Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2024-04-11 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of April 11, 2024—5:30 pm Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall Minutes Members present: Rob Rosen, Chair, Eric Levine, Eva Hoffmann, Chris Jung, Bill Arms & Susie Gutenberger-Fitzpatrick. Staff Present: C.J. Randall, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Senior Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Enforcement Officer. David O'Shea, Civil Engineer via Zoom. Guests: none The meeting began at 5:35 p.m., recorded on Zoom and streamed live on the Town of Ithaca YouTube channel. 1. Member comments/concerns. The COC discussed a section of the draft Subdivision Regulations the previous month, related to the mitigation of invasive species during construction. Eva shared a follow up email with links to practical manuals and documents that contained advice on how to prevent unwanted spreading of invasive plants during construction and development. She noted that the topic is often brought up at Conservation Board (CB) meetings. One of the CB members shared information about a local Cornell project using methods applied in National Parks; Eva wanted to make sure that the COC received the information. 2. Review minutes from March 14, 2024, COC meeting. Rob moved to approve the March 14, 2024, minutes with changes provided by Susan Brock, who read them aloud and forwarded her proposed changes to the chair and staff prior to the meeting. Bill seconded. 6 Ayes. Approved. 3. Continued review of initial draft of Subdivision of Land Regulations. C.J. led the continued review of the draft regulations, changes, and highlights starting with: Pg 12 of the printout,line 528, §234-27 Minimum Gross area for clustering. C.J. shared the working draft document on the screen and began by reiterating that all words referencing "conservation" subdivision will be changed to "cluster," as agreed to by the committee in the beginning of the review. Bill began with general questions on the purpose and intent of the cluster subdivision approach and asked for explanations on when the cluster is required as opposed to a conventional approach. He expressed that he thought the requirement for a resource assessment and other requirements seemed more restrictive and opined that it would be costly for the developer. He 1 stated that he didn't to burden the town or developer, noting that the complex resource assessment process should not be a disincentive to developing affordable housing. C.J. responded that current and proposed language would apply to subdivisions over 5 acres. She explained why cluster subdivisions can be advantageous to developers, as they save on infrastructure costs. Developers can also obtain higher densities in smaller areas while preserving open space. She also referred to the "density bonus"provisions proposed, per recommendations in the Town Comprehensive Plan. One of the priority housing goals in the Comprehensive Plan is to encourage clustered development as the preferred method of subdivision. Chris added examples of cluster subdivisions in the town and noted how the trends have moved away from traditional or conventional subdivisions because of progressive environmental factors and infrastructure cost savings. Eva gave examples of her experience while on the Planning Board, stated that developers liked the cost savings, and added that there are now a lot more resources available to staff and applicants to proceed with the cluster subdivision approach than there used to be. So the resource assessment is not such a burden anymore. Susan Brock directed the committee to the steps listed in §234-29 H-1 a-c of the draft to clarify when the cluster subdivision regulations would be applicable. The proposed provisions self- determine the applicability with calculations. She stated—and the committee agreed- that the language and steps should be modified to be less convoluted and easier to follow. A guide and more simple representations would help clarify where and when the cluster regulations are required. Staff will work on revised language. Staff will also explore creating GIS maps that represent the various classes listed in the draft regulations for the next version of the law. There was discussion, along with an informal committee poll, to increase the minimum gross area for clustering from 5 acres to 10 acres. In the end, the committee decided to keep the minimum acreage to 5 acres. Page 13,line 552, §234-28 A. Purpose—A.1. eliminate the word"rural"in the last line. A.2. Marty asked to what"residential development"was specifically referring, particularly in number of units. Susan replied that up to a 4-plex is currently proposed to be allowed. C.J. confirmed that the referenced Town Open Space Index exists. §234-28 B. Guiding principles - B.2. Marty asked what an "institutional structure"was. This section should be re-worded to be clearer. It was suggested to add a reference to the town's "Manual For The Preservation of Agricultural Lands" and other related reference materials for ongoing maintenance of conservation assets. §234-28 C. Exceptions - C.2. Change "D"to"E"related to the resource analysis section. C.1. Susan noted there should be a cross reference here to §234-29 H-1,where applicability is determined, to alert the reader that there are provisions beyond the exceptions that come first in the law. Overall,the larger subdivisions are opted in to cluster provisions, unless Planning Board findings determine there is no reasonable basis for requiring clustered development. 2 §234-28 (a) Class 1: Constrained or unbuildable land(5) add "easement/"before "right of way." (b) Class 2: Priority conservation assets: Woodlands listed in [2] conflicts with woodlands listed in Class 3 (c)[1]. (c) Class 3: Other conservation assets: [2]Add the Tompkins County and Town of Ithaca Scenic Resource Inventories. [3] Land visible from Cayuga Lake needs to be more specific (leaves? no leaves?). [6] Remove the word"classified as" and add"within a" and remove the plural from UNA— spell out Unique Natural Area. [7] Remove "landscapes," and replace with another reference to the Tompkins County/Town of Ithaca Scenic Resources Inventories. [8] "Recreational resources"will be defined. The committee discussed having maps available for each of the assets referenced in the three classes, or another type of guidance document with the data layers available. Chris noted that the maps with layers are often presented to the Planning Board by staff for projects. Staff will work on this for future discussions on the law. Dave suggested defining some of the terms in the class sections. He did not know the criteria for determining a Critical Environmental Area or what were considered Prime Soils. He suggested referencing the source of the terms. Chris and C.J. noted there are definitions listed at the end of the section, although each term may not be there currently. Susan had a number of comments that she said could be reviewed by staff internally. However, she asked what was done when an entire parcel fell within a Critical Environmental Area (CEA). She explained to the committee what a CEA was and noted that the Town Board designated CEA's. Page 17,line 667, (3) Other conservation considerations (a) & (b)Marty recommended that these need to be more specific; does it mean any public vantage point?Also, the historic reference should be specific to those listed or eligible to be listed on the National and State Register of Historic Places. Chris said she'd look at the NYS DEC SEQR Part I form for language guidance. Page 17,line 674, (4) Other conservation considerations. Susan suggested listing the standards the Planning Board could apply to make the determination of which conservation assets were the most important to preserve. The committee agreed that this would be helpful and less arbitrary. Susan suggested that staff might do an analysis/visual representation to identify which parcels would be entirely precluded from development and which would be majorly precluded, similarly to what the town did when illustrating the telecommunications law. For the next COC meeting, C.J. asked the committee to reflect on the next section §234-29 Number of dwelling units permitted. She highlighted existing text that was amended in 2013 3 "In addition, the density of dwelling units in a clustered development shall not exceed 3.5 dwelling units per gross acre in a Medium Density Residential Zone or 2.3 dwelling units per gross acre in a Low Density Residential. " She noted that the numbers were similar to what is currently allowed with conventional/existing zoning, so it's not really clustering. C.J. asked the committee to carefully consider the density bonus proposed language and gave a brief summary of the intent of a density bonus. Density bonuses could be assigned by character area, zoning district, or townwide benefit area, to promote development in areas that supported utility infrastructure/smart growth concepts. She encouraged committee members to reach out anytime during the month with any questions. Bill asked why it was necessary to include a conventional subdivision depiction for sketch plan review of a conservation subdivision. This will be considered next month, when the committee discusses §234-29 Number of dwelling units permitted,beginning with E(3) line 703. Other business: next meeting scheduled for May 9, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. • Agenda: Continued review of initial draft Subdivision of Land Regulations, section noted above. Revisit Scope of Work schedule and Work Plan. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 4