Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2024-07-11 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of July 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. Member Absent: Susie Gutenberger-Fitzpatrick. Staff Present: C.J. Randall, Director of Planning; Christine Balestra, Senior Planner; Nick Quilty-Koval, Planner; David O’Shea, Senior Civil Engineer; Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Officer; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town. Guests: none The meeting began at 5:30 p.m., was recorded on Zoom and streamed live on the Town of Ithaca YouTube channel. 1. Member comments/concerns. None 2. Review minutes from July 11, 2024, COC meeting. Rob moved to approve the minutes with minor corrections suggested by Susan Brock. Bill seconded and all voted in favor of approval of the June 13, 2024, COC meeting minutes. 3. Continued review of initial draft of Subdivision of Land Regulations. C.J. introduced the new Town Planner, Nick Quilty-Koval, who prepared a presentation of a graphic representation of the draft cluster subdivision regulations. He selected three sample sites for the presentation and explained that they were chosen based on size (each respective site was approximately 25 acres in size) and availability of municipal water and sewer. The three examples were presented from the point of view of a developer unfamiliar with the regulations as proposed, who would be required to apply the site and resource analysis requirements in the draft cluster language that the COC is currently reviewing. This was intended to fulfill a prior request by the COC, due to concerns that the proposed language could be too restrictive and difficult for developers to follow. Nick used the draft cluster language requirements to determine the developable acreage, estimated number of dwelling units and units per acre/density for each parcel. He then created a profile for each site, titled “Site Resource Analysis,” showing the class 1, 2, and 3 development classification criteria/restrictions from the draft law. The amount of developable acreage was based on what remained after subtracting/reserving the resources outlined in the classifications. Each profile example contained a white area where the cluster subdivision could possibly occur after applying the clustered requirements and other restrictions. Nick noted that all the resources required to be identified by the applicant were readily available publicly online, or one could call and get the information from the town. COC members asked for clarification on how the estimated dwelling units were determined. C.J. and Nick responded that the numbers were based on the zoning district minimum lot size in the Town Code. 2 Applicants could not build more units than permitted by Town Code without a Zoning Board of Appeals variance. Each example provided by Nick, however, also included a 15% density bonus, which is achieved only through the clustering process and by meeting the criteria outlined in the law (currently the provision of a public benefit). A developer seeking to construct a clustered subdivision could obtain a density bonus that is beyond the number of units permitted with a conventional subdivision. Planning staff provided pictures and examples of real-life, local clustered subdivisions and developments with densities similar to those envisioned for a clustered subdivision (e.g., Belle Sherman Cottages, Ecovillage, Commonland, Holly Creek, Amabel). The committee appreciated the presentation, as it made the law language easier to understand and visualize. The committee discussed density and ownership models for clustered subdivisions. Notes for staff: “woodland” needs to be defined; and it shows up in Class 2 & 3 but should only be in one classification. Staff noted that a “Site Calculation Worksheet” would be developed later to assist applicants in tabulating calculations. C.J. mentioned that staff would continue the examples at the September meeting, showing conventional subdivision layouts versus cluster subdivision layouts for each of the three example sites. The conventional subdivision generally must be laid out conceptually first to determine the density for the cluster basis approach. The conventional layout must comply with zoning as well as any site-specific environmental constraints, which often reduces the yields on the site. The COC looked forward to this comparison to help further show the different approaches. Other business: next meeting scheduled for August 8, 2024, at 5:30 p.m. (Eric noted previously he would not be available) • Agenda: - Review of Town Code Section 270-239 Violations and penalties in the zoning chapter. The continued review of the initial draft Subdivision of Land Regulations will be paused until September. The meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m.