Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2012-06-18 ® TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday, June 18, 2012 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca 7 :00 P. M. ApReal of Ithaca Farmers' Market, applicant, Cornell University, owner, requesting an interpretation of Chapter 270, Section 270- 135R " Principal Uses Authorized by Special Permit Only" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to operate a Farmers' Market located at 380 Pine Tree Rd, Tax Parcel No. 62 .- 1-5, Community Commercial . ARReal of the Town of Ithaca, owner, Creig Hebdon, agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 225, Section 225-3A(8) "New Buildings Required to Have Sprinkler Systems", Chapter 270, Section 270-60E "Accessory Building in Front Yard" and Section 270- 205A " Nonconforming Structures" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a pole barn addition, annex addition, and mechanic's shed without a Town required sprinkler system, to construct an addition to an accessory building located within the front yard, and to enlarge an existing nonconforming building located at 106 Seven Mile Dr, Tax Parcel No . 33.-2- 6. 1, Low Density. Residential . ARpsal of Cayuga Medical Center, Paul Levesque, agent, requesting variances from the ® requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221-6B(2)(b)( 1) " Regulated Signs", Section 221-7A( 1 ) and Section 221-7C(4) " Business and Industrial District Signs" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to erect several Tobacco Free Campus signs located on the Cayuga Medical Center Campus, 101, 201, and 401 Harris B Dates Dr, Tax Parcel Nos. 24.-3-2 . 1, 24.-3-2 .412 and 24.- 3-2 . 221, Low Density Residential . ARReal of Conifer Realty, LLC, applicant, Cornell University, owner, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 104 "Minimum Area for Multiple Residence Zone", Section 270- 105 " Height Limitations", Section 270- 106A( 1) "Yard Regulations", and Section 270- 111B "Additional Special Requirements" of the Town of Ithaca Code for the proposed Conifer Senior Living on West Hill development located to the south of West Hill Drive near the Overlook Apartments, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 2445 . 2, Medium Density Residential and Multiple Residence Zones. The proposal involves developing approximately 5 acres of the property for a new 3-story, 72 unit senior housing facility (21, 000 +/- square foot footprint) on a new road off of West Hill Drive. Variances are needed for front yard setback, building height, and density. Assistance will be provided for individuals with special needs, upon request. Requests should be made not less than 48 hours prior to the public hearings. Bruce W. Bates Director of Code Enforcement 607-273- 1783 Dated : June 6, 2012 Published : June 8, 2012 ® TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SIGN - IN SHEET DATE * June IS 2012 (PL EASEP"NT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRmrADDRESS / AFFILIATION 1 on uZz ccs L)( T hc-�kTEC-rj &/ora FILE DATE ® Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Monday, June 18, 2012 7 : 00 p. m . Board Members Present : Kirk Sigel , Chairman ; Ron Krantz, Bill King, Rob Rosen, Dave Mountin , Andrew Dixon, alternate ; Yvonne Fogarty, alternate . Excused : Ron Krantz. Staff Present: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Towns Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Tasman, Assistant Director of Planning ; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk. Others: Monika Roth, Paul Levesque, John Turner, Lou LoVecchio, Andrew Petruzzelli, Creig Hebdon, John Caruso, and Steve Kettelle . Call to Order Called to order at 7 : 08 p . m . Appeal of Ithaca Farmers' Market, applicant, Cornell University, owner, requesting an interpretation of Chapter 270, Section 270- 13511 " Principal Uses Authorized by Special Permit Only" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to operate a ® Farmers' Market located at 380 Pine Tree Rd, Tax Parcel No. 62.= 1-5, Community Commercial. Steve Kettelle and Monika Roth appeared before the board . Chairperson Sigel asked if there was anything they would like to add or expand upon . Mr. Kettelle gave a brief overview of the project. He said that the proposal is an expansion of the market and they chose the location because they felt that it is an underserved location for customers of the Ithaca Farmers Market, Mr. Kettelle went on to say that they are always looking for outlets to put their customers with their vendors. Ms . Roth added that they've been working with Tom LiVigne of Cornell throughout the whole process . They have a tentative Revocable License agreement with Cornell that will allow them to operate there . Chairperson Sigel solicited questions from the board . Mr. Rosen asked if the market would be similar to the DeWitt Park market. Mr. Kettelle responded that it will have similarities with the DeWitt Park. Vendors will use the same popup tents . He assumed that there would be around 20 vendors and the DeWitt Park market usually has vendor numbers in the upper 20s. Ms . Roth went on to say that they are proposing to set up in the grassy area that was once the fitness center. She thought the site could accommodate approximately 26 vendors with the proposed layout. The layout could be changed if they need to accommodate more vendors . Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 ® Final Chairperson Sigel asked if the market would remain in the grass area if they needed to accommodate more than 26 vendors . Ms . Roth said that their preference was to remain in the grassy area, which would leave the parking lot open for customer parking . Chairperson Sigel noted that the board may become concerned in the future if the market becomes too large. Mr. Kettelle explained that their goal was to have a successful market. He felt that a successful market could mean 15 vendors if those vendors find it to their benefit to attend every week and if the customers enjoy coming to the market every week. He did not want to define the success of the market by the number of vendors. Chairperson Sigel stated that the Code allows uses to occupy up to 25, 000 square feet. He noted that the grassy area was substantially smaller than that—approximately 10, 000- 12, 000 square feet. Ms . Fogarty commented that it is a really nice site. She was concerned about bathroom facilities for customers. Ms . Roth responded that they could have a port-a-john available for the public . Rite Aid has offered the use of its bathrooms for vendors and there are public bathrooms available at P&C across the street. Ms. Roth noted that it would mean that the port- a-john would remain on site for the duration of the market season, which would be an additional cost. She sensed that the market would draw customers on their way home from work; she did not anticipate that customers would be hanging around the market. ® Chairperson Sigel did not think it would be a net gain to have the port-a-john available on site . PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 16 p . m . and invited the public to address the board . There being no one, he closed the public hearing at 7 : 16 p . m . SEQR Attorney Brock suggested that the board conduct SEQR review for the application . Chairperson Sigel clarified that the board was not granting special permits the board was making a finding . Attorney Brock agreed . Mr. Kattelle asked if approval was granted for a definite period of time . Chairperson Sigel explained that the board would be making a finding that the proposed use is an allowed use in the zone. Mr. Bates added that it would be up to the Planning Board to determine time and length . Chairperson Sigel thought that the finding would still remain if the market wished to continue next year. Mr. Bates asked Ms. Brock if the use was