No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Packet 2024-06-13 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.townithacany.gov 6/6/2024 TO: Codes and Ordinances Committee: Rob Rosen, Chair Susie Gutenberger-Fitzpatrick Eric Levine Eva Hoffmann Chris Jung Bill Arms FROM: Christine Balestra, Senior Planner RE: Next Codes and Ordinances Committee Meeting –, 2024 The next meeting of the Codes and Ordinances Committee is scheduled for Thursday, June 13, 2024, at 5:30 pm in the Town Board Room, located in Town Hall at 215 North Tioga Street. A quorum of the Town of Ithaca Town Board may be present at this meeting. However, no official Town Board business will be conducted. The following items are attached: 1. Minutes from the May 9, 2024, COC meeting. If you cannot attend this meeting, please notify Abby Homer as soon as possible at (607) 273 - 1747, or ahomer@townithacany.gov. cc: Susan H. Brock, Attorney for the Town C.J. Randall, Director of Planning Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement Abby Homer, Administrative Assistant Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk (email) Town Administrative staff (email) Town Code Enforcement staff (email) Town Planning staff (email) Town Public Works staff (email) Media TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 PLEASE NOTE: This meeting will be held in person in the Town Board Room at Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY, on June 13, 2024, at 5:30pm. Members of the public may join the meeting via Zoom: • Join Zoom meeting: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87531393743 • Zoom meeting ID: 875 3139 3743 • Dial in phone: 929-436-2866 Meeting of June 13– 5:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Member comments/concerns. 2. Review minutes from May 9, 2024, COC meeting. 3. Continue review of Initial Draft Subdivision of Land regulations (existing regulations: https://ecode360.com/8660770), Article IV. 4. Other business: • Next meeting agenda. Town of Ithaca Planning Department June 6, 2024 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of May 9, 2024 – 5:30 pm Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall Draft 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; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town 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. None 2. Review minutes from April 11, 2024, COC meeting. The draft minutes, with changes proposed by Susan Brock, were shared on screen, reviewed, and discussed by the committee. The committee engaged in a detailed discussion of density and how it is calculated. There were references to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and the density limits within the special character areas where cluster and higher density housing developments are more likely to occur. Additional minor changes were made to the draft minutes. Rob moved to approve the draft minutes with changes, Eric seconded. 6 Ayes. Approved. 3. Review memorandum and potential recommendation relative to Modification to Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations. Rob provided some background on this topic. Marty submitted a memo to the committee with a proposed recommendation to modify the Town Code to allow an existing second kitchen inside of a single-family home to remain without considering the home a two-family home (single-family with an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), as two-family homes require fire separation, legal means of egress, operating permit for ADU rental, and other requirements. The Town Code currently defines a “dwelling unit” as having complete living facilities for one family (e.g., kitchen, bath, sleeping area). A single-family home with a basement that contains a second kitchen would technically be considered a two-family home, with the basement considered a second dwelling unit. The cost of adding the fire separation to make a legal two-unit home and the cost of removing a kitchen were among the items factored into the consideration of allowing a second kitchen in a single-family home. Rather than require single-family homeowners to remove their second kitchens or seek variances to have the home classified as a two- 2 family just for the sake of keeping a second kitchen (thus requiring the homeowner to install legal fire separation and comply with other NYS Building Code requirements), the proposal includes a solution to insert the term “or sleeping area” into Town Code 270- 219.6 B. (4). This section of the Code lists the items that are required to be removed from a home to consider it a single-family home. Adding “or sleeping area” in this section would allow one to have a second kitchen and bathroom in a basement, but no sleeping area, so the home would still be considered a single-family home. The consensus of the committee was that the proposed amendment was reasonable and the least intrusive way to achieve the goal. It was noted that a building permit would be required to remove the sleeping area, kitchen, or bath to revert the classification from a two-family to single-family classification. Marty will revise the proposal accordingly. Rob made a motion, seconded by Eric, to make a favorable recommendation to the Town Board for the proposed changes to Town Code 270-219.6 B. (4), with the addition of requiring a building permit. 6 Ayes, approved. 