Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2022-04-21 Town of Ithaca Planning Committee Thursday,April 21, 2022 (4:00 PM via Zoom) Final Minutes Committee members: Rich DePaolo, Chair; Rod Howe, Margaret Johnson Board/Staff members: Director of Planning, Susan Ritter; Planner, Dan Tasman; Director of Code Enforcement Marty Mosely and Town GIS Analyst Ben Coakley. Guests: Bruce Brittain, 1. Persons to be heard: Bruce Brittain noted his neighborhood of Forest Home's interest in pedestrian facilities upgrades and also that he sent an email with comments about a few items on the pedestrian map. 2. Committee announcements and concerns: None. 3. Consider approval of March meeting minutes: Rod moved; Margaret seconded. March 17th, 2022, Minutes were approved with minor corrections noted. 4. Continue discussion of the Inlet Valley Overlay Zone proposal: Planner Dan Tasman introduced the staff memo distributed for the meeting that identified outstanding issues and proposed recommendations for the draft zoning. The committee discussed and considered each area of concern for incorporation into a revised draft. Dan clarified and explained areas where questions were raised. Adaptive reuse of older buildings: the recommendation was to use the existing Limited Historical Commercial Zone as the tool to promote and regulate adaptive reuse rather than adding redundant regulations in the IV zoning. Committee members agreed. Hotel size: committee members agreed with the max of 60 rooms. Campgrounds as permitted use: remove from the IV overlay for now given potential impacts needing more detailed site requirements, and in light of current availability in the area - committee members agreed. Farm stand size: modify to harmonize requirements with existing zoning code provisions—committee agreed. Committee further requested obtaining attorney clarification on the language and Rich noted definition and method for calculating size will be needed. Retail uses-categories and size: staff recommended consolidating the three defined storefront retail use categories (retail/service general, Inlet Valley character, food/grocery) into one overall category, with maximum GFA for storefront retail uses of 5,000"by right, and 7,50012 with a special permit - committee members agreed. Retreat/event venue: staff recommended allowing a retreat/event venue use only on lots with Elmira Road frontage, and only in pre-existing buildings. Rich questioned if this was legal and needed counsel recommendation, all agreed to highlight for attorney. 1 Outdoor adventure/education use: staff recommended removing "outdoor adventure/education center" from the list of permitted uses. Committee members did not object. Light Industrial use: staff recommended increasing the maximum GFA of low impact industrial uses from 10,00012 to 12,00012. [Still need committee feedback] Modifying extent of IV-T overlay: Staff recommended scaling back the extent of the IV-C (Inlet Valley Commercial) overlay southwest of Seven Mile Drive, to 706 Elmira Road(Briar Patch Veterinary Hospital). Lots fronting Elmira Road south/west of this point should be part of the IV-T (Inlet Valley Transition) overlay. Committee members agreed and this would be closer in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff also suggests reconsidering the need for an IV-C and IV-T overlay on land that is part of the Ithaca Beer Planned Development Zone. There were no disagreements to this. The committee asked about the remaining land owned by the same person that is not the PDZ, Rich recommended a rendering to show the change with the reasonings for the next meeting. Margaret noted she was troubled from the previous decision to not allow free food cabinets in the Inlet Valley. She supported allowing them with rules for keeping them maintained. Rich and Rod recalled discussions about allowing or not at trail heads which resulted in alternative preferable location for the one in question to the adjacent city boundary. No specific town-wide ordinance was done to prohibit them at the time and the existing zoning law does not have specific provisions either, all agreed this is a town-wide issue not specific to Inlet Valley alone. 5. Review updated Town Pedestrian Facilities Map: An updated map showing existing pedestrian facilities in the Town of Ithaca, City of Ithaca and Cornell, along with proposed(yet to be built)priority corridors identified in the 2007 Transportation Plan and the existing and future segments of the Black Diamond Trail, was presented by Ben Coakley, Town GIS Analyst in the Engineering Department. Sue explained that the updated map is intended to help identify current sidewalk priorities in anticipation of possible funding opportunities. The committee reviewed the map and discussed the various facilities throughout the town. They noted that the updated map would work well as a tool to identify pedestrian facilities and multi-modal priorities, as well. Sue referred to the Trumansburg Road/Rt.96 pedestrian corridor study and how it offered public input and provided project cost estimates. She added that several property owners at the south end of the corridor expressed concern about the impacts of a sidewalk on their property (shallow front yards and drainage issues). Constructing a sidewalk with a more urban profile (curbing, etc.)would help, but that requires narrowing the right-of-way and approval from NYS DOT for lowering the speed limit. Different funding sources are possible in the coming weeks/months having different funding pools and levels of competition(i.e., federal-nationwide vs state-wide). Rich noted that needed seasonal maintenance for some types of facilities may affect the priority and that some uses may have an assumption of year-round maintenance. He wanted to know which types of projects would be most likely to receive the possible upcoming funding, multi-use trails or sidewalks, to focus the Committee discussion. 