permitted anywhere in the zone once a finding was made . Attorney Brock responded that the analysis may change depending upon the location . She felt that the board would have to look at it on a case by case basis to see if the use was allowable anywhere in the zone. Attorney Brock added that there is also a site plan and modification of the approval would require a new site plan . Page 2 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 ® Final Attorney Brock reviewed corrections to the Environmental Assessment Form ; the board agreed with the changes . The changes were noted on the original SEQR form located in the file for the appeal . Chairperson Sigel appointed Ms . Fogarty to vote on the appeal . Chairperson Sigel moved to make a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in Part I and the reasons stated in Part II of the environmental assessment form . Mr. Mountin seconded . Motion carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2012-027: Environmental Assessment Intervretat/o& Corne// Un/versi , 380 Pine Tree Rd, Tax Parcel No. 62, =1 =5 MOTION made by Kirk Sig% Seconded by Dave Mount/n. RESOL VED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based upon the information in Part I and the reasons stated in Part 11 of the Environmental Assessment form. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: ® A YESSigel, Mountin, King, Rosen and Fogarty. NA YS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Cornell University to be permitted to operate a Farmers' Market located at 380 Pine Tree Rd, Tax Parcel No . 62 . 4 -5, Community Commercial, finding that the proposed use is similar to allowed uses in the Community Commercial zone . Seconded by Ms . Fogarty. Carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2012-028: InW,=taHo& Cornell Univers/tv, 380 Pine Tree Rd. Tax Parcel Na 62. m.1 =5 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Yvonne Fogarty. RESOL VED, that this board hereby finds that the proposed East Hill Farmers Market use is substantially similar to a Greenhouse which may include outside displays (Section 270-134 (8) (7)), Retail food store/grocery (Section 270-126 (A) (1)), Retail sales of candy, ice cream, gigs, flowers and similar small items (Section 270-126 (A) (2)), Arts and crags gallery/studio (Section 270-126 (A) (4)), and Plant nursery which may include outside displays (Section 270-126 (A) (10)), which are all listed as uses permitted as of right in the Community Commercial Zone, and that the proposed farmers market does not have greater adverse effects upon traffic, noise, air quality, parking, or any other attribute reasonably relevant than the aforesaid uses permitted as of right. The proposed farmers market will not involve any construction or permanent ® structures, the use is proposed to be once a week and seasonal, nothing will remain on the site Page 3 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 ® Final after the market hours except for possible signage, the site has suffclent parking, and the market expects to draw from existing traffic and residents already in the area. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES. Sigel, Mount/n, King, Rosen and Fogarty. NA YS.• None. Motion was carried unanimously. Appeal of the Town of Ithaca, owner, Creig Hebdon, agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 225, Section 225-3A(8) " New Buildings Required to Have Sprinkler Systems", Chapter 270, Section 270=6OE "Accessory Building in Front Yard" and Section 270= 2O5A " Nonconforming Structures" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a pole barn addition, annex addition, and mechanic's shed without a Town required sprinkler system, to construct an addition to an accessory building located within the front yard, and to enlarge an existing nonconforming building located at 106 Seven Mile Dr, Tax Parcel No. 33 .= 2-6. 1, Low Density Residential . Creig Hebdon appeared before the board on behalf of the Town . He walked the board through ® the proposed site plan provided to them in their packets . Chairperson Sigel asked if the larger additions met the side yard setback requirements . Mr. Hebdon responded that they did . Chairperson Sigel noted that the pole barn was located 15 feet from the property line . He thought that the setback requirement in the low density zone was larger. Mr. Bates explained that the setbacks for accessory buildings are less; accessory buildings can be up to 3 feet to the property line . Chairperson Sigel solicited questions from the board . There were none . Chairperson Sigel asked if there was a private residence located on the parcel in the middle of the Town's property. Mr. Hebdon said that it was. Chairperson Sigel asked if the residents of the property had ever expressed frustration with having the town facilities surrounding their property . Mr. Hebdon was not aware of any complaints . Chairperson Sigel confirmed that all three buildings would require a sprinkler variance . Chairperson Sigel felt that the criterion in the sprinkler and area variance criteria forms was reasonable . Attorney Brock agreed that the sprinkler variance criteria form addressed the issues, but did not think the area variance criteria addressed the issues of what the area variances are for. Page 4 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 ® Final Mr. Hebdon explained that the accessory building is located in the front yard because it was originally located on a separate parcel . The town purchased the parcel and consolidated it with the large parcel , which caused the building to be located in the front yard . PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 40 p . m . and invited the public to address the board . There being no one, he closed the public hearing at 7 : 40 p . m . Chairperson Sigel appointed Mr. Dixon to vote on the appeal . He explained that Town Code requires that alternate board members alternate voting when both are present. SEQR Attorney Brock reviewed a correction to the Environmental Assessment Form , the board agreed with the change . The change was noted on the original SEQR form located in the file for the appeal . Chairperson Sigel moved to make a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in Part I and the reasons stated in Part II of the environmental assessment form . Mr. Mountin seconded . Motion carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2012-029: Environmenta/ Assessment Town of Ithaca. 106 Seven Mile Dr, Tax Parcel No. 33. -24. 1 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Dave Mountin. RESOL VED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based upon the information in Part I and the reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment form. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Sigel, Mountin, King, Rosen and Dixon. NA YS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of the Town of Ithaca to be permitted to construct a pole barn addition, annex addition and mechanic's shed to be built without a Town required sprinkler system with a condition that the buildings be constructed substantially as shown on plans provided to the board and finding that all criteria of the sprinkler variance had been satisfied ; specifically listing how each criterion was met. Seconded by Mr. Rosen . Vote—carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2012-030; SBrinkler Variances, Town ofr-thaca. 106 Seven Mile Dr, Tax Parcel No. 33, -2-6, 1 ® MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Rob Rosen. Page 5 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 Final RESOL VED, that this board grants the appeal of the Town of Ithaca requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 225, Section 225-3A(8) "New Building Required to Have Sprinkler Systems " to be permitted to construct a pole bam addition, annex addition and a mechanics shed without a Town required sprinkler system located at 106 Seven Mile Dr, Tax Parcel No. 33. -2-6. 