4. Review 2024 Codes and Ordinances Committee Work Plan. The 2024 Work Plan was discussed, with C.J. stating that the Subdivision Regulation revisions was the highest priority (and currently in process). The next list of three high priority areas to consider amendments were discussed - the amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations – was just completed (item #3 above). C.J. briefly explained the remaining two items. The committee will focus next on Town Code 270-239 Zoning Violations and penalties section before developing Institutional Zoning per the Town Comprehensive Plan. C.J. did not have a lot of information about the amendments needed to Zoning Violations section and referred to an e-mail sent by the Attorney for the Town in May of 2023 to herself and Marty. In summary, it has to do with revocation of Planning and Zoning Board approvals. She will follow up with the committee with a more detailed overview at the next meeting. The regulations in process via the Town Planning Committee were listed on the COC Work plan along with the regulations completed in 2023. 5. 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: Page 17 of PDF, §234-29 Number of Dwelling Units permitted - Remove old A in its entirety and replace with (E), on line 689 of the PDF, the proposed method to calculate the number of dwelling units permitted in a clustered subdivision. Page 18, (5) Bonus Density section - Susan Brock stated that this section needed to be re- worded. Rob asked what one would need to do to get the 15% bonus. C.J. explained that the Town Code would need an amendment by the Town Board to note where and when these bonuses could be given. Susan mentioned that she will need to research the Town’s ability to require public access to the protected open space. She look more carefully at NYS Town Law §261 and will collaborate with staff to reword the relevant areas. 3 The committee then went into a long discussion about density bonuses. Chris showed the committee the Town Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, and explained the character area locations in the town where the density bonuses would be likely. The density bonuses would be generally located in areas listed on the Map as “Traditional Neighborhood Development/TND,” which are areas close to employment centers, with potential for multi-modal transportation connections, with existing public water/sewer utilities and other infrastructure, etc. The committee had difficulty visualizing what a 15% density bonus would look like in a practical application, so they asked for a visual representation of the 15% and other density bonus options. The committee wanted to ensure that the bonus would be motivating enough for developers to utilize and substantiate the number chosen. Staff will prepare a few GIS maps to illustrate this concept for a future meeting. Susan explained that the Town Board is the entity required to change the zoning density and would not be looking at the bonuses case by case, only as an overall zoning amendment. C.J. asked the committee to consider what might make a good incentive to developers to encourage a balanced blend of high-quality housing opportunities to meet one of the major goals in the Comprehensive Plan (Goal HN-2). She asked the committee to think whether blending the density bonus into the subdivision regulations is the best place to implement the goal. Eva noted the importance of keeping wildlife corridor connectivity into consideration when looking at open space requirements. Page 18, §234-29 existing E&F – This section restricts the number of dwelling units per structure in a clustered development (maximum six semi-detached, attached, or multistory dwelling units per structure). Rob asked why the limit is six dwelling units and not some other number? C.J. explained this was one of the areas amended in the 2013 revisions and the legislative history and reasoning can be looked into and shared with the committee. Chris stated the reasoning was likely design related. More discussion is needed on whether to keep these provisions or remove them. The committee will continue with Page 18, §234-29 new “F” next time. Other business: next meeting scheduled for June 13, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. • Agenda: - Continued review of initial draft Subdivision of Land Regulations, Page 18, §234-29 new F. Development Standards - Discussion of amendments to Town Code §270-239-Violations/Penalties The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Visualizing Density Julie Campoli • Alex S. MacLean © 2007 by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Julie Campoli, and Alex S. MacLean Aerial photographs © 2007 Alex S. MacLean This CD contains the Density Catalog section of the book Visualizing Density by Julie Campoli and Alex S. MacLean, which was published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA. This CD is made available for educational purposes only, as a way for planning officials, planning board members, citizens, educators, and others to share information about residential density in public meetings, classrooms, and other such venues.  