The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOC Packet 2024-07-11 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 215 N. Tioga St 14850 607.273.1747 www.townithacany.gov 7/3/2024 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 July 11, 2024 The next meeting of the Codes and Ordinances Committee is scheduled for Thursday, July 11, 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 June 13, 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 July 11, 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 July 11– 5:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Member comments/concerns. 2. Review minutes from the June 13, 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 July 3, 2024 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of June 13, 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 Excused-Susie Gutenberger-Fitzpatrick. Staff Present: C.J. Randall, Director of Planning; Dan Thaete, Director of Engineering; Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Officer; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement. Guests: none The meeting began at 5:30 p.m., recorded on Zoom and streamed live on the Town of Ithaca YouTube channel. 1. Member comments/concerns. None 2. Review minutes from May 9, 2024, COC meeting. Rob moved to approve the minutes with minor changes proposed by Susan Brock, Eva seconded. 3. Continued review of initial draft of Subdivision of Land Regulations. Rob noted the receipt of the “Visualizing Density” document that was included with the COC mail out. C.J. shared a slide from Maine regarding a typical lot size and picture for reference. She explained the pictures that showed one dwelling unit per acre, one dwelling unit per two acres, etc. She also stated that the Planning Department was working on examples around the town where a cluster subdivision could occur and how that density would look. She will share those examples with the committee when they are complete. The committee picked up on Page 18 of PDF, §234-29 (F) Development Standards. The term “townhome” may need to be defined within this section or referenced back to the definition in the overall Zoning Chapter (if there is one). The committee discussed (F) (a) & (b) regarding the zoning laws that the Planning Board may waive (setbacks, lot sizes, etc.), along with new requirements for applications to include a site capacity worksheet for the lot yield with a conventional subdivision verses a cluster subdivision. In F (2) (a), Marty asked that dwelling size be clearly determined, otherwise the Unform Code calculation of 300 sq. ft. minimum would be used for conformity and a variance process would need to be sought if the dwelling size were lower. C.J. suggested removing the term “dwelling size” from this section and potentially add a maximum dwelling unit size in the buildable area. A maximum lot size was also discussed. Marty asked for clarification in F (2) (d): is it meant to apply within the newly subdivided area or adjoining/existing parcels and residences? C.J. will clarify this language. 2 §234-29 (G) Conservation Standards. Bill stated the increase in open space/conservation easement to be set aside from 10% to 40% seemed like a large increase and would double the density in the buildable areas. He did not want this to be a disincentive to builders in the area. C.J. explained that the yield in the cluster subdivision versus a conventional subdivision would be the same; the site capacity calculation worksheet the developer provides would show what the underlying zoning would allow and how it can be arranged to maximize open space and save on infrastructure. The depictions in the draft language will be scaled and accurately show the examples. Dan Thaete asked if the 40% of the unbuildable land included the stormwater areas, roads, etc. C.J. stated that would be clarified in the worksheet. Dan commented that, based on the class definitions, reducing the land after all of the natural restraints (contour, slopes, water features) by 40% did seem hard to achieve, at least on paper. He encouraged the Planning Department to illustrate scenarios in the town where these standards could be achieved, so the committee could visualize the language better. C.J. referenced the Open Space Index and other town developed assets that developers have to help them work around the constraints. The Planning Department will take a few parcels and run them through the classification scenarios with conservation