Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2017-01-191 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF JANUARY 19, 2017 MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Rod Howe, Pat Leary. TOWN STAFF/TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Tee Ann Hunter, Town Board. GUEST: Steve Ehrhart (resident); Mary Jo Yunis (business owner); and reporter. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 4:30 p.m. Persons to Be Heard: - Steve Ehrhart, resident of Juniper Drive, expressed concern about student rentals on South Hill and thought the proliferation posed a threat to owner-occupied properties/neighborhoods. He encouraged the Committee to extend the moratorium and suggested the Town consider owner occupancy requirements in the MDR zone, improvement to Coddington Road (i.e. sidewalks) and require bed and breakfast businesses to be a certain distance from one another. Committee announcement and concerns: None reported. Consider November and December meeting summaries: November and December minutes moved as amended. Consider and discuss request for amending drive-through provisions in the Community Commercial Zone: - Rich: Opened the discussion and acknowledged Mary Jo Yunis’s letter to the Town Board requesting reconsideration of Town regulations pertaining to drive-throughs. He stated that he was personally not a fan of drive-throughs, but as a Committee member would weigh the facts. He listed several questions/issues for the Committee to consider, including: what is the situation on the ground now; what is the intention of the current code and has it outlived its usefulness; and would the use be incompatible with the redeveloped neighborhood envisioned for that area. Rich added that he had looked at the traffic study for the Dunkin Donuts project and it didn’t raise any significant issues for him. The property has egress onto two roads and the previous business had a drive through (when it was a bank). He then posed several questions to staff regarding Cornell’s future development plans for the area. - Sue: Responded by describing the “East Hill Village” concept. She indicated that the Dunkin Donut’s building is somewhat on the periphery of where much of the development and redevelopment is anticipated to occur. Cornell does not own the Dunkin Donuts or Rite Aid property, but does own land behind those businesses that connect to the former Courtside property. They own much more land on the east side of Pine Tree. Sue stated that there are no current plans on the table. She explained that the Town would not want to see drive-throughs where potential conflicts with pedestrians would occur, such as in mixed use (residential with commercial) locations or in the densest commercial areas, such as the plaza location itself. She also expected the re-development to a pedestrian friendlier neighborhood to occur incrementally. Sue added that drive-throughs already exist on East Hill for the banks and a pharmacy (zoning restrictions apply to restaurant drive-throughs only). This is the Town’s only Community 2 Commercial zone, so any changes in the current regulations would apply to East Hill only, and these would likely change again when new form-based zoning is adopted. - Rich: Stated that he would only be comfortable moving forward if specific criteria on where drive-through’s could be located were established, such as those outlined in Mary Jo Yunis’s letter to the Board, i.e. restaurant’s with drive-throughs located on different streets, establish setbacks for stacking, and assessment of traffic impacts. With adequate criteria he did not think this would result in any major character change to the area. - Rod and Pat: Expressed agreement. - Sue: Directed attention to the back of the Yunis letter that included a table created in 2000 by Planning staff. It offered types of criteria to consider for drive-through businesses, including: stacking standards, distance between drive-throughs, and design standards. Staff also looked at other municipal codes and found minimum lot sizes and requirements such that queuing does not block parking. - Committee: Discussed modifying the drive-through regulations and did not feel that there would be negative impacts if sufficient criteria are established. - Rich: Concluded the discussion, stating that he would bring the proposal to Town Board to see if there is conceptual agreement, with revising the regulations. If the Board is comfortable, then bring it back to Committee to hash out criteria. Continue consideration of rental property oversight strategies and recommendation to Town Board: - Rich: Opened the discussion by stating that the Committee has spent considerable time on rental property oversight, with particular attention on implementing a rental registry, but less time on potential owner-occupancy requirements for two-unit dwellings. He directed the Committee’s attention to the staff prepared map identifying potential locations of two-family dwellings to give an idea on the number of properties possibly affected. - Rich: Conveyed Tee Ann concerns which center on existing two-family houses and issues/problems posed by requiring one of the units to eventually become owner-occupied. She felt that an undue burden would be posed when a non-owner occupied property is sold, forcing an owner to live in one of the units or necessitating that the two-unit dwelling be converted to single-family house. In addition, foreclosing on the ability of an owner of a currently existing two-unit dwelling to rent out both units, as is allowed currently by code, could be perceived as a taking of a right. A potential remedy would be to apply owner-occupancy requirements to only new (as of a certain date), or newly converted, two-family houses, not existing ones. Rich asked other members how they feel about this change. - Pat: Supported the idea. - Rod: Asked for confirmation that owner-occupancy requirements for two-family houses would be coupled with a rental registry. - Rich: Responded affirmatively; that it would include the rental registry. He suggested that the cut-off date for grandfathering be the beginning of the moratorium. - Bruce: Asked if there would be a grace period for accessory apartments that are newly discovered. - Rich: Responded that if it is not currently on the assessment roles as a two-family dwelling, then it is not legally recognized and may not be grandfathered. It will depend on whether there are any records of when the unit was created. The Town will need to get the word out about the regulations. - Rich: Summed up the proposal Step 1: 1) that any existing two-family dwellings would have the right as of commencement of the moratorium to be used as a non-owner occupied rental property going forward; 2) any new two- 3 unit buildings or conversion to two-unit dwellings, outside of the High Density Residential Zone, would have to have one unit owner-occupied. That would be the first step. Step 2: Consider allowing duplexes in the HDR zone with no owner-occupancy requirements. - TeeAnn: Stated that she would like to see architectural and design standards put in place for the new duplexes in the HDR zone. There is currently a problem and that problem set us on this course, and she would like to see it addressed. She felt that the rental registry was a good thing, but she wants to see standards with the duplexes. - Rich: Asked staff if architectural standards would be addressed in the form-based code. - Sue: Answered yes, and added that we may want to consider adding some simple standards in the meantime for new duplexes in the HDR zone. Standards could help address needed improvements, such as dumpsters and parking lots in the front lawn and the lack of any landscaping. - Rich: Asked if that would be part of site plan. - Sue: Suggested including basic standards as part of any new code language giving developers the right to construct duplexes; the two could be coupled. This would be preferable to counting on site plan approval and the Planning Board’s discretion. She added that the Town may also want to consider getting rid of the basement loophole and described an architectural standard where the duplex sides are not permitted to mirror one another. - Bill: Indicated that this would all take time to craft language for. - Sue: Reiterated the suggestion that provisions for allowing duplexes in the HDR zone be step 2, after the rental registry and owner-occupancy requirements are enacted. Working on language for the duplexes could come soon after, but don’t try to do it all at the same time. - Bill: Mentioned that he has received complaints from developers regarding the Town’s definition of family. Developers want to have 3 persons per unit, but with current regulations, a two-unit house can only have 2 people per unit. This compares to the single-family house that allows 3 persons. If we are going to allow rentals in the HDR zone and provide the ability to develop true duplexes, we may want to revisit the occupancy requirements. He also encouraged the Committee to check with Susan Brock, given that she had expressed concern with owner occupancy requirements applied selectively. - Rich: Stated that he would begin picking out language from some existing laws for review at the next meeting. - Committee: Discussed the need to extend the moratorium to allow time to continue to work on new legislation. An extension of six months was suggested. - Rich: Stated that he would report to the Town Board to get confirmation to move forward. Staff updates and reports: - Bill reported on the new Ellis Hollow water tank and added that he would like to bring forward an amendment to exempt water infrastructure from certain zoning requirements (especially height). He is looking to do so at the February meeting. Discuss next meeting date and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 16, 2017. Meeting ended at 6:20pm.