’21” E 398.88’ N 24°47’36” E “B” 163.99’ N 88°13’52” E “C” 227.33’ S 01°52’29” E “D” 105.66’ S 38°08’30” E “E” 551.42’ S 62°17’58” W Both the development design team and Mr. Gino Leonardi incorrectly only used both ends of the segment (398.88’N 24°47’36” E) for calculating the average rear yard. In the analysis this is shown. I then showed using Mr. Gino Leonardi’s method of calculating rear yard setback from the Northernmost point of segment ( 398.88’N 24°47’36” E) and the Southernmost point of segment (116.22’N 26°05’47 E). Using the correct points but the same method of calculation shown by the development design team and dictated by Mr. Gino Leonardi, it results in a 8.56’ difference from the incorrect points they used. With the project being placed right against the setback this results in a 8.56’ violation The JSA provided analysis clearly depicts and calculates this violation of City Code §325-8(A)(14)(a). 4) Mr. Leonardi states “The Project does not violate City Code §325-20(D)(2)(e)[2][a] for maximum driveway grade requirements.” Mr. Gino Leonardi points attention to a driveway profile diagram which does not indicate where this profile is taken from (curb, center of lane, center of driveway, somewhere inbetween…). Mr. Gino Leonardi then quotes “graded to form” as if the word “form” means an average. This is incorrect. The item being formed is the “street entry”; not the average slope. The longer quoted section is “Driveways to areas containing parking spaces for three or more vehicles shall be graded to form a street entry with a maximum grade of 8% for a distance of 25 feet from the curbline.” Mr. Gino Leonardi also indicates that grade is determined using the top of curb. The provided driveway profile does not indicate its relationship to the curbline. Also a maximum grade is not an average. The JSA provided analysis clearly shows the grade adjacent to the curb being 10% within 25’ of the curbline which violates City Code §325-20(D)(2)(e)[2][a]. 5) Mr. Leonardi states “The Project does not violate City Code §325-20(E)(3) for parking in front yards.” He refers to Exhibit F. On that Exhibit the document states that the minimum front yard depth is “22’±”. However in that same document there is a dimension showing the shortest distance between “Building A” and the front property line of 24.3’. The JSA provided analysis clearly shows this 24.3’ Front Yard to be correct and therefore the corresponding values (13,445 SF Total and 3,884 SF of Driveway and Parking Area) would result in a percentage of 28.9%. This would be a violation of City Code §325-20(E)(3). In conclusion, The Project has clearly violated the Zoning Ordinance. City Code §325-20F(3)(b)[2], should be found in violation given the burden of proof shown for violations of City Code §325- John Snyder Architects 700 Cascadilla St., Suite 203 Ithaca, NY 14850 P: 607.273.3565 Page 3 of 3 20(D)(2)(e)[2][a] and City Code §325-20(E)(3). A violation of City Code §325-29.9 is unclear until an adequate definition of “Congregate area” is provided. Sincerely, John Snyder AIA, NCIDQ, LEED AP President and Design Principal Joseph W. Allen joe@ithaca.legal Patricia Hatfield, Paralegal patricia@ithaca.legal Direct: (607) 223-2879 Allen & Maines Attorneys at Law 417 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 MAIN LINE: (607) 200-3707 Fax: (607) 241-9942 Russell E. Maines russ@ithaca.legal Melissa Vidal, Paralegal melissa@ithaca.legal Direct: (607) 223-2697 November 23, 2021 City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: 815 South Aurora Street Application of South Hill Living Solutions, LLC Tompkins County Index No. EF2019-0646 Board of Zoning Appeals, Appeal No. 3202 To the City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals: We represent South Hill Living Solutions, LLC (“the LLC”), the owner of the property at 309 South Aurora Street. The LLC’s members consist of Torrey Dennis and Garth Dennis. A separate appellant and contiguous landowner, Susanne Dennis, joins the LLC in this appeal. The appellants incorporate the comments of Lee “Bear” Smith as contained under cover of his letter dated November 22, 2021, along with his sketch analysis, previously submitted. We also incorporate by reference the objections of Michael Belmont, submitted on November 22, 2021 to the Board’s administrator Anya Harris; and the objections of Roger Dennis. Mr. Smith is fully familiar with these matters and better able to address the technical aspects. I am ill (non-COVID), and I request that the time allotted to me in the public comment portion of the Planning Board’s hearing of November 23, 2021. We thank the Boards for their review of these matters. We reserve all rights, including the right to amend or supplement these submissions. Respectfully, Russell E. Maines cc: City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board