1, Low Density Residential zone with the following: Findings: 1. That the estimated cost of the pole bard is $50, 000 and the cost of installing sprinklers is $24, 0001 2. That the estimated cost of annex addition is $120, 000 and the cost of installing sprinklers is $20, 0001 3. That the estimated cost of the storage shed is $5, 000 and the cost of installing sprinklers is $8, 000, 4. That the pole barn and storage shed will have no heating systems, 5. That the pole barn is only three sided reducing the possibility of someone being trapped, and 6. That there will be no long term occupancy of these buildings and buildings will only be accessed long enough to remove or rep/ace equipment and parts Condition: 1. That the additions be constructed substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES.• Sigel, Mount/n, King, Rosen and Dixon. NA YS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of the Town of Ithaca to be permitted to construct an annex addition located in the front yard with the condition that it be construction substantially as shown on the plans submitted to the board and finding that all the criteria for an area variance had been satisfied, specifically listing how each criterion was met. Seconded by Mr. King . Vote—carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 201Z-031: Area Variances, Town oflthaciL 106 Seven Mi/e Dr, Tax Parcel No. 33, -24,1 ® MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by 8/ll King. Page 6 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 ® Final RESOL VED, that this board grants the appeal of the Town of Ithaca requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-60E 'Accessory Building in Front Yard" and Section 270-205A "Nonconforming Structures" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to add an annex addition located within the front yard located at 106 Seven Mile Dr, Tax Parcel No. 33. -2-6. 1, Low Density Residential, with the following: Condition: 1. That the addition be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the healthy, safety and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That the particular benefit the applicant wishes to the achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that they wish to expand a legally nonconforming building that happens to be in the front yard after the consolidation of its lot with the rest of the Town property, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby ® properties given that the capacity of this facility is not expanding, but is allowing the inside storage of equipment that is currently stored outside, 3. That the request is not substantial given that the capacity of this facility is not expanding, but is allowing the storage of equipment that is currently stored outside, 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects based on the information in the environmental assessment form, and 5. 7hat while the alleged difficulty is self-created, nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES.• Sigel, Mountin, King, Rosen and Dixon. NA YS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Aoueal of Cayuga Medical Center, Paul Levesque, agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221=6B( 2) (b)( 1) " Regulated Signs", Section 221=7A( 1) and Section 221 -7C(4) " Business and Industrial District Signs" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to erect several Tobacco Free Campus signs located on the Cayuga Medical Center Campus, 101, 201, and 401 Harris B ® Dates Dr, Tax Parcel Nos. 24. -3- 2. 1, 24. =3-2.412 and 24. -3-2. 221, Low Density Residential . Page 7 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 ® Final Paul Levesque, John Turner, and Lou LoVecchio appeared before the board . Mr. Levesque provided the board with a brief overview of their appeal . He explained that the hospital parcel currently has 29 existing wall signs and they are proposing to install 10 more . The hospital is allowed to have 567 square feet of signage because it is measured 1 square foot per lineal foot of frontage . The proposal is for a total of 150 square feet of wall signs . He went on to say that there are currently 40 freestanding signs on the property and they are proposing 11 more . Mr. Levesque then turned to the Medical Office parcel . He stated that there are currently 3 signs on that parcel and they are proposing one more sign . They are permitted to have 12 square feet of total signage and when all signs are installed, this parcel will have 7 square feet of signage . The Biggs parcel has two existing freestanding signs and the proposal is to add two more . Attorney Brock added that some signs are being removed and she wondered if those signs were included in the total sign square footage calculations . Mr. Petruzzeli explained that the total calculations do not include the square footage of signs that have been or will be removed . Mr. Turner then explained the purpose of the signs to the board . He stated that the majority of people will comply with the Tobacco Free Zone signs that will be installed on campus . Without the signage, staff is required to put themselves in an emotional situation of asking people to extinguish their cigarette. The goal of the signage is to educate the public and take staff out of ® the equation . Chairperson Sigel asked if two signs were being installed near the front entrance to the hospital on Trumansburg Rd . Mr. Levesque explained that there are two temporary signs that will be installed for three months at the entrance to the hospital . Chairperson Sigel asked if those were the only signs that would be visible from the public road . Mr. Levesque responded that that was correct. Chairperson Sigel solicited comments from the board . Ms. Fogarty wondered what happened to the temporary signs after three months . Mr. Levesque responded that they would be removed from the site . The purpose of the temporary signs is to let people know upon arrival to the hospital that it is a smoke free campus . Chairperson Sigel asked if the sign ordinance had any exemptions for the type of signage proposed . Mr. Bates replied that it did not. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 57 p . m . and invited the public to address the board . There being no one interested in speaking, Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 57 p . m . Chairperson Sigel appointed Ms. Fogarty to vote on the appeal . Page 8 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 ® Final SEQR Chairperson Sigel moved to make a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in Part I and the reasons stated in Part II of the environmental assessment form . Mr. Mountin seconded . Motion carried unanimously . ZB RESOLUTION 2012-032; Environments/ Assessment, Cayu4a Medica/ Center, 101201 and 401 Harris B Dates Dr, Tax Parcel Nos. 24, -3-2, 1, -2,412, -2,221 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Dave Mountln. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based upon the information in Part I and the reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment form. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YESSigel, Mountin, King, Rosen and Fogarty. NA YS.• None. Motion was carried unanimously. ® Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Cayuga Medical Center to be permitted to erect many Tobacco Free Campus signs with the conditions that the signs be located and erected substantially as indicated on the documents submitted to the board and that the 2 temporary signs be removed 3 months after the date of the installation, and finding that all requirements for sign variances had been satisfied, specifically listing how each criterion was met. Seconded by Mr. Rosen . Vote—carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2011-033: S/an Var/ances, QW0 Medica/ Center, 101, 201 and 401 Harris B Dates Dr, Tax Parcel Nos. 24. -3-2. 