Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PEDC-2019-07-10 Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee Wednesday, July 10, 2019 – 6:00 p.m. Common Council Chambers, City Hall, 108 East Green Street Minutes Committee Members Attending: Joseph (Seph) Murtagh, Chair; Cynthia Brock, Laura Lewis, Donna Fleming, and Stephen Smith Committee Members Absent: None Other Elected Officials Attending: Mayor Svante Myrick (6:25 p.m.) and Alderpersons Gearhart, Kerslick, McGonigal, and Nguyen Staff Attending: JoAnn Cornish, Director, Planning and Development Department; Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner; Alex Phillips, Planner; Gino Leonardi, Zoning Administrator; and Deborah Grunder, Executive Assistant Others Attending: None Chair Seph Murtagh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1) Call to Order/Agenda Review Alterations to Non-Conforming Uses was moved to Item #5b 2) Public Comment Linda Holzbaur, 111 Monroe Street, spoke in support of infill development. She is from the Northside Neighborhood Council. There is a severe need for affordable housing. We supported the 210 Hancock Street project and did not support Maguire Dealership’s plan for the Northside. Ed Swayze, 309 McGraw House, spoke in support of infill housing. It’s a fairly harmless way of providing affordable housing. Karl Pillemer, 135 Hudson Street, spoke against infill housing. For his neighborhood, this would be disastrous. It will only benefit landlords. There is no evidence that this will help the City. The impact to South Hill will not work. There will be more traffic, landlords Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting will construct low quality housing, etc. It doesn’t offer more affordable housing options since it’s targeted to student housing. Dan Hoffman, 415 Elm Street, spoke on West State Street Zoning and Infill housing. If the goal is to preserve the character of the current State Street neighborhood, this plan will not work. Small dwellings for businesses would be obsolete. The infill housing plan does not conform to the City’s comprehensive plan. Development should not be of the suburban type. Maintaining the trees is also important. They provide quality of life. Sheryl Swink, 321 North Albany Street, spoke in favor of infill housing. Nancy Brcak, 5214 Jacksonville Road, from Historic Ithaca spoke in favor of the State Street rezoning. The 60’ height is consistent with the City of Ithaca Downtown Plan. Let’s not lose the character of the West State Street. John Efroymson, 408 Columbia Street, spoke on neighborhood zoning. Infill will work for student housing on South Hill. It’s not a affordable housing option. Ken Jaffe, 218 Lake Avenue, spoke on infill housing. His written comments were provided and are attached to these minutes. Mayor Svante Myrick joined the meeting at 6:25 p.m. Mike Moritz, 134 East Spencer, spoke in favor of infill development. Northside is not for the student population thus infill development will not work in this neighborhood. Signed petition regarding infill housing and sustainability and green new deal. And climate control are being circulated. This is an opportunity to make Ithaca more walkable Anna Kelles, 139 Linn Street, spoke on infill housing. We realize that there are many, many people who drive into the City because they cannot afford to live here. We need to provide infill not only in downtown, but everywhere within the City. The picture of infill housing is bad design, etc. Northside neighborhood is a prime example of good infill housing. She owns, but rents to others in order to stay in Ithaca. Warren Schleslager, 217 Linn Street, spoke in favor of infill housing. The arguments already heard are valid. Infill housing will work Carol Dennis, 408 Columbia Street, spoke on infill housing. The infill housing on South Hill is not owner occupied. Ithaca College enrollment is going down. The potential of student housing in going down. She is concerned that many of the infill housing on South Hill will become vacant. Many trees have been taken down, parking has been taken their place. Trees and green space are crucial for climate change. Alderperson Brock stated she disagrees with the comments that 210 Hancock is infill housing. She appreciates those who commented that many are in favor of such infill in some areas. South Hill development has not made it possible for people to stay in their homes. These new structures going in are not meant for family housing. What we lack in the City is owner-occupied housing. We all need to support owner-occupied housing. Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting Alderperson Smith stated that infill housing can work. Collegetown is not dead. A new grocery store is there now. There are many less bars than in past years. Mayor Myrick stated Collegetown doesn’t have the regulations in zoning that the downtown core has is. Alderperson Lewis thanked all who came and spoke. She agrees that the City needs more owner-occupied housing, but we also need affordable rental units. Alderperson Fleming commented to those who stated there being a ban on infill housing. We have never suggested a ban. She agrees that more housing is needed in the City. She feels when the new West Campus housing is complete it will help a great deal. She further stated that we must be careful when we assume or state that there are many people who would like to live in the City but cannot due to the cost. There are many people who choose to live in the outlying areas. Alderperson McGonigal stated there is two types of housing he is interested in. Affordable owner-occupied for sale housing and affordable tenant housing. West Hill is a prime example of infill that is not what we