HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-BZA-2022-02-01Approved 2/9/2022
City of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals
Minutes – February 1, 2022
Board Members Present: David Barken, Chair
Michael Cannon
Steven Henderson
Joseph Kirby
Staff Present: Anya Harris, Office Assistant
Victor Kessler, Assistant City Attorney
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator
Applicants: Russell Maines, Bear Smith, John Snyder, Jon Tantillo (Appeal #3202)
John Novarr, Phil Projansky, Herman Sieverding, Arvind Tikku,
Katherine Wolf (Appeal #3209)
Chair D. Barken called the meeting to order at 6:04 pm and read the opening statement.
I. CONTINUED APPEALS
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 Grout1, 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 Mr. Grout has since sold his property and has been replaced by South Hill Living Solutions LLC.
Board of Zoning Appeals
2/1/22 Meeting Minutes
2
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.
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
began its deliberation at the January 4, 2022 meeting and will continue at the February 1, 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 & Decision
The Board resumed deliberation of the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s determination. The Board
reviewed each of the five decisions and noted the following:
1) Access Requirements (Driveway Grade): The Zoning Ordinance does not specify that the grade
cannot exceed 8% at any point but rather that the grade of the first 25’ cannot exceed 8%. The
Board agreed that the Zoning Ordinance was applied correctly.
On a motion by M. Cannon, seconded by J. Kirby, the BZA voted 4-0-0 to support the Zoning
Administrator’s determination.
2) Front Yard: The Zoning Administrator calculated the front yard area by multiplying the full width
of the lot by the front yard depth for a total front yard area of 13,548 square feet. This straight
rectangular calculation assumes a consistent 22’ front yard across the entire width of the property.
The Zoning Ordinance allows 25% of this area, or 3,387 square feet, to be occupied by parking,
driveways, or maneuvering areas. The record reflects that the property owner’s architect submitted
plans proposing 3,212 square feet of parking and driveway area, which the Zoning Administrator
calculated to be 23.7% of the front yard. The Board finds this to be an appropriate method of
calculation under the Zoning Ordinance.
On a motion by D. Barken, seconded by S. Henderson, the BZA voted 4-0-0 to support the
Zoning Administrator’s determination.
3) Landscape Compliance Method: The BZA finds that, because the Zoning Ordinance vests sole
discretion for such a decision in the Planning Board. The evidence submitted in connection with
this appeal demonstrates that the Planning Board properly The materials submitted in connection
with this appeal demonstrate that the Planning Board appropriately exercised its discretion to
approve a parking area under the landscape compliance method as contemplated by the Zoning
Ordinance.
Board of Zoning Appeals
2/1/22 Meeting Minutes
3
On a motion by S. Henderson, seconded by D. Barken, the BZA voted 4-0-0 to support the
Zoning Administrator’s determination.
4) Fall Zone and Setback Requirements: As evidence by documentation submitted for this appeal,
there was considerable research and discussion of whether a parking area is a place of assembly
or congregation. The BZA determines that a parking area is not an area of congregation within
the meaning of the Zoning Ordinance.
On a motion by J. Kirby, seconded by M. Cannon, the BZA voted 4-0-0 to support the Zoning
Administrator’s determination.
5) Rear Yard: Both the method employed by the Zoning Administrator and the method employed by
Appellants are reasonable applications of the Zoning Ordinance to an irregularly shaped lot. There
may be other, equally reasonable ways to apply the Zoning Ordinance to such lots. The existence
of multiple reasonable interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance is the result of ambiguity in the
Zoning Ordinance itself, which does not clearly address how lot depths should be calculated on
irregularly shaped lots such as 815 S. Aurora Street. The Board adopts the Zoning Administrator’s
method with respect to this property.
On a motion by D. Barken, seconded by J. Kirby, the BZA voted 3-1-0 to support the Zoning
Administrator’s determination.
II. NEW APPEALS
APPEAL #3209 CATHERINE COMMONS
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
CR-3 (Building 4)
1. Off-Street Parking: Building 4 will contain 13 studio, 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom dwelling units within
the CR-3 zoning district, and 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.
Board of Zoning Appeals
2/1/22 Meeting Minutes
4
2. Rear Yard: 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.
3. Required Vegetative Buffer: 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.
MU-1 (Buildings 3A and 3B)
4. Building Height: The Collegetown Area Form Districts regulates building height in both stories
and feet; a building cannot exceed either requirement. Buildings 3A and 3B 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%.