1, -2. 412, -2.211 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Rob Rosen. RESOL VED, that this board grants the appeal of Cayuga Medical Center, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221 -68(2)(b)(1) "Regulated Signs'; Section 221- 7A(1) and Section 221-7C(4) "Business and Industrial District Signs" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to erect many Tobacco Free Campus signs located on the Cayuga Medical Center Campus at 101, 201 and 401 Harris B Dates Dr, Tax Parcel Nos 24. -3-2. 1, 24. -3-2. 412 and 24. -3-2.221, Office Park Commercial Zone and Planned Development Zone 3, with the following: Conditions: 1. That the signs be located and configured substantially as indicated on all the documentation supplied by the applicant to this board, and Page 9 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 ® Final 2. That the two temporary signs located near Trumansburg Road remain for no longer than 3 months from the date of installation. Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given the applicants desire to make it known throughout their large campus that they are a tobacco free zone, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the only two signs that will be visible from the public road are temporary and will only exist for three months, 3. That while the request is substantial given the number involved, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects being just the ® erection and modification of signs and not involving any substantial construction, and 5. 7hat while the alleged d/>ficulty is self-created, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Sigel, Mountin, King, Rosen and Fogarty. NA YS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. ARReal of Conifer Realty, LLC, applicant, Cornell University, owner, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270404 " Minimum Area for Multiple Residence Zone", Section 270= 105 " Height Limitations", Section 270= 106A( 1) "Yard Regulations", and Section 2704118 "Additional Special Requirements" of the Town of Ithaca Code for the proposed Conifer Senior Living on West Hill development located to the south of West Hill Drive near the Overlook Apartments, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24=4-5. 2, Medium Density Residential and Multiple Residence Zones. The proposal involves developing approximately 5 acres of the property for a new 3-story, 72 unit senior housing facility ( 21,000 + / = square foot footprint) on a new road off of West Hill Drive. Variances are needed for front yard setback, building height, and density. Page 10 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 ® Final John Caruso appeared before the board and gave a presentation of their request. He explained that they have been working with the Town Board and the Planning Committee to develop a local law that allowed them to amend and fold their project into what the Town was looking for. Mr. Caruso summarized that they were trying to keep the building close to the roadway to try to integrate into the pedestrian network. As a result, they needed to balance the cut and fill on the site without tearing the site while not creating on-site sprawls this drove the need for the three-story building . He added that the three-story building design also fit Town staffs desire to have a 5/ 12 pitch roof design , which added to the need for a height variance . Mr. Caruso added that their project fell just short of density requirements forcing them to seek a density variance . Mr. Bates stated that he asked Dan Tasman, Assistant Director of Planning, to come to the meeting to answer questions because he was the main staff person to handle the project. Chairperson Sigel asked Mr. Caruso if it would be `fair to say that a 50 foot setback could be achieved, but it was decided among the Town and Conifer that a 30 foot setback was more desirable. Mr. Caruso agreed and went on to say that if the project was slid back 20 feet to meet setback requirements they would be cutting into the hillside more and it would also impede on the water main located behind the project site . He added that the builder does not really benefit from the proposed design other than the building is closer to the roadway and ® residents have a slightly shorter walk to the bus stop . Chairperson Sigel asked if the project site was being subdivided off a larger parcel . Mr. Caruso said that it was . Chairperson Sigel asked for the motivation behind not allocating more land to the project site to meet density requirements . Mr. Caruso explained that it started from when they were looking at developing a Planned Development Zone . They developed a master plan for the entire parcel and that plan had the road connecting down to the fire station . Cornell then decided that it was not sure about the other use of their land so they decided not to develop a Planned Development Zone and they moved forward with the simplest plan and design . Chairperson Sigel assumed that Mr. Caruso would claim that the project was less feasible if they stayed within density requirements . Mr. Caruso stated that they would have to purchase more land in order to get the land to meet density requirements. He went on to say that if the Town had a code for senior housing, the densities would be higher and people would be developing these projects on 4 or 5 acres . Chairperson Sigel asked if need studies had been conducted for senior housing in this area . Mr. Caruso responded that market studies had been completed and that it was no secret that even the County Planning Department in the community has advertised that there is a shortage of senior housing . The developer was thankful the Town of Ithaca recognized that need . He thought that they had been very lucky in working with this community and the Town Board chose to exempt the project from the West Hill moratorium in order for it to move ahead . Page 11 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 ® Final Attorney Brock stated that the local law passed by the Town Board requires that the project is affordable housing and the applicant is seeking tax credits for it. Mr. Carusa added that the project is not low income housing, but rather 80-90% medium income . Chairperson Sigel asked if that was for the entire project and Mr. Caruso said that it was . Attorney Brock went on to explain that the local law requires that units only be rented to people meeting the criteria for a certain number of years into the future . She added that Conifer also operates the Linderman Creek Senior Housing and this is a similar project. Attorney Brock explained that the Town is in the process of revising its comprehensive plan and is going to be looking at pedestrian oriented, walkable community development. It was at the request of the Town Board and the Planning Committee that the building be located close to the street as it is proposed . Mr. Tasman described traditional neighborhood development to the board and explained that people are looking to live in more pedestrian oriented neighborhoods . Ms. Fogarty commented that there is no place to walk to on west hill . Mr. Tasman agreed that there currently is nowhere for people to walk, but this is the first walkable project and as development takes place incrementally there will be new street standards that require sidewalks. He added that there will also be a certain amount of land required for commercial development so that a " main street" area becomes developed, which gives the neighborhood something to walk to . It may be 10-20 years down the road as the areas become feasible, but it will happen . ® Chairperson Sigel added that they could walk to the hospital . Ms . Fogarty agreed if there was a good crosswalk. Mr. Caruso explained that they designed their project so that it was walkable around the site and