want. If we design our infill where developers buy up the housing stock and put up tenant housing, it’s not going to work. Alderperson Kerslick stated that he doesn’t feel infill housing alone will solve all the housing concerns in the City. Owner-occupied housing is slim. Maintaining green space and trees is crucial. We need this regardless of whether we have infill housing. Mayor Myrick is in favor of infill housing because we just don’t have enough housing. We are all concerned about what type of people will be next door, etc. if infill housing is obtained. We also have a senior population who wants to stay in their homes or be able to rent an affordable place to live. Alderperson Ducson stated he feels very fortunate he can own a home. Infill housing needs to be done creatively, Chair Murtagh stated that he doesn’t agree with the comments made regarding infill housing not complying with the comprehensive plan. The negative things that are happening on South Hill shouldn’t make us against infill housing. Our zoning as it exists makes it difficult for homeowners and smaller developers to grow housing. He agrees with Alderperson Fleming that not all people want to live in the City. 3) Action Items (Voting to Send on to Council) a) City Mural Project Resolution to Select Artwork for City Mural Program Alderperson Brock questioned what looks like the mural jets out on the sides. Planner Phillips stated that there is nothing that jets out. It’s the rendering of the photo that looks like it does. Moved by Alderperson Brock; seconded by Alderperson Smith. Carried Unanimously. Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting WHEREAS, in 2010, the City created a mural and street art program to beautify blank walls within the city, while providing local artists from all sections of the community an opportunity to showcase their work, and WHEREAS, the Board of Public Works approved Columbia Street Pedestrian Bridge for future murals and street art, throughout the city, by resolution on May 11, 2015, and WHEREAS, Lynn Golan has submitted a proposal to paint a mural on a pier of the Columbia Street Pedestrian Bridge, and WHEREAS, the Community Life Commission formed a mural subcommittee to assess mural proposals, hold public comment and recommend proposals for consideration, and WHEREAS, the Mural Subcommittee held a public comment period on the mural designs and locations at its meeting on June 13th, 2019 to gather input on the proposed murals, and the responses to the proposals have been mixed, and WHEREAS, the installation of the murals will be funded by the artists and will be budget- neutral to the City, and WHEREAS, at its meeting on June 17th, 2019, the Community Life Commission voted to recommend that the Common Council approve the mural project at their proposed locations on condition to consider the needed treatment of the surface and liability of painting on the site; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca Common Council selects the proposals by Lynn Golan as recommended by the Community Life Commission, for installation on a pier of the Columbia St Pedestrian Bridge, and be it further RESOLVED, that the selected artist may proceed with the installation of their murals upon the execution of an agreement with the City as reviewed by the City Attorney. b) Alterations to Non-Conforming Uses Gino Leonardi stated the memo provided in the packet was the same memo submitted to the attorney’s office for their interpretation and necessary changes. A bedroom size dictates the number of occupants for that bedroom. They must be limited to this determined number. Mayor Myrick left the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Alderperson Brock thanked Leonardi for his explanation. Any zone change doesn’t change the property’s zoning. They are grandfathered in. The only way the grandfather is no longer valid is if the owner relinquishes his rights or the property is no longer useable. Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting It was decided that a resolution will be generated and brought back next month for consideration. To: Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Gino Leonardi, Zoning Administrator Date: July 5, 2019 Re: Alterations of Non-Conforming Uses and Structures As zoning evolved over the years, non-conforming uses and structures were the byproduct of the changes to the zoning ordinance. At first it was believed that all non-conforming uses would be eliminated over time. But instead, non-conforming uses have enjoyed longevity within our neighborhoods. In 2016, Building Commissioner, Phyllis Radke adopted a policy concerning extensions and enlargements of nonconforming uses and structures. The policy was enacted to allow these structures to be altered and repaired without causing the structures to be defined as an extension or an enlargement. The intent of the policy was to give land owners the opportunity to maintain the buildings and prevent the structures from deteriorating. Otherwise, if the land owner wanted to alter the structure of a non-conforming use, the only method available was a use variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. To obtain a use variance the applicant would have to prove financial hardship and that the hardship was not self-created. In the case of improving a non- conforming use, a variance has proven to be impossible to obtain. The 2016 policy was specific to the internal changes in nonconforming uses and structures and how to determine if a proposed alteration to a building would be permitted. The ordinance is clear that increasing the number of unrelated individuals residing in a residential structure is an extension and adding a new dwelling unit is an