Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-2022-01-04Approved 5/9/2022 City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – January 4, 2022 Board Members Present: David Barken, Chair Michael Cannon Stephanie Egan-Engels Joseph Kirby1 Staff Present: Victor Kessler, Assistant City Attorney Gino Leonardi, Zoning Administrator Bryan McCracken, Historic Preservation Planner Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Applicants: Jason Demarest, Chris Petrillose (Appeal #3203) Russell Maines, Bear Smith, John Snyder, Jon Tantillo (Appeal #3202) Melanie Dorn (Appeal #3205) John Novarr, Phil Projansky, Herman Sieverding, Arvind Tikku, Katherine Wolf (Catherine Commons) Acting Chair D. Barken called the meeting to order at 6:06 pm and read the opening statement. I. CONTINUED APPEALS APPEAL #3203 325 DRYDEN ROAD & 320 ELMWOOD AVENUE Appeal of Jason K Demarest Architecture on behalf of property owners Red Door Rental and AdBro Development for an area variance from Section 325-45.2E, Collegetown Residential 2 (CR-2) and Collegetown Residential 3 District Standards for Off-Street Parking, Lot Coverage by Buildings, Front Yard, Rear Yard, and Maximum Building Length as well as Section 325-45.2B(11), Required Vegetative Buffer, and Section 325-20F(3)(a), Setback Compliance Method for New or Expanded Parking Areas in Residential Districts, requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures at 325 Dryden Road and 320 Elmwood Avenue and construct two new residential structures. A new two-family dwelling will be constructed at 320 Elmwood Avenue, and a new multiple dwelling with 11 residential units will be constructed at 325 Dryden Road. The applicants presented the appeal at the November 2, 2021 and December 7, 2021 BZA meetings, and Board members expressed concern about the magnitude of several of the requested variances. The Board encouraged the applicants to consider its comments and put forward a project that better meets the zoning. The applicants have revised the original project at 325 Dryden Road in response to the Board’s concerns. The applicants have also decided to maintain two separate lots, rather than consolidate the parcels as originally proposed. While this decision does not impact the appearance of the project, it impacts the requested variances as the project now includes two separate parcels. The proposed uses are permitted primary uses of the CR-2 (320 Elmwood Avenue) and CR-3 (325 Dryden Road) districts, but the proposal will created several area deficiencies. 320 Elmwood Avenue: 1 Joseph Kirby’s appointment to the BZA was pending Common Council approval on 1/5/22. He attended the January 4th meeting to hear appeals that would continue at the February 2022 meeting but participated in a non- voting role. His participation in the meeting was agreed upon by all appellants. Board of Zoning Appeals 1/4/22 Meeting Minutes 2 • Required Vegetative Buffer: A minimum 10’ vegetative buffer from the rear property line is required for all properties within the CR districts. The proposed project does not provide sufficient vegetative buffer in the rear yard. This is an existing deficiency that will not be exacerbated by the proposal. • §325-20D(3)(a), Setback Compliance Method for New or Expanded Parking Areas in Residential Districts: The setback compliance method does not allow parking areas within the minimum required side or rear yards. The proposed site plan shows an expanded parking area that is located within both the required rear and side yard. In addition, no more than 50% of the remaining yard areas be occupied by parking and/or vehicle maneuvering areas, and more than 50% of the rear yard is occupied by the parking area. These are primarily existing deficiencies; however, the expansion of the existing parking area necessitates that these requirements are met. 325 Dryden Road • Off-Street Parking: The proposed multiple dwelling at 325 Dryden Road will require 12 off-street parking spaces and no off-street parking will be provided onsite. Two of the required spaces will be provided at the adjacent property, as allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. This results in a deficiency of 10 off-street parking spaces for the new residential building. • Lot Coverage by Buildings: The new residential structure will occupy 46.1% of the lot, and the CR-3 district regulations limit lot coverage by buildings to 40%. The project meets the minimum green space requirement. • Front Yard: The project site has one front yard along Dryden Road and a second front yard along Elmwood Avenue. Both districts require a minimum front yard of 10’. A corner of the building projects