Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2017-02-161 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF FEBRUARY 16, 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; Chris Balestra, Planner. GUEST: Tom Santurri (Dunkin Donut franchise representative); South Hill residents (2). Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 4:30 p.m. Persons to Be Heard: - Two residents expressed their concerns with student rentals on South Hill. They mentioned the letter that they submitted to the Town Board. They described Pennsylvania/Kendall Avenue area as a student ghetto and that it must not be allowed to spread. The parties go on until 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. and the Sheriff is not using the noise law as a control. Committee announcement and concerns: None reported. Consider January meeting summary: Pat moved; Rich seconded; approved by Committee with one word change. Consider a recommendation to the Town Board for amendments to the Community Commercial Zone concerning drive-throughs: - Rich: Summarized the committee’s January discussion where members seemed comfortable modifying the regulations contingent upon certain criteria being established. He directed attention to the staff prepared table showing drive-through criteria from other municipalities and also an email from Mary Jo Yunis. Her email reported that Dunkin Donuts’ standard drive-through time is less than 150 seconds and that queuing generally doesn’t exceed seven cars. Rich thought that seemed like a long wait time. - Tom Santurri: Concurred that Duncan Donuts aims for a 150 seconds drive-through time, but it is typically much lower. He further explained that the order at the menu board typically takes 10-20 seconds and when the next car moves to the menu board that is when the measurement begins, accounting for 150 seconds standard. The count is for simultaneous service, not for each individual car, and in theory it could involve several cars. He said he would go out of business if it actually took 2.5 minutes for each car to be served. He also commented on the traffic aspect, explaining that their customers are typically people who already drive in the area. Dunkin Donuts is not a destination restaurant. The traffic is already there and that is why the company chooses the location. Far fewer customers drive out of their way to reach the restaurant. He also mentioned that the speaker volume has different settings which can be modified for different times of the day (to account for ambient noise) - Committee: After some discussion the committee agreed that stacking length and drive-through aisle requirements (so it does not interfere with parking/circulation) would be important criteria to have. The committee and staff went back and forth on whether and how to measure distances between drive-through restaurants. The committee considered adopting a lineal road frontage metric from driveway to driveway. But what constituted a “driveway” could be complicated with the arrangement of businesses and egress/ingress in and around the East Hill Plaza area. The 2 committee decided against requiring lot size minimums or criteria for noise, which could be too subjective. - Rich: Asked whether site plan approval would be required. - Sue: Responded that site plan approval is required. In the case of an existing building, the addition of a drive-through would change traffic circulation and therefore be required as a modification of site plan. She also indicated that SEQR would require a traffic impact analysis, so she tended to think that this did not need to be added to the legislations. - Sue: Said she would come to the next meeting with proposed language (and possibly a map) for the committee to consider. Continue consideration of rental property oversight strategies and recommendation to Town Board: - Rich: Directed attention to preliminary language he prepared for the Committee’s consideration. He also provided relevant Town Code sections to show where/how the existing language might be modified to incorporate/reference elements of the new provisions (for the rental registry; owner-occupancy with buildings having an accessory unit). - Committee: Discussed Town Code 125-8 - Operating permits and how this may be modified to reference/address the rental registry, as this section already outlines inspection schedules and procedures. - Bruce: Explained that the Town’s current “residential” operating permit inspection form could easily be adapted for the inspection of one- and two-family homes, or optionally, create a new form for the rental registry. - Rich: Noted that multiple resident buildings would generally require sprinklers and fire escapes. - Bruce: Responded that some requirements for apartment buildings are more than you’d want for single-two family dwelling. The items in common would be the 911 addressing, CO detector, property maintenance, and safe egress (i.e. lighting) requirements. He explained that the inspections are once every 3 years for residential properties. - Rich: Asked about penalties for non-compliance. - Bruce: Responded that the Town would issue an appearance ticket and that fines (up to $100/day) and penalties would be up to the judge’s discretion. He further explained how operating permit information would be entered into Municity and what type of data would be entered, and how violations can be tracked. - Rich: Summarized that he thought the current requirements in Section 125-8 “Operating Permits” could be utilized and modified rather than having to re-invent the wheel. For instance, in the proposed requirements for Low-Occupancy Residential Rental Units requirements, the section concerning