enlargement under the ordinance. Therefore, a reasonable objective method was needed to determine if the proposed alterations to a building, constitute an extension or enlargement of a nonconforming use or structure. The method implemented was based on the measurements of the bedrooms and habitable space that affected the occupancy within a single dwelling unit. If the bedrooms sizes and the habitable space were increased to allow additional unrelated individuals to occupy the dwelling, then the alteration would be considered an extension or enlargement. Adding a bathroom or other alteration that did not increase the occupancy or the number of dwelling units, would not be considered an extension or enlargement. This standard worked well as an objective measure for determining if the use or structure was extended or enlarged. But, the method was applied to individual units rather than to the building as a whole. Recent concerns about the lack of housing and the need for land owners to upgrade their apartments and/or property has prompted a review of the past determination. The purpose was to determine if non-conforming uses should be allowed to continue and in what condition. Non-conforming uses within neighborhoods have been and will continue to be an integral part of the neighborhoods. The continuation of these structures would be better served if the structures were allowed to be upgraded and brought up to code. The proposed interior alterations would not include any increase in occupancy or enlargement of the building footprint. Amending the current policy to allow non-conforming uses be Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting altered throughout the building and not restrict the alterations based on the occupancy within on one unit requires your consideration. For additional information, please see attached document Alterations to a Nonconforming Use or Structure. Re: Alterations to a Nonconforming Use or Structure In 2016, Building Commissioner Phyllis Radke adopted a policy concerning extension and enlargement of nonconforming uses and structures. The subsequent determination was specific to the internal changes in nonconforming uses and structures and how to determine if a proposed alteration to a building would be permitted. The ordinance is clear that increasing the number of unrelated individuals residing in a residential structure is an extension and adding a new dwelling unit is an enlargement under the ordinance, but a reasonable objective method was needed to determine if the proposed alterations to a building constitute an extension or enlargement of a nonconforming use or structure. The adopted interpretation was based on a method of measurement for habitable space within the dwelling unit. If the habitable space was increased to allow additional unrelated individuals to occupy the dwelling, then the alteration would be considered an extension or enlargement. Adding a bathroom or other alteration that does not increase the occupancy or the number of dwelling units would not be considered an extension or enlargement. This standard worked well as an objective measure for determining if a use or structure is extended or enlarged, but the method was applied to individual units rather than to the building as a whole. The ordinance refers to extensions and enlargements as expanding the use or a larger scope of operations for both structures and property. It does not emphasize individual units, rather it measures the extent of change to the whole structure. Specifically, the definitions of extension or enlargement seem to be more specific concerning occupancy than the rearrangement of an existing building: extension, “an addition of unrelated individuals residing in a residential structure,” and enlargement, “additional numbers of dwelling unit and additional number of unrelated individuals occupying residential buildings”. The ordinance outlines the usage of these requirements and applies them to the building as a whole. Further review of this determination reveals that the standards for a “change of use” may also have to be considered when determining the legitimate use of the proposed method for extensions and enlargements. Meaning, can the limits of an alteration of a nonconforming use or structure be determined by the extent of the alteration if it does not meet the definition of an extension or enlargement? Can the alteration cause a change in the intensity of the use if the occupancy remains the same? If the zoning ordinance specifically limits extensions and enlargements to meet the definitions, and a property does not exceed these requirements, can it be considered an extension or enlargement? Example, the owner of an existing nonconforming four-unit dwelling, wants to redistribute the bedrooms in the building. The proposal includes taking three-bedrooms from a seven- bedroom unit and adding them to a studio apartment. The result would be a four-bedroom apartment and a three-bedroom apartment that would maintain the overall occupancy Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting previously permitted in the building, and the alteration does not create or exacerbate any other deficiency. Using the current method, this type of alteration would not be permitted. The original occupancy of the studio apartment was permitted to have one unrelated individual. The alteration increased the occupancy by adding two unrelated occupants to the studio apartment for a total of three unrelated in the unit. But, if the strict application of the ordinance were used, the ordinance would permit this alteration because it does not increase the occupancy in the building or add additional units to the building. A nonconforming use of a property