Loading...
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.