connected to the Overlook project and the bus stop. Ms . Fogarty commented that there was very little lawn area proposed for the project, which surprised her. She went on to ask how the new road would play into the electric lines and power grid that is there . Mr. Caruso responded that the substation was located much lower on the parcel than the proposed project site is. He then used the site plan to orient the substation and power lines in relation to the project site . Ms . Fogarty felt that the power lines were imposing . Attorney Brock added that the Town does have plans to continue the proposed road down to the fire station as the area becomes developed . Mr. Caruso went on to say that the development of the proposed project solidifies the access points for the new road ; it is a benefit that it is located at a four-way intersection . Ms . Fogarty asked if there was going to a light at the intersection . Attorney Brock responded that a traffic light at the intersection is unknown at this time and the State makes the determination of whether or not traffic control devices are installed . Mr. Caruso added that they have designed their infrastructure in anticipation of future projects . Mr. Tasman stated that increasingly seniors want to be engaged with the community around ® them and want to be physically connected with the community. There is a growing market for mixed age development. Ms . Fogarty asked if this development would be connected to Page 12 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 Final Overlook, Mr. Tasman thought that it would probably be connected to a larger neighborhood to the south as the road is development. He envisioned a mix of commercial, residential , parkland , etc and it wouldn't just be separate projects on their own, but rather one small part of a larger, interconnected neighborhood . Ms . Fogarty asked if Cornell 's project was still on the table . Mr. Tasman responded that it was not. Attorney Brock and the board briefly discussed the various ideas that had been thrown around with regard to Cornell 's thoughts about developing the large parcel . Chairperson Sigel asked how much land is left undeveloped . Mr. Caruso thought it was about 30 acres. Chairperson Sigel noted the number of units in comparison to parking . He asked if the number of parking spaces was based on experience with regard to what percentage of units will have cars . Mr. Caruso responded that they found that 60-70% of their residents drive cars, but the balance does not. They have proposed what is needed for parking spaces and have area set aside for additional parking in the future if needed . Ms. Fogarty wondered about the affordable housing aspect of the project and asked for more explanation . Attorney Brock referenced the local law and stated that units shall serve low to moderate income tenants, restricted to serving households at or below 90% of the 6rea median income as defined by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, the project and developer shall comply with the low income housing tax program and if the developer chooses to use the State program than it also has to comply with the NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal and the State low income tax credit program . Chairperson Sigel reiterated that these were all requirements that the Town Board imposed on the applicant as a condition of the rezoning . He asked if that was common . Attorney Brock explained that the Town Board has done so in the past with Planned Development Zones , Mr. Caruso added that Conifer is an affordable housing developer and went on to give income and rent examples. Chairperson Sigel confirmed that the rent was set as a function of a person's income. Mr. Caruso then explained that the tenants also have to go through a background check. Chairperson Sigel followed up by confirming that the units are solely for rent and will not be sold . Mr. Mountin asked if there was an original square footage amount before the developer started working with the Town . Mr. Caruso responded no; they wanted to design a 3-story building from the beginning . He felt that it fit in with what the community was trying to achieve . He went on to say that they were looking at developing a longer building on the parcel to the south as part of the PDZ, which was an assisted living facility and that developer chose not to move forward . Mr. King asked if there were any plans for the land to the east of the new road . Mr. Caruso did not know of any plans for the parcel . Mr. Mountin confirmed that the remainder of the parcel remains medium density residential zoning and it is only the proposed parcel that was rezoned . Mr. Tasman explained that the Page 13 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 ® Final town envisions the area to be developed as mixed use residential with a range of residential and main street commercial development. Mr. Mountin asked if the parcel was included as part of Cornell 's master plan . Mr. Tasman said it was not; the master plan focused on east hill . Mr. King asked how much more land is needed to avoid the variance for density. Mr. Caruso did not know. Chairperson Sigel calculated that approximately 25% more land would need to be acquired—roughly another acre . Mr. King wondered what the cost of acquiring that much more land would be. The board tossed around the potential costs of acquiring additional land . Mr. King followed up by wondering what percentage that cost would be of the entire project budget; Mr. Caruso did not know. Mr. Tasman pointed out that land is used more efficiently in traditional development and open space serves a function . The land around a senior housing project is used less intensely than land surrounding a project without age restrictions. Mr. Tasman did not see any additional benefit to additional land around the project. He said that lower density makes public transit less viable and takes another acre away from land that would be used for single family residences or commercial somewhere else . Mr. Rosen asked if the new road had been named . Mr. Bates explained that the applicant submits road name ideas to the Code Enforcement Department and the department assigns the road name . Attorney Brock stated that she and Chairperson Sigel had been emailing each other with regard to the recreation issues Section 270- 111B was included in the public hearing notice. Mr. Bates said he determined that a variance would be needed with regard to recreation areas for children in the Codes . Mr. Caruso explained that the issue was whether or not a recreation area for children was needed as part of a senior living facility. The Planning Board suggested that a community garden be included as part of the application in place of a recreation area for children . Chairperson Sigel asked if there were other sections of the code with similar requirements . Mr. Bates was not sure . Attorney Brock explained that the subdivision regulations talk about the need for parkland . Mr. Bates stated that he was leaving it up to the board to decide whether or not that type of recreation land was needed . Mr. Caruso explained that they tried to mitigate one use for another. Chairperson Sigel summed up that the developer's point of view was that they were proving an area more suited to its residents. Ms . Fogarty wondered why the Town preferred to have the parking lot located in the rear of the building . Mr. Tasman explained that in a traditional development buildings front directly on the street without parking lots that intervene between the building and the street. It is more of a commercial pattern to have parking lots in front of a building . There are not a lot of comfortable, walkable communities where people walk on sidewalks next to parking lots. People want to be next to buildings and front yards . Ms. Fogarty felt that the buffer between ® the