is not affected by the rearrangement of rooms within the apartments¹. The rearrangement of rooms due to alterations would not constitute a change of use. The adding or subtracting unrelated individuals within an apartment, without increasing the overall occupancy of the building, does not change the volume of use². In order to meet the definition of extension or enlargement, the building would have to make greater or expanded use of a property or enlarge buildings, structures, or land with respect to bulk or mass. An alteration to a nonconforming property, unless it makes a significate change in use to the building or land, would not be an extension of use ³. In conclusion, the determination by Phyllis Radke should be amended to include the calculation of habitable space based on the building as a whole. The adopted measure for using the habitable space, as it applies to the Housing Code, is a reasonable method to use and should continue, except it should apply it to the entire building. The criteria for the using the habitable space calculation must maintain the established occupancy and be determined by the bedroom sizes within the building. The number of occupants must be limited by the allowable number of unrelated individual and shall not include the related occupancies in the calculation. The occupancy of a building should not be imposed rather it must be the result of the bedroom sizes and overall habitable space as outline in Section 210-8. ¹ Salkin 10:22 Change of use, note²⁰: Rearrangement, resulting from renovations, of a nonconforming dormitory to apartments, both for students, is not a change of use. Keim v. City of Syracuse, 12 Misc.2d 616, 480 N.Y.S.2d 86 (Sup. Ct. Onondoga City 1984) ² Salkin 10:23 Change in volume of Use: Footnote ¹, the mere increase in volume of a nonconforming use does not affect its validity or constitute a change of use. (Town of Ithaca v. Hull) ³ Salkin 10:23 Change in volume of Use: Footnote ⁶, an increase in the volume of use, without a significant change in the kind of use, is not a proscribed extension of a nonconforming use. However, an increase in volume or intensity when coupled with a variation or alteration in the specific type of use will result in an illegal extension. Sincerely, Gino Leonardi, Zoning Administrator Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting 4) Action Items (Approval to Circulate) a) Revision to West State Street Zoning To: City of Ithaca Common Council FROM: JoAnn Cornish, City of Ithaca, Director of Planning and Development DATE: Revised July 5, 2019, (Original May 17, 2019, Updated June 5, 2019) RE: Proposal to Amend Sections of Chapter 325, Zoning, of the City Municipal Code Pertaining to Proposed Revisions to the CBD 60 Zoning District In response to concerns and suggestions made at the July 3, 2019 Common Council meeting, the vote to rezone certain blocks of West State Street was tabled for further discussion at the July 10, 2019 Planning and Economic Development Committee of Common Council. Originally proposed were: • Minimum story height of 12 feet, floor to floor on the ground floor, and 10 feet floor to floor on subsequent floors, and • Limit the overall height to 52 feet and 5 stories (12 feet floor to floor height on the first story and 10 feet floor to floor on subsequent stories) with an opportunity to build an 10 additional feet in height for a 6th story, under the City’s Planned Unit Development Ordinance, if the developer includes 20% of the total unit count as affordable (50% to 80% of Area Median Income) or other community benefit(s), and • All new construction located in the existing portion of the CBD-60 Zoning District, directly fronting on the 300, 400, and 500 blocks of West State Street, contain a stepback of 15 feet after the first 32 feet in height. (In reviewing step back requirements for Collegetown, a minimum of 12 feet is required. We may want to consider changing the proposed 15 foot stepback to a 12 foot stepback to be consistent with Collegetown Zoning) Suggested additions to the proposed revisions to the CBD 60 Zoning District on the 300, 400, and 500 Block of West State Street were to limit the façade length to 60 feet and limit the building footprint to 7,200 square feet. Because we are taking a second look at this revised zoning, and because it was also brought up at the Common Council meeting, I wanted clarification as to whether or not Common Council wants to require a first floor active use requirement similar to that of the Primary Commons. (Section 325-8D (3) in the City Code “Zoning Regulations-Additional Restriction in the CBD Districts”) Active street-level uses are one of the keys to the vitality of the West State Street Corridor and are defined as uses that encourage high levels of pedestrian activity, enliven the Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting streetscape, and create well-lit space with ample visibility into the storefront area. Active uses include, but are not limited to: (a) Retail store or service commercial facility. (b) Restaurant, fast-food establishment, or tavern. (c) Theater, bowling alley, auditorium, or other similar places of public assembly. (d) Hotel. (e) Public Park or playground. (f) Bank or monetary institution. (g) Confectionary, millinery, dressmaking, and other activities involving light hand fabrication as well as sales. Additional uses may be permitted if the Planning and Development Board determines them to be an active use and grants special approval for the use. The Planning Board may also grant a special approval of a non-active use if a property owner is able to show that the physical structure is not easily adaptable to be used as one of the above listed active uses. As I mentioned at the Council meeting, we also have design guidelines to help influence the design of new buildings in the downtown core. When looking at the vocabulary of the West State Street buildings the section below seems most relevant: Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting Please feel free to contact me should you have questions, corrections, or comments. Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting Alderperson Nguyen stated he is not in favor of the rezoning. Alderperson Brock stated she doesn’t have a problem with the façade length. She doesn’t see the need for a maximum lot coverage. Alderperson Smith stated he doesn’t have an issue with a long façade as long as it is done tastefully. Director Cornish stated a lot can be done to a façade to make it look not as long. It can look like it’s broken up. Chair Murtagh asked with the 60’ feet façade could look like it’s broken up but really isn’t. Director Cornish stated it most certainly can be done. City Center is prime example of this. Chair Murtagh stated that what a lot of people like is the idea of smaller buildings throughout the block rather than just one big building. Alderperson Brock asked whether limiting the façade length will limit developers from buying up the whole block in one building. Director Cornish responded yes to that question. Alderperson Brock stated that if we are viewing State Street as the entry point to the City, it makes sense that both sides of the street be the same. Alderperson McGonigal stated that a four story building is the max for a wood structure. Local contractors can construct this without the use of cranes, etc. Aurora Street’s ‘restaurant row’ is a good example of this. Those buildings are three to four stories. Chair Murtagh stated what we need to look at and decide what it is we would like to keep in this area and what we want to allow. Alderperson Lewis stated that a lot of this area is small businesses and residential housing whether it be owner-occupied or tenant housing. She would like to see this remain. Alderperson Brock would like to see us use the correct feet in the CBD areas. Rather than CBD 50, use CBD 52 since that’s the correct figure. She further stated that West State Street has many small businesses. She would not like to see an ‘active first floor use’ added to the rezoning. If we don’t want residential use, can’t we just say that? Alderperson Nguyen stated that code enforcement must be also considered when changing the zoning. It was decided that this will be circulated and brought back next month. Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting 5) Discussion a) Immaculate Conception PUD To: Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Jennifer Kusznir, Economic Development Planner Date: July 8, 2019 RE: City of Ithaca Planned Unit Development (PUD) –Proposed Zoning: INHS Redevelopment of the Former Immaculate Conception School The purpose of this memo is to provide information regarding the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning for the Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services project to be located, for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) project to be located at 320-324 & 330 W. Buffalo St, and 309 N. Plain Street. The Common Council granted this project an approval in concept at the July Common Council meeting. The next step in the PUD process is for the Common Council to consider the proposed zoning proposal for the project site. The site is currently zoned R- 2b. Attached is a comparison chart of the existing R-2b zoning and the applicant’s proposed PUD zoning. The applicant is proposing two subzones, the boundaries of which can be seen on the enclosed layout plan. If the Committee is in agreement with the proposed rezoning, then staff will circulate the draft zoning and return next month with any comments that are received. If you have questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me at jenniferk@cityofithaca.org. A new chart was provided to include the gymnasium which wasn’t included in the previous one. It was recommended by Nels Bohn, Director, Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency, to include the zone P-1 to enable GIAC to use the gym. It was decided that it will be circulated and brought back next month. Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting b) Infill Guidelines To: Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner Alexander Phillips, Planner Date: July 3, 2019 Re: Amendments to the Infill Housing Regulations The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information regarding proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance concerning proposed infill housing regulations. This proposal was last discussed at the June Planning Committee meeting. Since that time, staff has done additional research on infill housing and accessory dwelling units (ADU’s). We would like to present this information and discuss how to proceed. Existing Zoning Regulations Below is a brief overview of the existing zoning regulations regarding construction of a second residential structure in an R-1 or R-2 zone. A more in depth presentation of current regulations will be provided at the meeting. R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts Currently, the only permitted primary residential uses allowed in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts are single family dwelling units (R-1) and single family dwelling units and duplexes (R-2). Accessory dwelling units are allowed only if the dwelling unit is owner occupied and if a temporary special permit has been obtained. The temporary special permit, a building inspection, and an affidavit stating that the conditions as