Visualizing Density Density is easy to calculate. Divide the number of persons by the number of square miles, or the number of housing units by the number of acres, and you will know the density of a given area. But, although measuring density is a rational pro- cess, our perception of density is neither rational nor quantifi- able. What does a place look like? How does it feel to be there? These qualitative factors, not numbers, determine how we perceive density. We react to the physical environment, which can be shaped in countless ways. How we arrange the streets, buildings, and open spaces of cities and neighborhoods affects the perception, or feeling, of density. This density catalog shows both physical qualities and numerical measures. It contains aerial photographs of more than 250 neighborhoods across the country, noting the den- sity in housing units per acre for each site. Four photographs of each location are included—a close-up view, a context view, a neighborhood view, and a plan view. Yellow lines superim- posed on each context image show the extent of the area mea- sured. Street pattern diagrams drawn at the same scale show the differences in street and open space layout. The catalog is organized by density level, from low density (less than 1 unit per acre) to high density (296 units per acre). The catalog provides an impartial view of many ways to design neighborhoods. It includes a broad sample of con- texts and regions, as well as design approaches. The format is objective, with the sites represented consistently. Your evalua- tion of these places, however, will be subjective. You will find some neighborhoods attractive and others unappealing. As you browse the images, notice the variety within a given range. For example, 13 different sites have a density between 8 and 9 units per acre. They share a similar measured density, but each has a distinct physical character. It is not density that makes a neighborhood appealing or appalling, but form—the street lay- out, arrangement of buildings, quality of architecture, and use of open space. This collection of images is an introduction to the visual form of residential density, but it is also a planning and design tool. Use it to gain consensus on the form that density should take in your community. It will help you and others under- stand the link between density and design, and enable you to conjure mental images of density you can live with. The Density Catalog streets rail line open space water Key to Street Patterns Chicago, Illinois  context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern Beverly Hills, CA 0.2 units / acre Hollister, CA 0.3 units / acre Broomfield, CO 0.3 units / acre Less Than 1 uniT per aCre 11 context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern streets rail line open space water Longview, WA 2.0 units / acre Phoenix, AZ 2.1 units / acre Beverly Hills, CA 2.2 units / acre 2 uniTs per aCre 1  context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern streets rail line open space water 3 uniTs per aCre Tucson, AZ 3.4 units / acre Kansas City, MO 3.5 units / acre Beaufort, SC 3.6 units / acre  context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern streets rail line open space water Tampa, FL 4.5 units / acre Kansas City, KS 4.5 units / acre Anthem, AZ 4.5 units / acre 4 uniTs per aCre street pattern not available 0 context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern Hollister, CA 4.8 units / acre Tampa, FL 4.9 units / acre Levittown, NY 5.0 units / acre 4 To 5 uniTs per aCre  context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern Orlando, FL 5.3 units / acre Longmont, CO 5.3 units / acre Tampa, FL 5.3 units / acre 5 uniTs per aCre 1 context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern streets rail line open space water Longmont, CO 7.7 units / acre Boca Raton, FL 7.8 units / acre Boise, ID 7.8 units / acre 7 uniTs per aCre 46 context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern Portland, OR 8.9 units / acre Tampa, FL 9.0 units / acre Chicago, IL 9.0 units / acre 8 to 9 units per acre 49 context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern Tampa, FL 10.5 units / acre Boise, ID 10.6 units / acre Charleston, SC 10.7 units / acre 10 units per acre streets rail line open space water 59 context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern streets rail line open space water Tampa, FL 15.6 units / acre Cleveland, OH 16.0 units / acre Denver, CO 16.1 units / acre 15 to 16 units per acre 63 context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern streets rail line open space water Dorchester, MA 18.4 units / acre Tampa, FL 19.0 units / acre Cleveland, OH 19.2 units / acre 18 to 19 units per acre 73 context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern streets rail line open space water Tampa, FL 29.9 units / acre Phoenix, AZ 31.5 units / acre Los Angeles, CA 31.8 units / acre 29 to 31 units per acre 79 context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern streets rail line open space water Mtn. View, CA 49.3 units / acre San Francisco, CA 52.5 units / acre Boston, MA 52.9 units / acre 49 to 52 units per acre 87 context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern Seattle, WA 100.1 units / acre Las Vegas, NV 104.8 units / acre New York, NY 112.2 units / acre streets rail line open space water More than 100 units per acre 88 context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern Chicago 152.2 units / acre Portland, OR 161.3 units / acre New York, NY 199.5 units / acre More than 150 units per acre 89 context context context neighborhood plan neighborhood plan neighborhood plan street pattern street pattern street pattern streets rail line open space water San Francisco, CA 222.0 units / acre New York, NY 288.0 units / acre New York, NY 296.0 units / acre More than 200 units per acre