CATHERINE NORTH
CR-4 (Buildings 2A and 2B)
5. Rear Yard: The lot consolidation 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.
MU-2 (Building 1)
6. Building Height: The Collegetown Area Form Districts regulates building height in both stories
and feet; a building cannot exceed either requirement. Building 1 is designed to be 8 stories in
height, which exceeds the 6stories allowed by 33.3%. The buildings will be 90’ in height, which
exceeds the 80’ allowed by 12.5%.
7. Siting Exceptions – Corner Lots in MU-2: 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 setback 25’ from College Avenue but the upper stories have a 0’ setback from both
street frontages.
The Catherine Commons team gave an initial presentation of this project to the Board of Zoning Appeals
at its January 4, 2022 meeting, and the Board began its consideration of the appeal at the February 1, 2022
meeting.
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.
Chair D. Barken recused himself from consideration of the Catherine Commons appeal and left the meeting.
BZA Alternate Marshall McCormick joined the meeting to serve in his place.
The project team presented their variance requests and their analysis of positive and negative impacts of
those requests. The Board asked about comments on the project from the Ithaca Landmarks Preservation
Board of Zoning Appeals
2/1/22 Meeting Minutes
5
Commission, parking utilization at Collegetown Terrace, and yard designations on the consolidated project
site.
Public Hearing
Acting Chair M. McCormick opened the public hearing.
The following interested parties submitted comments in support of the appeal:
• Thys VanCort, 102 Irving Place
• Petition from Various Collegetown Property Owners
There were no comments in opposition to the appeal.
The public hearing will remain open until the March 1st meeting.
Deliberation & Decision
The Board noted that it is an attractive, well-designed project and the streetscape improvements will really
enhance the area. For the size and magnitude of the requests, there are minimal negative impacts while
there are many community benefits.
III. PRELIMINARY PRESENTATIONS – NONE
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
a. Upcoming BZA meetings: February 8, 2022 and March 1, 2022
b. Joint Training with the Planning Board is scheduled for February 15, 2022
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – NONE
VI. ADJOURNMENT – Acting Chair M. McCormick adjourned the meeting at 7:17 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________ February 1, 2022
Megan Wilson, Zoning Administrator Date
Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals
This is written in enthusiastic support of Novarr and Proujansky’s
Catherine Commons project in Collegetown.
For those of you who don’t know me, I was the Director of
Planning and Development for the City of Ithaca from 1973 until
my retirement in 2008, and, in that role, I was deeply involved in
the redevelopment of Collegetown, beginning in the early 1980s.
From its inception one of the goals of the redevelopment effort was
to replace the dangerous, poorly converted older buildings in
Collegetown with modern fire-resistant apartments. The Catherine
Commons proposal is the logical continuation of the City’s efforts
begun in 1982.
An additional reason for approval is Novarr and Proujansky’s
deserved reputation for exceptionally well designed, high quality
projects.
When we see the today’s rate of growth, it may be hard to imagine
that in 1980, it was very hard to get anything built anywhere in the
City and especially in Collegetown. At that time, here had been no
construction of new apartments in Collegetown by the private
sector in over 50 years.
The first major new construction on Dryden Road was, in fact, a
public private partnership that included Federal money in the
financing package. Without this governmental participation the
project could not have been built.
In its effort to prime the pump, the City did not make adequate
provisions for public open space, or, for that matter, for open space
of any kind. As a result, development happened, but public
amenities fell by the wayside.
With its generous public open space and improvements to the
Thys VanCort
102 Irving PlaceSubmitted Public Comments
Appeal #3209
streetscape, the Catherine Commons makes a significant
contribution to correcting that deficiency. The requested variances
are necessary to make these contributions to the public good
economically feasible.
Among the many other reasons to approve this project are the
following:
Most Cornell students would like to live near the University.
Catherine Commons is within easy walking distance. Given the
location of the University, higher density development is entirely
appropriate in Collegetown.
There are really only two forms that growth can take. These are up
(higher density) or out (sprawl). When students cannot find
housing near Cornell, they are forced to look further and further
from the University.
A group of students can pay more for housing than the typical
Ithaca family; therefor, density in Collegetown helps take
economic pressure off the City’s traditional family neighborhoods.
Finally, density is not a four letter word. In fact, in the right place
like Catherine Commons, density is good for the City, for students,
and for the larger community.