development and Route 96 was important. She also thought that it was important to be as far away from the substation as possible . Page 14 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 ® Final Mr. Caruso showed a full sized site plan to the board and located the substation in relation to the development. Mr. Tasman stated that the distance to the bus stop is important. The location of the proposed building creates a shorter walk to the bus stop than if the building were set back further on the lot. Mr. Caruso oriented the board to the bus stop using the site plan . Attorney Brock explained that there is a sidewalk along the new road and a crosswalk connecting to the existing sidewalk, which leads to the bus stop . She emphasized that there was a continuous sidewalk for someone to use to get to the bus stop . Mr. King asked if there would be a bus shuttle . Mr. Caruso indicated that there was not. Chairperson Sigel thought that it may be possible for the TCAT route to be expanded as more development occurs in the area . Mr. Tasman added that all the little stops along routes add time to the routes . PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 55 p . m . and invited the public to address the board . With no one present but the applicant, Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 55 p . m . ® SEQR Attorney Brock stated that the board did not have to conduct SEQR review because the project was considered a Type 1 action and it required coordinated review. The Planning Board was designated as lead agency; they made a negative determination of environmental significance . Chairperson Sigel stated that the applicant did a nice job of breaking out the variance requests . He asked Attorney Brock if she had read through the criteria . He thought that some of them may need to be changed . Attorney Brock and the board reviewed the criteria submitted as part of the packet. Ms . Fogarty asked if the board should take the statements made in the criteria form as fact. She mentioned that it was unknown if the location of the building is below where the project could be seen now or if it would be five or ten years . Attorney Brock did not think that it needed to be pinned that precisely and suggested that the criteria state that the increase in height over what is allowed will be mitigated by the fact that the land slopes and that there are trees on the west side of the lot. She did not think they were saying that the project could not be seen ; they were saying that the increase in height over what is allowed is mitigated by the sloping land . Mr. Rosen did not feel that the building was particularly tall, especially given that mature trees are 70-80 feet in height. Mr. Caruso added that the 5/ 12 pitch of the roof adds to the overall height of the building . Mr. Rosen asked why the roof pitch of the building was established in the local law . Mr. Caruso responded that the developer was requested to design the building with the 5/ 12 pitch roof. Chairperson Sigel clarified that the requirement was not in the general zoning law, but rather ® the specific local law that was adopted to rezone the parcel . Attorney Brock added that she thought the Town was looking for a more uniform look for new development. Mr. Tasman Page 15 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 ® Final explained that the roof pitch helps with snow removal—the pitch allows for the snow to slide off the roof. Chairperson Sigel appointed Andrew Dixon to vote on the appeal . Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the, appeal of Conifer Realty, LLC requesting variances for the Conifer Senior Living on West Hill development, which involves developing approximately 5 acres of the property for a new 3-story, 72 unit senior housing facility (21, 000 +/- sq ft footprint) on a new road off of West Hill Drive . Variances are needed for front yard setback, building height, density, and recreation areas for children and were granted with the condition that the project be built substantially as indicated on plans submitted to the board and finding that all the requirements for the variances had been met, specifically listing how each criterion was satisfied . Dave Mountin seconded . Vote—carried ( Mr. King voted against) . ZB RESOLUTION 2012-034; Area Variances, Cornell University. New Road Off West Hili Drive, Tax Parcel No. 24. -4-5,2 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Dave Mountin. RESOL VED, that this board grants the appeal of Conifer Realty, applicant, Cornell University, owner requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-104 "Minimum ® Area for Multiple Residence Zone*; Section 270-105 "Height Limitations" Section 270-106A(1) "Yard Regulations'; and Section 270-1118 'Additional Special Requirements' of the Town of Ithaca Code for the proposed Conifer Senior Living on West Hill development located to the south of West Hill Drive near the Overlook Apartments, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24. -4- 5. 2, Medium Density Residential and Multiple Residence Zones The proposal involves developing approximately 5 acres of the property for a new 3-story, 72 unit senior housing facility (21, 000 +/- square foot footprint) on a new road off of West Hill Drive. Variances are needed for front yard setback, building height, density and the requirement under Section 270- 1118 for recreation areas for children with the following: Condition. 1. That the project be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant to this board at the meeting. Findings for the front yard setback: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically.• 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given the applicants as well as the Town Boards and Planning Committees desire to have the project be closer to the road to make it more walkable and human-scaled, and additionally, the reduced setback creates a shorter walking distance to the bus stop, Page 16 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 Final 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this project is somewhat set apart from the Overlook project and is itself the first project in what the Town anticipates to be larger development on this property, 3. That while the request is substantial, reducing the front yard setback by 40916, that nevertheless the benefit does outweigh any detriment to the healthy, safety and welfare of the community, 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects given the stormwater, drainage and other requirements being met by the applicant, and 5. That while the alleged d/fticulty is self-created, that is mitigated by the fact that the Town has requested this change and the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Findings for building height: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: ® 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be met by any other means feasible given the applicants, Town Boards and Planning Committees desire to have a taller building that requires a smaller footprint to achieve the same number of units and to have a 5/12 roof pitch requires that the building exceed the allowed height by 9 feet, Z That there will not be an undesirable change to neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this project is somewhat set apart from the Overlook project and is itself the first project in what the Town anticipates to be larger development on this property, and additionally, the fact that the project is located on a wooded hillside mitigates the impact of the height, 3. That while the request is substantial, there is a benefit to the applicant and the residents by having a more compact footprint, which reduces hallway distances to the main entrance, 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects because it is mitigated by the fact that it is located on a wooded slope, and 5. 