2 Rod's goal was to identify big gaps in connectivity and consideration of the number of users who could benefit from a new connection,path, trail or sidewalk. The hospital corridor/Rt.96/Trumansburg was noted as a priority and the Forest Home neighborhood was noted as in favor of sidewalks as well as possibly the northeast area around the schools. He also recommended looking at the CIP with Public Works Dept. to see what street improvements are planned. Margaret encouraged multi use trails and supported connections to increase mobility for vulnerable, low income, and densely populated areas to access to practical destination points such as schools, day care, grocery and shopping plazas. She suggested that the criteria from the 2007 map be brought back to the current map. Collecting the incoming requests for sidewalks was noted for other areas to explore besides the ones mentioned above. Adding the criteria or factors favoring the various types of infrastructure with descriptions back into the updated map was requested. Population density was noted as a big factor for priorities as well. Three areas were noted as still a strong priority based on preliminary discussion, Rt 96/Hospital corridor, 96B/King Road E, and Pine Tree Road. Ben was thanked for his time and excused from the meeting at 5:46 p.m. 6. Discuss proposed modifications to the Limited Historic Commercial Zone: The Limited Historic Commercial (LHC) zone with proposed modifications was distributed and discussed. Rich questioned if there would be a baseline for the properties being afforded the rights of the district to ensure maintenance of historic properties as a way to justify the basis of granting the request for the limited commercial use (for example, Hayts Chapel, with short term rental use proposed as a business with profits intended to go toward maintaining the buildings historic character). He questioned if site visits or inspections would occur, what elements would need to be maintained, and how would the Town confirm the conditions are being met as "reasonable" as worded in the zoning. Reasonable could be interpreted differently and there could be complaints from property owners in other districts where the same commercial enterprise is prohibited, this LHC zone could appear as an incentive for any property in the Town and the justification would/could be the same in all cases (more income to preserve/easier all to maintain). Need assurance that the business practices being allowed are used to benefit the property in some mechanism. Rod asked Marty if Code Enforcement could set up a system for site visits to evaluate property maintenance. Marty indicated this would be possible after the Town Board determines and sets guiding criteria regarding the maintenance. The possible involvement of the ILPC (Ithaca Landmarks Preservation Commission) was mentioned also, once the City/Town Historic Preservation Ordinance is adopted. Sue noted the existing LHC zone does not have inspection process, but this could be added to the amended law as a requirement. For now, the committee could make the initial determination on an application,but in the future, this could be the responsibility of the ILPC, as well as a subsequent determination on continued maintenance. The City ILPC may have criteria to look at. Rich wondered whether criteria would need to be embedded in the law. Rod and Sue will reach out to City Historic Preservation Planner, Bryan McCracken to get information on possible criteria and process. 3 Sue then explained that an important amendment proposed for the LHC was to make it an overlay zone and allow the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone to remain in effect. The current LHC is not an overlay and has no setback provisions. Other modifications mostly centered on removing redundancy and improving the language flow. The committee provided some initial general comments of the amended LHC zone language. § 270-142.2. Purpose C: "If, following a public hearing, the Town Board determined that the buildings or structures are not in reasonably good condition..." This provision prompted Rich to question how/why/when the public hearing would come into place. This is where a linking policy or process would need to be already in place. § 270-142.4. Permitted principal uses Pwp1hn!g !4uit: Separate Ming (pnaifteirs foie Ming, s e :Ving, cooking, eaLing, batiding, and sa:flniLaJon bya hmiseh6d "]Fh s vise does not i a spg�4i pglnnGt", *"A: k ui1&`E r9gy bgyg I dvvglllliling g�[�it pgE gross figoir area that irneets the definitJoin of "habqatfle spg�,e" iii the Illrgeirlrnand oir4l Res�dent4l Code):, Thils does not apply tg bgflk-fings 1:hat ri�?w, oil (2) dgDt rneet the a.ijter41 iii 270-1423 B.". The committee discussed the term "principal dwelling unit" and"residential" as principal use. The intent of the language was explained that an existing home could be divided into separate dwelling units per 1000 sq ft of space, all being considered the principal use (not accessory). Marty requested that the NYS Residential Code be used as a reference opposed to the International Residential Code and noted that"habitable space" and "dwelling unit" are similar in nature and questioned if both needed to be referenced and defined. He also stated that NYS Building code is used for a multiple dwelling residence. The section above to be revised with just the dwelling unit definition and reference to the NYS Code, also removing the word"principal" from the dwelling unit allowance. Live work dw6lhng y: Dk:: Condiifloin-Change to principal to be consistent Short teirrn renta�� Concfidon "A rinft �Ilay [�e �.rsed for iin hosted shoirt ter-ri rent,�d y��g�[vvfth nn. rnax irnuiirn firne hadt for (:)CCUPg[) y, aaglkwjg(-t 1�o aapga,4l pglrirnit ireview and applroval". This condition needs to be clarified as to not conflict with the long-term rentals, i.e.: add the number of days that cannot be exceeded. Questions and clarifications were fielded by Dan, and he will incorporate the minor changes noted above. The committee will continue discussion for next time and asked that the Attorney for the Town provide a review in the meantime, for any legal clarification or changes. 7. Staff updates and reports: Sue and Rod reported that there will be a site visit at RaNic for the Cayuga Heights Board on May loth at 3pm with rain date of the I Ith at the same time. Town staff was invited to attend, Sue and Rod and Rich noted they would attend. 8. Next meeting date and upcoming agenda items: next meeting May 19, 2022, the committee agreed to change the time from 4:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Topics: Continue with Inlet Valley Overlay and LHC zoning. Also pending, pedestrian map criteria; camping proposal next to LaTourelle in sketch form that 4 would necessitate a PDZ (currently LDR); and site plan submission requirements. South Hill consultant may have a preliminary regulating plan ready for review. Committee agreed to hold a special meeting if it was found to be needed. The Planning Committee meeting concluded at 6:35 pm. 5