originally set forth have not changed in any way, must be renewed every three years. There shall be no more than one accessory apartment per lot. No owner occupant shall occupy an accessory apartment as his or her primary residence unless he or she has occupied the main unit in the property after the development of the accessory apartment for a period of five years. By omission, two or more primary residential structures are allowed on a single tax parcel in the R-1 and R-2 zone provided certain area requirements are met. All primary structures on a lot are required to meet the minimum lot size requirements. This means that in order to have more than one primary structure, a lot must have double the required minimum lot size, and the total building area of all of the buildings cannot be greater than the maximum percent of lot coverage. Infill Development Research Staff has researched information about various communities to understand different approaches to infill development, standard regulations that encourage and manage infill development, and challenges other communities have faced. Below is a brief overview. A full presentation will be provided at the meeting: • What are Accessible Dwelling Units (ADUs)? ADUs can include dwelling units in any of the following configurations: Detached (Backyard Cottages, Carriage Houses) Attached (Basement Suites, Garden Apartments) Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting Conversions (Garages) • Why encourage ADUs? Promotes affordable housing options, supplements income, offers a variety of housing choices, and reduces sprawl • What are tools for encouraging/managing infill development? Zoning Regulations Special Permits Additional Requirements Infill Development Questions In order to determine how to proceed with establishing regulations to encourage/manage infill development within the City, staff is seeking Council guidance on the following questions: 1. Should the City restrict or encourage infill development within residential zoning districts? Yes = 4 = Depends = 1 2. Should more than 1 primary structure be allowed within residential zoning districts (R-1, R-2, R-3)? [JK1] 3. Should the City restrict infill development to residential lots that are owner occupied, within the R-1 and/or R-2 zoning districts? 4. Should the City require a special permit for any residential infill development projects within the R-1 and/or R-2 Districts? 5. Should the City require inspections, permits, and/or fees for ADUs? Should these be waived for owner occupied properties? 6. Should the City establish minimum contiguous green space requirements? 7. Are there R-1/R-2 areas that should be rezoned to R-3 zones? 8. Should secondary structures [JK2]be limited in size, or have other design requirements? 9. Should ADUs be subject to parking requirements? 10. Should infill development be restricted to larger lots? Currently all structures on a lot are subject to a total maximum percent lot coverage (20% - 25% in R-1 zones, 30% - 35% in the R-2 zones). Two possible options can be considered: • Require all secondary structures be subject to area requirements for a primary structure. This will restrict infill development to larger lots. • Allow secondary structures, by special permit, on lots that do not meet the minimum lot area requirements for a second structure. Special permits could be granted to properties that are able to maintain the minimum contiguous green space requirements. Staff Proposal[JK3] •••• New Definitions-Staff proposes that the following new definitions be established Contiguous Green Space Secondary Structure Rear Yard Infill Development Street Front Infill Development •••• New Regulations Approved at the September 11, 2019 PEDC Meeting Exempt ADUs from parking requirements Restrict R-1, R-2, CR-1, and CR-2 to 1 primary structure Create a minimum contiguous green space requirement Create Design and Orientation Restrictions Orient buildings towards the street Require the roof of an ADU have a similar pitch to the primary structure Require the height of the infill structure to be similar to the height of other buildings on the street (no taller than tallest, no shorter than the shortest) Limits size of new structures to no more than 60% of the existing structure [JK4] If you have any concerns or questions regarding any of this information, feel free to contact me at 274-6410. Jennifer Kusznir, Senior Planner; Alex Phillips, Planner, and Gino Leonardi, Zoning Administrator provided a presentation on positive infill examples in order to give the group a better understanding as to how infill can work in the City. The staff began going through the questions outlined in the memo provided in the packet. Only the first question was answered by the committee. Alderperson Fleming suggested we keep what we currently have on the books until we can agree on what to do next. Chair Murtagh stated he isn’t in any rush to make a decision. We already have the overlay district in south hill. We are not seeing what happened on South hill elsewhere in the City. Alderperson Fleming suggested we keep what we currently have on the books until we can agree on what to do next. Chair Murtagh stated he isn’t in any rush to make a decision. We already have the overlay district in South Hill. We are not seeing what happened on South hill elsewhere in the City. The Committee agreed to circulate for further comment and bring it back to the Committee at a later date. 6) Review and Approval of Minutes a) June 2019 Moved to approve by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Fleming. Carried unanimously. 7) Adjournment Moved by Alderperson Smith; seconded by Alderperson Lewis. Carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.