Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2024-06-13 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of June 13, 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 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 versus 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. 1 §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. 2 The committee ended before Section I-line 891 (original PDF paper version) 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 The meeting adjourned at 6:56 p.m. 3