assets for the next COC meeting. Bill also expressed concern to not make the language so complicated that the developers with large subdivisions skip the cluster or conventional process and directly go to the Town Board with a less complicated PDZ. Bill noted that interest rates, cost of building and procedural regulations were top constraints. Rob added that there is an economic problem that prohibits development that is not controlled by the zoning regulations - there are many factors. All agreed that the intent is to not add to the prohibition with these new regulations. C.J. mentioned possibly hosting a developer ’s roundtable around the time of the upcoming American Planning Association New York Upstate Chapter conference to be held in Ithaca this fall, to gather input from the other side of the table to help develop processes that are within the control of the local municipality. She noted that removing the road standards from the law and incorporating them in the new Site Design and Criteria Manual would be a helpful tool for developers. She also clarified for Bill that cluster subdivisions generally involve multiple owners in the end (typically fee simple residential lots), whereas developments with the Planned Development Zone (PDZ) approach are often one entity covering a number of acres and frequently do not include the subdivision of land. Further down in the document §234-30 Buffer Zones, Eva asked for an explanation on why the buffer zones were greater from residential zones than from industrial and commercial zones. Marty explained the impact of the cluster subdivision is likely to have more impact on a residential zone than the commercial or industrial zone. Therefore, the setback would be larger. C.J. stated that this section remained from the original document and there may be legislative history that may add to the reasoning. Dan Thaete added that a larger buffer may be wanted to protect the cluster subdivision from an industrial zone. 3 The committee ended before Section I-line 836. Permanent Open Space. The Planning Department will follow up with map visualizations of potential conventional/cluster subdivisions with the applied proposed conservation asset classifications. Other business: next meeting scheduled for July 11 , 2024, at 5:30 p.m. • Agenda: - Continued review of initial draft Subdivision of Land Regulations, Page 20, §234-30 (Buffer zones). The meeting was adjourned at 6:56 p.m. Subdivision Review COC –7/11/2024 Aerial Image Site One Site Two Site Three Site One Resource Analysis Class 1 +Does not contain wetlands +No floodzones or floodways +Does not contain slopes ≥ 40% +Not within 25ft of the mean high water mark of Cayuga Lake +Does not contain existing or public utility +No prime or prime if drained soils +No included or adjacent historic sites +No Ithaca CEA’s Class 2 +Does not contain rare or vulnerable ecological communities +Contains woodlands +No prime or prime if drained soils +Contains slopes between 15 and 40 percent Class 3 +Contains woodland and existing mowed lawn (white area) +Not land visible from Cayuga Lake +Does not contain or abut historic sites +No prime or prime if drained soils +Does not contain land within Tompkins County Unique Natural Areas +Not within the Scenic Resource Inventory +Contains trails +Provides connectivity to public land +Publicly accessible Site One Profile & Density Yield Profile: •Medium Density Residential Zone •27.97 Acres •Public Water •Public Sewer •Large amounts of woodland •Trail runs north to south along the eastern boundary •Contains some areas with slopes between 15% and 20% Density Yield •Total Acres 27.97 •Unbuildable Acreage: 0 •Buildable Acreage: 27.97 •*Woodland – 16.54 acres •*15-40% sloped land – 5.95 acres •^Trails – 0.75 acres •Cluster Requirement: •40% of all land (w/ unbuildable)= 11.18 acres •*Class 2 80%: 17.99 acres •^Class 3 40%: 0.30 acres •Developable Acres: 9.68 acres (27.97- 17.99 - 0.30) •Estimated dwelling units (15,000 sqft): •83 (27.97 acres/15,000sqft) •Density Bonus! +15% Site One Density Visualization +Developable acres (based on cluster requirements) +9.68 acres +Estimated dwelling units (15,000 sqft): +83 (27.97 acres/15,000sqft) +Units per acre (density) +8.57 which rounds to 9 Julie Campoli & Alex S. MacLean, 8 to 9 Units Per Acre, “Visualizing Density”Bob Bengford, Visualizing Compatible Density, https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/april- 2017/visualizing-compatible-density Site Two Resource Analysis