certificate of compliance could be deleted and replaced with a reference to Town’s Operating Permits language. - Rich: Turned attention to the preliminary language addressing accessory buildings and owner occupancy requirements. Questions remain as to how to deal with the situation where an owner temporarily leaves town and rents their house out (i.e. sabbaticals). Should there be a maximum length of absence before it triggers the rental registry? - Bruce: Suggested developing a definition for “owner occupancy”. - Rich: Listed terms needing definitions for, including “accessory apartment”, “owner-occupancy”, and “owner-agent”. He also mentioned that following the Pineview Terrace court case, Susan Brock had suggested that the Committee/Board look at the definition of “family” and specifically the reference to the academic year (section f. 3.). Rich will talk with Susan to gain a better understanding of her concerns. 3 - Committee: Discussed and commented on the preliminary language for Low-Occupancy Residential Rental Units, as follows: Purpose and Intent - Pat: Suggested modifying the second to last sentence by removing the remainder of the sentence after “….resident families”. Owner-Occupancy - Bruce: Suggested adding “calendar year” or “12 months” to the parenthesis statement pertaining to number of days per year. He also suggested adding language here to address a possible exemption for owner-occupants who rented their dwellings while they were temporarily away (i.e. sabbatical). - Committee: Discussed whether or not an operating permit (with inspections) would be required for this sort of temporary rental situation. No decision was made. Location of lot - Sue: Suggested allowing accessory dwelling units to be detached on a lot. They are currently allowed as attached to a primary or accessory (i.e. garage) structures only, with the later requiring special permit from the ZBA. She also suggested changing the size threshold of accessory dwelling units from the current 50% of the primary structure rule, to instead having a specific size limitation, somewhere around 800/900 sq. ft. She stated that there are houses in the Town that have been built very large for the intended purpose of having a large accessory structure, similar in size to a house due to the 50% provision. She used Sanctuary Drive as an example of a development with oddly sized/configured houses. Many communities allow accessory structures, but restrict the size to something less than 1,000 sq. ft. And as the availability of housing has becomes an issue, more communities are allowing accessory structures to be detached. - Rich: Expressed interest in maintaining a public process for detached units. He suggested examining the special approval criteria in the Code, but not necessarily getting rid of the procedure. - Bill: Suggested possibly maintaining the approval process in the denser MDR zone, but not in the less dense LDR. - Bruce: Added that the setbacks of the principal building could apply to the accessory unit. Certificate of Compliance - Rich: Stated that the requirements for this section would fold into the operating permit. Accessory apartment size - Rich: Summarized the previous discussion concerning accessory structure size and that the Committee will consider a maximum square footage of 50% of the principal structure to no more than x square footage (i.e. 800 sq. ft.). - Committee: Decided to revisit the 600 sq. ft. minimum building size requirement in Town Code; look at the rationale and determine if it can be reduced. Reversion Clause - Rich: Described the 1997 Town policy “Procedure for the Elimination of Second Dwelling Units in Existing Buildings (3/10/97, Resolution No. 53) that explains how to turn a two-family dwelling into a single-family dwelling by removing a kitchen or bathroom (to insure sharing). Rich thought having some sort of language like this in the Code (rather than a policy) would provide an avenue for people who are aggrieved and want to convert their dwelling to a single-family house or feel there house has been wrongly categorized. - Pat: Questioned the situation in which the property owner has an apartment, but they do not rent it out (i.e. remains empty, child lives in it, etc.), and the potential onerous situation of having to remove it to comply with Town regulations. - Rich: Responded that this does raise a question between having an accessory apartment versus having and renting it. He questioned whether having an unrented apartment registered through 4 the Town registry and inspected every 3 years was really so onerous and whether the existence of a potential rental should be recognized. He suggested reevaluating the criteria to see if there are other indications, such as the existence of a wall/separation, access between units, or some other appearance, suggest the presence of a complete living facility, rather than just the kitchen/bathroom. - Committee: Agreed to further review the criteria. Staff updates and reports: - Bruce: Reported on recent County-wide Code Officers meeting where County Planner, Tom Knipe, reported on the local Airbnb situation including providing some statistical data. Bruce will send that information Committee members. It was recognized that Ithaca is not only place having issues with Airbnb. - Rod: Reminded the Committee that Tom has offered to attend a future meeting to discuss this topic. The issue may be brought to TCOOG. - Rich: Reminded the Committee that Susan Brock needs to be consulted regarding her concerns about owner-occupancy requirements. Discuss next meeting date and upcoming agenda items: Next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 16, 2017. Meeting ended at 6:20pm.