The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOC Minutes 2024-09-12 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of September 12, 2024—5:30 pm Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall Minutes Members present: Rob Rosen, Chair, Eric Levine, Chris Jung, Bill Arms, Susie Gutenberger-Fitzpatrick, Eva Hoffmann. Staff Present: Dana Magnuson, Senior Code Officer; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Chris Balestra, Senior Planner;Nick Quilty-Koval, Planner; David O'Shea, Director of Engineering; C.J. Randall, Director of Planning Guests: One student from Ithaca High School The meeting began at 5:30 p.m.,was recorded on Zoom and streamed live on the Town of Ithaca YouTube channel. I. Member comments/concerns. Rob noted the Town Board has a resolution under consideration to pay the COC members (not Town Board members) a per-meeting stipend. 2. Review minutes from August 8,2024, COC meeting. Rob moved to accept the minutes; Eva seconded and offered one clarification to a statement in addition to the proposed modifications by Susan Brock. All members voted in favor of approval of the August 8, 2024, COC meeting minutes as amended. 3. Continued review of initial Draft Subdivision of Land regulations: Planner Nick Quilty-Koval began with a presentation of potential cluster subdivision site layouts for the three parcels previously used for visual representations at the last COC meeting on the topic. Nick noted again that these parcels were chosen for their similar size, unique forest, and wetland characteristics, medium density residential (MDR) zoning and availability of water and sewer infrastructure. Each site included a resource analysis with a profile and density yield calculation, which set forth the numbers used for different cluster layout versions on each site. These showed a mix of single-family homes with accessory dwelling units (ADU), townhomes and multi family dwelling units as well as cul- de-sac and through-road options. Susan stated the existing cluster subdivision regulations do not allow uses that are not permitted in the base zoning and questioned the multifamily buildings on the site layouts. She stated that multifamily dwelling units are currently only allowed in a multiple residence (MR) zone. She asked the committee if they want to consider allowing "apartment buildings" or other uses not currently permitted in cluster subdivisions (which would then also require a zoning law change). Otherwise, the committee should just look at the layouts as illustrative examples. Bill expressed his continued concern that the cluster regulations being required by developers in the new language seemed even more restrictive now after seeing the visual representation. He opined that it 1 forces a very standardized dense layout in all MDR zones. He felt that the cluster style would be constraining and not appealing to buyers,to the town or developers. Bill also asked where in the text required the roadway acreage to be removed from the buildable area calculation. Nick and C.J. replied that NYS Town Law had language that talks about the removal of parks, open space, roads, and environmental constraints from developable land calculations. Susan added that this specifically may need to be added to our cluster subdivision law to make it very clear for staff and developers. Planning staff explained that the cluster style of development preserves the natural features of the land while reducing the costs to the developer by allowing the development to have a physically smaller footprint on the land. Clustered development also provides long term savings to developers because they need to maintain less road infrastructure after a project is developed. Municipalities and taxpayers also save money on utilities, roads, and other infrastructure. It was also noted that conventional subdivisions do not require preservation of natural features of the land, and they could all be wiped out in a conventional subdivision. C.J. mentioned that there is an exemption section proposed in the language that gives the Planning Board the authority to not require cluster under certain circumstances/unique situations, after making findings. Chris B reminded the committee that clustered development also provides a variety of lot sizes and housing sizes and styles that allow for those making less than median income to afford housing and that affordable housing development is a priority in the town and in NYS. Large homes on large lots are not affordable on a median income. Cluster developments with smaller homes and lots are more affordable to buyers in the median income range due to the lower cost to build for developers. Eva expressed that she would like to see connectivity between the large open space areas and not random placement of small sections of open space. She also felt if there were no site constraints or environmental reasons as a basis for cluster, then it should be an option and not required. Possibly having two types of cluster, one requiring more natural preservation and one requiring less could be an option as well. Eric noted that areas high in natural resources would benefit from a cluster approach by having the resources preserved. He asked what the benefit is on land without natural features to preserve. Chis J. asked if preserved land could be used for recreational uses or if it stayed untouched, adding that garden plots, parks, playgrounds, and dog parks would be appealing to residents and an advantage to the community. The existing law addresses parks and recreation land and there is a 10%requirement of the gross area of the subdivision be reserved for a park. The Planning Board has the right to waive the requirement if they do not find it necessary and a fee in lieu can be collected. Planning staff responded that the proposed provisions would allow some preserved land to be used for recreational purposes but not all preserved land and that it would depend on the Classification level (e.g., Class 1 resources would not allow any development, as they are the areas with the steepest slopes, are not developable due to State and Federal requirements, etc.) Marty asked specifically how Class 1 resources would be used. Staff replied that it is very site specific and would depend on the proposal. Part of the requirements would include submittal of a"Land Management Plan" for the preserved land. The Land Management Plan would be included in easement language to be enforceable by the town. The town's Park, Open Space, and Recreation Plan was 2 referenced when the committee was talking about parks. The need for parkland would be on a case by case basis and would depend on whether a site already had a park nearby. Rob asked the committee if requiring less preserved land would be less concerning to the committee. The existing regulations have a 10%requirement-the draft new language has 40% (and in addition, 100% of all Class 1 resources, 80% of Class 2 resources, and 40% of Class 3). Rob proposed that staff prepare another presentation for the next COC meeting that used the same three sites but showed less preserved land. This would allow larger lots and would visually show the COC a less dense option. Susie felt comfortable with the language proposed by staff in the draft and asked where the staff derived the percentage of land to be preserved. Staff explained that there were various professional resources that were researched, including other municipal laws, studies, and professional planning books. The committee then went into a short discussion on what the Class 1, 2, and 3 resources included, what sorts of uses would be allowed within each class, and what sorts of structures could be constructed in each class (if any). Chris B read the proposed language for everyone, starting with the Class 1 constraints: not developable at all due to State and Federal requirements, steep slopes, and other things—no buildings/structures would be allowed. Class 2 and Class 3 resources had more leniency. According to the draft law, Class 3 resources contain language relative to recreational resources and public land connectivity. She surmised that that is where there could be room for uses such as dog parks, trails, garden plots, etc. Nick stated that his examples showed preservation requirements in most cases that exceeded the minimum numbers in the draft law; and that the examples were geared more towards conservation of natural resources rather than maximizing full development potential. Rob and Susan reiterated the request to have staff prepare another presentation for the next COC meeting that used the same three sites but showed less preserved land, particularly using the minimum preservation requirements noted in the draft law. The committee agreed that this would be a good idea, and expressed desire to see example scenarios that also show community buildings, common areas, etc., as is the case in real life with the Amabel, EcoVillage, and Commonland developments. Nick will prepare these for the next COC meeting. Other business: next meeting scheduled for October 10, 2024, at 5:30 p.m.All members noted that they would be in attendance. • Agenda: Continued review of the draft subdivision regulations The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. 3