into the front yard along Dryden Road, creating a minimum front yard of 6.1’ in this location. The project meets the front yard requirements along Elmwood Avenue. • Rear Yard: The rear yard of 325 Dryden Road is located between the two proposed buildings. The CR-3 district requires a minimum rear yard of 20’ or 20% of lot depth, whichever is less. The proposed project includes a rear yard of approximately 1’ or 1.7% of the lot depth. • Maximum Building Length: The CR-3 district limits building width to 45’ in length; this regulation applies to the entire building, not individual facades. The full building length along Dryden Road measures 61’, which exceeds that maximum allowed by the Zoning Ordinance by 16’ or 35.6%. • Required Vegetative Buffer: A minimum 10’ vegetative buffer from the rear property line is required for all properties within the CR-3 district. The proposed project does not provide sufficient vegetative buffer in the rear yard. 320 Elmwood Avenue is located in the CR-2 district and 325 Dryden Road is located in the CR-3 district in which the proposed uses are permitted. However, Section 325-38 requires that area variances be granted before a building permit is issued. Jason Demarest presented the revised design which now focuses on two separate parcels. Board members questioned the applicant on lot coverage, the accommodation of on-site parking, unit configuration, and the rationale for pursuing two separate lots. Public Hearing Acting Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing. There were no comments in support of the appeal. The following interested party submitted comments in opposition to the appeal: • Robert Klohmann, 109 Harvard Place • James Orcutt, 324 Dryden Road Board of Zoning Appeals 1/4/22 Meeting Minutes 3 • Martha Frommelt, 308 Elmwood Avenue • Christopher Carey, 310 Elmwood Avenue The public hearing will remain open until the February 1st meeting. Deliberation Board members reviewed each requested variance and indicated that they did not have major concerns about the yard deficiencies or the required vegetative buffer. Board members remain concerned about the variance requests for off-street parking, lot coverage by buildings, and maximum building length. The Board will resume consideration of Appeal #3203, 325 Dryden Road & 320 Elmwood Avenue, at the February 2022 meeting. APPEAL #3215 815 S. AURORA STREET Appeal of Susanne Dennis and South Hill Living Solutions, LLC of the Zoning Administrator’s determination that the construction of three multiple dwellings at 815 S. Aurora Street meets the requirements of §325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard; §325-20F(3)(b), Landscape Compliance Method for New or Enlarged Parking Areas with the Capacity for Three or More Parking Spaces on Lots within Residential Zoning Districts; and §325-29.9, Fall Zone and Setback Requirements for Tier Three Personal Wireless Service Facilities (PWSF). In April 2019, the Zoning Administrator reviewed plans for the construction of a new 66-unit student housing complex on the property located at 815 S. Aurora Street. The property is an irregularly shaped 2.85-acre lot that is also the site of an existing cell tower facility. After a complete review of project plans, the Zoning Administrator determined that the new project met all requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and no variances were required. On September 16, 2019, Susanne Dennis, owner of 117-119 Coddington Road, and Brian Grout2, owner of 809 S. Aurora Street, submitted an application to the Board of Zoning Appeals to appeal the Zoning Administrator’s decision. The appellants claimed that the proposed project did require variances for (1) rear yard; (2) siting of a parking area in the fall zone of a cell tower; and (3) the landscape compliance method for locating a new parking lot in the rear and/or side yards. The Zoning Administrator determined that the appeal could not be heard by the BZA because it was submitted more than 60 days after the decision on the project’s zoning compliance. The appellants filed an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the rejection of their appeal. On September 16, 2019, the Appellate Division, Third Department, ruled that the Zoning Administrator’s rejection of the appeal was improper because the initial no-variance determination had not been formally filed with the City Clerk. The Court has ordered the BZA to hear the appellants’ appeal. On October 22, 2021, the appellants Susanne Dennis and South Hill Living Solutions, LLC timely submitted an application to appeal the Zoning Administrator’s decision that the project at 815 S. Aurora Street is compliant with the following zoning regulations: 1) §325-8, Column 14/15, Rear Yard: The appellants assert that the average lot depth was calculated incorrectly and the project is deficient in the required rear yard. 2) §325-20D(2)(e), Access Requirements: The appellants argue that the driveway grade exceeds the 8% allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. 