777at while the alleged difficulty is self-created by the applicants, as well as the Town s desire to have a more compact footprint, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 17 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 ® Final Findings for density: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and we/fare of the community, specifically: 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given their desire to build this affordable housing in a compact fashion that allows for more efficient access by the residents and they are trying to do so without having to purchase additional land, which would add cost to the project, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this project is somewhat set apart from the Overlook project and is itself the first project in what the Town anticipates to be larger development on this property, 3. That while the request is substantial, being over a 25% increase in the allowed density, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects and in fact allows the applicant to build the same number of units with a smaller impervious footprint, which is a benefit to the applicant as well as the community, and ® 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created but is mitigated by the fact that this higher density is desired by the Town Board and the Planning Committee. Findings for Section 270-1113 Additional Special Requirements: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically.• 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, which is that of substituting a community garden, which is a better suited recreation space for the tenants of this building, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible except to substitute the recreation areas for children with the community garden space, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that either of the facilities, the children 's recreation area or the community garden, are only intended for on-site use, 3. That the request is not substantial given that there are not children anticipated to live in the facility, 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. That while the alleged d/>fculty is self-created, nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant ® does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 18 of 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 18, 2012 Final A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES.' Sigel, Mountin, Rosen and Dixon. NA YS: King. Motion was carried. Other Business Chairperson Sigel and Ms. Fogarty noted that they would not be available for the July meeting . Adjournment With no further business, Chairperson Sigel adjourned the June 18, 2012 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at 9 : 32 p . m . Kirk Sigel , Chair erson Carrie Coat _ - itmore, Deputy Town Clerk Page 19 of 19 r FILE a ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-027 DATE Environmental Assessment Interpretation Cornell University 380 Pine Tree Rd Tax Parcel No. 62 .=1 =5 June 18, 2012 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Dave Mountin . RESOLVED , that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based upon the information in Part I and the reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment form . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Mountin , King , Rosen and Fogarty. NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. ® STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 18th day of June , 2012 . n ` Deputy Town Cle Town of Ithaca FILE _ LL-` DATE c ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-028 Interpretation Cornell University 380 Pine Tree Rd Tax Parcel No. 62 .=1 =5 June 18, 2012 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Yvonne Fogarty. RESOLVED , that this board hereby finds that the proposed East Hill Farmers Market use is substantially similar to a Greenhouse which may include outside displays (Section 270- 134 ( B) (7) ) , Retail food store/grocery (Section 270- 126 (A) ( 1 ) ) , Retail sales of candy , ice cream , gifts , flowers and similar small items (Section 270- 126 (A) (2) ) , Arts and crafts gallery/studio (Section 270- 126 (A) (4)) , and Plant nursery which may include outside displays (Section 270- 126 (A) ( 10)) , which are all listed as uses permitted as of right in the Community Commercial Zone , and that the proposed . farmers market does not have greater adverse effects upon traffic , noise , air quality , parking , or any other attribute reasonably relevant than the aforesaid uses permitted as of right. The proposed farmers market will not involve any construction or permanent structures , the use is proposed to be once a week and seasonal , nothing will remain on the site after the market hours except for possible signage , the site has sufficient parking , and the market expects to draw from existing traffic and residents already in ® the area . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES . Sigel , Mountin , King , Rosen and Fogarty. NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 18th day of June , 2012 . Deputy Town-Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-031 Area Variances Town of Ithaca 106 Seven Mile Dr Tax Parcel No. 33 .=2-6 . 1 June 18, 2012 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Bill King . RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of the Town of Ithaca requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270=60E "Accessory Building in Front Yard" and Section 270w205A " Nonconforming Structures" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to add an annex addition located within the front yard located at 106 Seven Mile Dr, Tax Parcel No . 33 . -2-6 . 1 , Low Density Residential , with the following : Condition : 1 . That the addition be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant. Findings : ® That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the healthy, safety and welfare of the community , specifically: 1 . That the particular benefit the applicant wishes to the achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that they wish to expand a legally nonconforming building that happens to be in the front yard after the consolidation of its lot with the rest of the Town property, 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the capacity of this facility is not expanding , but is allowing the inside storage of equipment that is currently stored outside , 3 . That the request is not substantial given that the capacity of this facility is not expanding , but is allowing the storage of equipment that is currently stored outside , 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects based on the information in the environmental assessment form , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created , nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community. ® A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Mountin , King , Rosen and Dixon . NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 18th day of June , 2012 . Deputy Towri Cferk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE ADOPTED . RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012=032 Environmental Assessment Cayuga Medical Center 101 , 201 and 401 Harris B Dates Dr Tax Parcel Nos. 24.-3-2. 1 , -2.4129 -2.221 June 18, 2012 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Dave Mountin . RESOLVED , that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based upon the information in Part I and the reasons stated in Part II of the Environmental Assessment form . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Mountin , King , Rosen and Fogarty. NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) ® COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 18th day of June , 2012 . Deputy Tower erk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE o ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012=033 Sign Variances Cayuga Medical Center 101 , 201 and 401 Harris B Dates Dr Tax Parcel Nos. 24.