Class 1 +Contains wetlands +No floodzones or floodways +Does not contain slopes ≥ 40% +Not within 25ft of the mean high water mark of Cayuga Lake +Contains a Class B Stream +100ft setback +Contains sanitary sewer easement +No prime or prime if drained soils +No included or adjacent historic sites +No Ithaca CEA’s Class 2 +Contains a significant natural community +Floodplain forest +Perched Swamp White Oak Swamp +Claucous Sedge (Threatened shrub) +Gray Petaltail (Special Concern Dragonfly) +Contains woodlands +No prime or prime if drained soils +Stream buffer shown in blue +Does not contain slopes above 15% Class 3 +Contains woodland and existing mowed lawn (white area) +Not land visible from Cayuga Lake +Does not contain or abut historic sites +No prime or prime if drained soils +Does not contain land within Tompkins County Unique Natural Areas +Not within the Scenic Resource Inventory +Does not contain trails +Does not provide connectivity top public land Site Two Profile & Density Yield Profile: •Medium Density Residential Zone •Total Acres: 23.07 •Public Water •Public Sewer •Majority of the site is woodland •Contains wetlands •Contains a Class B Stream (swimming and other recreation) and requires a stream setback Density Yield •Total Acres 23.07 •Unbuildable Acreage: 4.86 (0.55 + 4.31) •Buildable Acreage: 18.21 •*Woodland – 17.60 acres •Wetlands – 0.55 acres •Stream Setback - 4.31acres •Cluster Requirement: •40% of all land (w/o unbuildable) = 7.28 acres •*Class 2 (80%): 14.08 acres •Developable Acres: 4.13 (23.07 - 4.86 - 14.08) •Estimated dwelling units (15,000 sqft): •53 (18.21acres/15,000sqft) Site Two Density Visualization +Developable acres (based on cluster requirements) +4.13 +Estimated dwelling units (15,000 sqft): +53 (18.21 acres/15,000sqft) +Units per acre (density) +12.83 which rounds to 13 Julie Campoli & Alex S. MacLean, 15 to 16 Units Per Acre, “Visualizing Density”Bob Bengford, Visualizing Compatible Density, https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc- insight/april-2017/visualizing-compatible-density Site Three Resource Analysis Class 1 +Contains a wetland +Does not contain floodzone or floodway +Does not contain slopes ≥ 40% +Not within 25ft of the mean high water mark of Cayuga Lake +Contains a Class C Stream +100ft setback outlined in adjacent map +Does not contain easement or right of ways +May contain sightlines to Cayuga Lake +No Ithaca CEA’s Class 2 +Does not contain rare or vulnerable ecological communities +Contains a Principal Aquifer +Contains woodland +Does not contain prime or prime if drained soil +Stream buffer shown in blue +Contains slopes between 15 and 40 percent Class 3 +Contains woodland and mowed fields +Not land visible from Cayuga Lake +Does not contain or abut historic sites +Does not contain prime or prime if drained soil +Does not contain land within Tompkins County Unique Natural Areas +Not within the Scenic Resource Inventory +Does not contain trails +Does not provide connectivity top public land Site Three Profile & Density Profile •Medium Density Residential Zone •Total Acres: 34.26 •Public Water •Public Sewer •Contains a wetland •Large amounts of wooded area •Some sloped areas between 15% and 20% •Contains a Class C Stream (fishing) and requires a stream setback Density Yield •Total Acres 34.26 •Unbuildable Acreage: 8.32 •Buildable Acreage: 25.94 •*Woodland – 17.56 acres •*15-40% sloped land – 0.46 acres •Wetland – 0.55 acres •Stream Setback – 7.77 acres •Cluster Requirement: •40% of all land (w/o unbuildable) = 10.37 acres •*Class 2 (80%): 14.41 acres •Developable Acres: 11.53 acres (25.94 – 14.41) •Estimated dwelling units (15,000 sqft): • 76 (25.94/15,000) Site Three Density Visualization +Developable acres (based on cluster requirements) +11.53 +Estimated dwelling units (15,000 sqft): +76 (25.94 acres/15,000sqft) +Units per acre (density) +6.6 which rounds to 7 Julie Campoli & Alex S. MacLean, 7 Units Per Acre, “Visualizing Density”Bob Bengford, Visualizing Compatible Density, https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/april- 2017/visualizing-compatible-density Items NOT Considered +A comprehensive connective strategy to existing parks and open spaces +City of Ithaca parks and open spaces +Erodible Soils +Buffer zones along adjoining parcels Class 1 Resources Class 1 Designation +[1] Wetlands that require a permit from the NYS DEC or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: +NYS DEC Environmental Resource Mapper +NYS DEC EAF Mapper +FEMA +[2] Flood hazard areas (Zone A or Floodway): +FEMA +Tompkins and Ontario Counties - Old Paper Effective vs. New Digital Preliminary Data +Tompkins County Environmental Health +[3] Slopes of 40% or more: +Tompkins County Environmental Health +Cornell University Geospatial Information Repository “Topographic Contours (2ft), Town of Ithaca, 2008” +[4] Land within 25 feet of the mean high water mark of Cayuga Lake or 100 feet of the bed of a stream classified as Class C or higher by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation: +United States Geological Survey (Cayuga Lake) +National Water Prediction Service +[5] Land within an existing or proposed stormwater management facility or easement/right-of-way: +Contact County and State Local Planning/Engineering Departments +[6] Land occupied by existing or proposed public utility structures or improvements: +Contact County and State Local Planning/Engineering Departments +[7] Land encumbered by existing easements or otherwise unavailable for development: +Tompkins County Clerk +[8] Land within Minimum Stream Setback Widths per Town Code § 270-219.5: Stream setback: +Tompkins County Environmental Health +[9] Land within a Critical Environmental Area (CEA): +Tompkins County Natural Resources Inventory Mapper Class 2 Resources Class 2 Designation +[1] Land that includes rare or vulnerable ecological communities: +Tompkins County Natural Resources Inventory Mapper +[2] Woodlands: +Google Earth Aerial Views +Tompkins County Environmental Health – Provides 6in Imagery +[3] Agricultural land that was farmed within the past two years, located within the strategic agricultural protection area, with soils classified as Prime, Prime if Drained, or Soils of Statewide Significance: +Tompkins County Natural Resources Inventory Mapper +Cornell University Geospatial Information Repository – SSURGO soils, Tompkins County +NYSERDA Soils Data +Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan +Town of Ithaca Open Space Report +[4] Riparian buffers within 150 feet of a stream centerline, exclusive of the 100-foot stream corridor included in Class 1: +NYS DEC Environmental Resource Mapper +NYS DEC Stream Classifications +Tompkins County Environmental Health +[5] Slopes of 15% or more but less than 40%: +Tompkins County Environmental Health Class 3 Resources Class 3 Designation +[1] Other natural land cover types (including, but not limited to woodlands, wetlands, old field or shrubland) not included in Class 1 or Class 2: +Google Earth Aerial Views +Tompkins County Environmental Health – Provides 6in Imagery +[2] Land visible from Cayuga Lake: +Tompkins County Scenic Resource Mapper +[3] Land adjoining or visible from existing public or protected land: +Tompkins County Environmental Health +[4] Land including or adjoining historic sites: +National Register of Historic Places +NYS Data.Gov – National Register of Historic Places Map +[5] Agricultural land that was farmed within the past two years, located outside the strategic agricultural protection area, with soils classified as Prime, Prime if Drained, or Soils of Statewide Significance as classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: +Cornell University Geospatial Information Repository – SSURGO soils, Tompkins County +[6] Land classified within a Tompkins County Unique Natural Areas (UNAs): +[7] Scenic landscape Resources Inventory: +Tompkins County Scenic Resource Mapper +Tompkins County Scenic Resources Inventory 2007 +Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan +Town of Ithaca Scenic Resources Committee (with reports) +[8] Recreational resources: +Tompkins County Natural Resources Inventory Mapper +[9] Lands that provide connectivity to public land: +Town of Ithaca Park Recreation and Open Space Plan +[10] Buffers for resources in adjacent or nearby parcels: +Mapping Tompkins County +[11] Publicly accessible open space: +Tompkins County Natural Resources Inventory Mapper +Town of Ithaca Park Recreation and Open Space Plan Other cluster Considerations +(a) The visibility of the site from public vantage points: +Google Earth +(b) Historic or indigenous sites within or adjoining the site: +NYS EAF Mapper +(c) How the built environment and natural features will be integrated through the design of the cluster subdivision: +https://apps.geocortex.com/webviewer/?app=5d95cc69ab2348edbb96e42113b00c43 +Searchable GIS Databases: +Cornel University Geospatial Information Repository +NYS GIS Clearing House +NYS Open NY