3) §325-20E(3), Front Yard Parking: The appellants claim that the proposed front yard parking and driveways exceed the 25% permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. 2 Mr. Grout has since sold his property and has been replaced by South Hill Living Solutions LLC. Board of Zoning Appeals 1/4/22 Meeting Minutes 4 4) §325-20F(3)(b), Landscape Compliance Method: The appellants state that the proposed parking area does not meet the landscape compliance method for locating a parking area in the rear and side yards. 5) §325-29.9, Fall Zone and Setback Requirements for Tier Three Personal Wireless Service Facilities (PWSF): The project sites a parking area within the fall zone for the existing cell tower and the appellants assert that a parking area is an area of congregation and, as such, should not be permitted within the fall zone. At the December 7, 2021 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, the Zoning Administrator and the appellants’ presented their analyses of the project, and the Board held a public hearing on the appeal. The Board will continue its deliberation at the January 4, 2022 meeting. The Board of Zoning Appeals must determine whether the Zoning Administrator’s application of the above referenced sections of the Zoning Ordinance to the subject property in April 2019 was correct. Deliberation The Board resumed deliberation of the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s determination. The Board reviewed each of the five decisions that are subject to this appeal and asked clarifications of the Zoning Administrator and the appellants. Board members indicated a need to review the materials again with this meeting’s clarifications in mind. Staff will draft decisions, based on the Board’s feedback, for the Board’s review and action at the February BZA meeting. II. NEW APPEALS APPEAL #3205 222 S. CAYUGA STREET Appeal of Tilson Technology Management and Dish Wireless LLC on behalf of property owner David Hart for an area variance from Section 325-29.8C(1), Design Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities, of the City of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to add a Dish Wireless antenna array to an existing personal wireless service facility (PWSF) located on the rooftop of the property at 222 S. Cayuga Street. The new array will replace existing communication equipment that is scheduled to be removed and is considered a modification of the existing PWSF. The City recently amended Article VA, Telecommunications Facilities and Services, of the Zoning Ordinance, and the amendment requires all PWSF to be located at least 250’ from adjacent residences. The existing PWSF at this property is approximately 170’ from the nearest residential building. This is an existing deficiency that will not be exacerbated by this proposal. 222 S. Cayuga Street is located in the CBD-100 district in which the proposed PWSF is permitted. However, Section 325-29.28 requires that an area variance be granted before a building permit is issued. Melanie Dorn, on behalf of Tilson Technology Management and Dish Wireless LLC, presented the proposed upgrade of the telecommunications equipment at 222 S. Geneva Street. The Board did not have questions for the applicant. Public Hearing Acting Chair D. Barken opened the public hearing. There were no comments in support of or in opposition to the appeal. Staff read the Planning and Development Board’s recommendation on the appeal: Board of Zoning Appeals 1/4/22 Meeting Minutes 5 The Planning & Development Board reviewed this variance request at its meeting on December 22, 2021 and had no comments on the proposal. There being no further comments from interested parties, Acting Chair D. Barken closed the public hearing. Deliberation & Decision The Board acknowledged that this is an existing installation and the modification will not exacerbate that existing deficiency. On a motion by D. Barken, seconded by M. Cannon, the BZA voted 3-0-0 to approve Appeal #3205. Acting Chair D. Barken recused himself from any consideration of the Catherine Commons project and left the meeting. BZA Alternate Marshall McCormick joined the meeting to serve in his place. III. PRELIMINARY PRESENTATIONS – Catherine Commons The project team presented the proposed Catherine Commons project located in the CR-4, CR-4, MU-1, and MU-2 districts in Collegetown. The Board asked questions regarding building height, the financial need for the variances to complete the project as proposed, anticipated transportation impacts, and the relationship between the requested variances and the proposed community amenities. IV. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS a. Planning Board Lead Agency Concurrence i. On a motion by S. Egan-Engels, seconded by M. Cannon, the BZA voted 3-0-0 to approve the resolution to consent to the Planning and Development Board acting as Lead Agency in environmental review for Site Plan Review projects for which the BZA has been identified as an Involved Agency through December 31, 2022, unless the BZA should withdraw that consent for a particular project. b. Joint Training with the Planning and Development Board i. The training is scheduled for February 8, 2022 via Zoom. c. In-Person Meetings i. NYS legislation to enable remote meetings expires January 15, 2022 and it is unknown whether it will be extended. Staff will update the Board as to whether the February meeting will be in-person or held via Zoom. d. February Meeting i. There are eight appeals scheduled for the February meeting that cannot be moved to the March meeting without the appellants’ consent. The Board agreed to hold a second meeting in February to reduce the meeting length. e. Membership i. Potential member Andre Gardiner spoke with the BZA about membership. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – NONE VI. ADJOURNMENT – Acting Chair D. Barken adjourned the meeting at 10:01 pm. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ January 4, 2022 Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals Board of Zoning Appeals 1/4/22 Meeting Minutes 6 SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENTS Appeal #3203 I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposal for 325 Dryden Rd.& 320 Elmwood Ave. The development as presented raises issues for me relative to: --increased population density in our area. --parking & additional vehicle use --quality of life, in general, for the residents of our immediate area. Currently the buildings/houses in question house 10 people at 325 Dryden Rd. & 6 people at the Elmwood Ave location. (These numbers are according to stats presented by development co.). The proposal states there will be 29 new bedrooms. Making the assumption there will be (1) one person per bedroom, a very conservative assumption, that will increase the population of that square footage area by a min. of 100%. Elmwood Ave. development is unspecified as to number of tenants. I'm sure it will exceed 6 . In my opinion the increased population density is not positive for this area. When my property was purchased ( 109 Harvard Pl.) it was purchased with the hope that there would be and continue to be an acceptable balance of student & residential home owner housing. It would seem to me that an apt. complex as proposed may present a "creeping" infringement into that balanced harmony of student / resident housing. Another assumption is that the apt. complex will reduce the number of vehicles in the area due to the proximity of the complex to the university. Based upon current vehicle activity in and around streets described in proposal & with additional numbers of people I do not think that is a valid assumption. Finally, I do not think an Apt. complex as presented lends itself to the character of the homes of our residents. I think the quality of life ,ie: noise ,traffic, trash, will be affected negatively. To be concise I will not attempt to discuss the results of out of control student housing. Thank you fur the opportunity of airing some of my concerns. Robert (Bob) Klohmann 109 Harvard Pl. City of Ithaca Department of Planning, Building, Building, Zoning, & Economic Development Board of Zoning Appeals & The Planning Board Zoning Variances for 325 Dryden Road & 320 Elmwood Road - Appeal No. 3203 Dear Sirs: The variances for the proposed structures on the above properties should be denied for they are too big! 325 Dryden Road is 36% larger than allowable by code, and out of scale with the entire neighborhood. The setbacks between the proposed buildings should also be code compliant (especially if the properties are not consolidated and in the event that one or both are sold to new owners). Why create a code violation forever? Board of Zoning Appeals 1/4/22 Meeting Minutes 7 The fact that grossly inadequate parking for the 33 plus proposed tenants has not been addressed will greatly exacerbate the huge on/off street area parking problem. The City’s “Transportation Demand Management Plan,” though good on paper, in reality is an abomination for those residing in this neighborhood. I would suggest that members of Zoning and Planning Boards (when Cornell is in session) drive down Elmwood Ave, Fairmont Ave, Harvard Place, and Bryant Ave, and experience this driving/ parking debacle first hand (better yet, meet a City bus, a truck or even another car, while you are there). The streets in Bryant Tract are too narrow for the voluminous on street parking with or without RPPS Parking permits. Point - in-fact, if 4 permits were issued for the 130 Elmwood Ave, duplex property, one has to question whether or not there is enough space on the street for those permit holders to actually park. Also, it is not uncommon that lunch guests’ become parking ticket recipients because they parked in front of one’s residence (home ) without a RPPS permit. I believe this doesn’t aide digestion. I wish you a Happy & Healthy New Year, Sincerely, James R. Orcutt, DDS 324 Dryden Road Dear BZA, I am writing regarding Appeal #3203, 325 Dryden and 320 Elmwood. I appreciate that the developers have adjusted their proposals. And I appreciate that the side and rear yard coverage already existed (unfortunately). However, the request for a parking variance and building length is significant and as a result, I ask you deny this appeal. There is a reason why the Collegetown Plan set up the zoning requirements in this way. Parking continues to be an issue in this neighborhood. As a resident of Elmwood for 36 years, I have seen the evolution of the parking issues. Cornell and the City of Ithaca have worked hard to deal with these issues. As I check outside of my home (mind you during Cornell's break), there are only 3 available parking spots, that are only for half a day. When Cornell is in session, there are no available parking spaces. Where will the 10 people put their cars? Parking is not a trivial issue (see below), and I do not see that need for cars has decreased. "Oh, they won't have cars." is often the response. How do you know this? The pressure on parking then spreads to outer neighborhoods. If this significant parking variance is granted, then I trust other developers will have precedent to do the same, creating a snowball effect. Here is some parking history I have observed: - 1980s - It was not possible to park on the street in front of my home, ever. Students and staff used our street as an unofficial parking lot. If your home was lucky enough to have a driveway, you would play musical cars if someone came over. Many homes in this area have shared driveways. - 1998 - City of Ithaca adopted the residential parking permit system. This greatly relieved the street parking problem, combined with great ticketing enforcement. Parking was also changed to morning or afternoon on parts of the street so the residents who needed permits could use the street. This meant the homeowner could park in the street and the visitor could park in the driveway. During the next decade, I only had to have cars towed 3 times (rushing parkers who did not notice they parked across my driveway). However, streets that had these parking restrictions (Elmwood) meant Cornell parkers pushed all the way Board of Zoning Appeals 1/4/22 Meeting Minutes 8 to Belle Sherman Elementary School and then teachers there had a hard time finding parking spots. - 2000 - Cornell's system to encourage bus ridership, better shuttles, etc., helps with parking. - 2020 - Elmwood is still full when school is in session. If you are student without a car, you cannot easily get home when you live in Ithaca, unless you are going to NYC. Therefore, cars still seem to be favored. Martha Frommelt 308 Elmwood Ave. I hear that the Zoning board is again discussing the project at the corner of Dryen and Elmwood. It surely begs the question of why we have zoning if we must grant multiple variances to such projects--projects that very clearly impinge on a residential neighborhood. This project is slated for the corner of my street where parking is at a premium, density is high already, and green space and clearance from the road is more than welcome. In short, if this project goes through, what's to prohibit the next project--and the next and the. next--from completely corrupting a residential neighborhood with a student apartment building? I very strongly oppose this project, as it presents a clear diminishment of our quality of life in a vibrant residential neighborhood. The density of Collegetown is already troubling, and this will only make it worse, not to mention the visual character of an old community. -- Christopher Carey 310 Elmwood Ave.