-3-2. 1 , -2 .412, -2 .221 June 18 , 2012 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Rob Rosen . RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of Cayuga Medical Center, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Section 221 -6B (2) (b) ( 1 ) " Regulated Signs" , Section 221 -7A( 1 ) and Section 221 -7C(4) "Business and Industrial District Signs" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to erect many Tobacco Free Campus signs located on the Cayuga Medical Center Campus at 101 , 201 and 401 Harris B Dates Dr, Tax Parcel Nos . 24 . -3 -2 . 1 , 24. -3-2 . 412 and 24 . -3-2 . 221 , Office Park Commercial Zone and Planned Development Zone 3 , with the following : Conditions : 1 . That the signs be located and configured substantially as indicated on all the documentation supplied by the applicant to this board , and ® 2 . That the two temporary signs located near Trumansburg Road remain for no longer than 3 months from the date of installation . Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given the applicant' s desire to make it known throughout their large campus that they are a tobacco free zone , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the only two signs that will be visible from the public road are temporary and will only exist for three months , 3 . That while the request is substantial given the number involved , that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community, 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects being just the erection and modification of signs and not involving any substantial construction , ® and 1\ ZB RESOLUITON NO . 2012-033 Page 2of2 ® 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Mountin , King , Rosen and Fogarty . NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 18th day of June , 2012 . Deputy Town'CI rk ® Town of Ithaca FILE - D AT E ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-034 Area Variances Cornell University New Road Off West Hill Drive Tax Parcel No. 24.4-5 .2 June 18, 2012 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Dave Mountin . RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of Conifer Realty, applicant, Cornell University , owner requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270- 104 " Minimum Area for Multiple Residence Zone" , Section 270- 105 " Height Limitations" , Section 270- 106A( 1 ) "Yard Regulations" , and Section 270- 111 B "Additional Special Requirements" of the Town of Ithaca Code for the proposed Conifer Senior Living on West Hill development located to the south of West Hill Drive near the Overlook Apartments , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24 . 4-5 . 2 , Medium Density Residential and Multiple Residence Zones . The proposal involves developing approximately 5 acres of the property for a new 3-story , 72 unit senior housing facility (21 , 000 +/- square foot footprint) on a new road off of West Hill Drive . Variances are needed for front yard setback, building height, density and the requirement under Section 270- 111 B for recreation areas for children with the following : ® Condition : 1 . That the project be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant to this board at the meeting . Findings for the front yard setback: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given the applicant's as well as the Town Board 's and Planning Committee' s desire to have the project be closer to the road to make it more walkable and human -scaled , and additionally, the reduced setback creates a shorter walking distance to the bus stop , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this project is somewhat set apart from the Overlook project and is itself the first project in what the Town anticipates to be larger development on this property , 3 . That while the request is substantial , reducing the front yard setback by 40% , that nevertheless the benefit does outweigh any detriment to the healthy , safety and ® welfare of the community , ZB RESOLUITON NO , 2012-034 Page 2of4 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects given the stormwater, drainage and other requirements being met by the applicant, and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created , that is mitigated by the fact that the Town has requested this change and the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community. Findings for building height: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be met by any other means feasible given the applicant' s , Town Board 's and Planning Committee's desire to have a taller building that requires a smaller footprint to achieve the same number of units and to have a 5/12 roof pitch requires that the building exceed the allowed height by 9 feet, 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change to neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this project is somewhat set apart from the Overlook project and is itself the first project in what the Town anticipates to be larger development on ® this property, and additionally, the fact that the project is located on a wooded hillside mitigates the impact of the height, 3 . That while the request is substantial , there is a benefit to the applicant and the residents by having a more compact footprint, which reduces hallway distances to the main entrance , 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects because it is mitigated by the fact that it is located on a wooded slope , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created by the applicant's , as well as the Town's desire to have a more compact footprint, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community. Findings for density. That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given their desire to build this affordable housing in a compact fashion that allows for more efficient access by the residents and they are trying to ® do so without having to purchase additional land , which would add cost to the project , ZB RESOLUITON NO . 2012-034 Page 3of4 ® 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this project is somewhat set apart from the Overlook project and is itself the first project in what the Town anticipates to be larger development on this property, 3 . That while the request is substantial , being over a 25% increase in the allowed density, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects and in fact allows the applicant to build the same number of units with a smaller impervious footprint, which is a benefit to the applicant as well as the community, and 5 . That the alleged difficulty is self-created but is mitigated by the fact that this higher density is desired by the Town Board and the Planning Committee . Findings for Section 270- 111 B Additional Special Requirements . That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve , which is that of substituting a community garden , which is a better suited recreation space for the tenants of this building , cannot be achieved by any other means feasible except to substitute the recreation areas for children with the community garden space , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that either of the facilities , the children 's recreation area or the community garden , are only intended for on -site use , 3 . That the request is not substantial given that there are not children anticipated to live in the facility, 4 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created , nevertheless , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Mountin , Rosen and Dixon . NAYS : King . ® Motion was carried . ZB RESOLUITON NO . 2012-034 Page 4 of 4 ® STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 18th day of June , 2012 . RiL i Deputy Town'Clerk Town of Ithaca