HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin-12-19-12
1
CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
December 19, 2012
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Goodman, Pat Leary, Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King
ABSENT: Eric Levine
OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning;
Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Tasman, Asst. Director of Planning; Chris
Balestra, Planner
Chair Bill Goodman called the meeting to order at 6:35pm.
Agenda Item No. 1 - Member Comments/Concerns: None.
Agenda Item No. 2 – Draft Minutes from the November 14, 2012 Meeting:
Eric moved and Pat seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended, all in favor of the
changes.
Agenda Item No. 3 – Discussion of Draft Modifications to the Town Cluster Subdivision
Provisions: Planning staff explained how the proposed Greenways development brought up issues
identified by the Planning staff and the reasoning behind the list of suggested changes to the
subdivision regulations. Distributed in the COC packet for discussion were the Planning staff
recommendations. Staff explained that the recommendations were a ‘quick fix’ until a new zoning
law is adopted. Chairman Goodman also summarized the Greenways project and explained the
progress to the COC.
Staff reviewed the suggested modification list and solutions for each item:
1) In the subdivision regulations, the maximum amount of open space in a cluster subdivision is
10%. Staff is suggesting instead of the 10%, a sliding scale based on the underlying zoning district;
such as Urban or HDR, etc. – 30%, MDR – 40%, LDR – 50% and that would be at a minimum.
2) Since there is no definition of what “open space” is (could be anything), define what open space
is and consider calculating minimum open space, e.g. having space that is useable or space to
perform a useful function, like wildlife habitat, view protection, etc.
3) Existing regulations have no equity or rationale for density bonuses, e.g. in the LDR zone for a
cluster development project, the bonus or density would double, but in the MDR zone, the bonus is
only around 20%. The regulations could be considered a density penalty, because the regulation
defines the total number of units and only primary dwelling units, thereby restricting accessory units
or elder units/cottages. Staff suggests updating the regulations so they tie the density bonus to
tangible things rather than saying “it’s a cluster proposal, so you get a bonus.” Some options are to
tie the bonus to open space, affordable housing, or green building practices (offer x more units if
developer increases the amount of open space, or develops x number of units as affordable, or
incorporates green building practices”).
2
One Committee member asked why developers should get a bonus at all. Dan explained that
it would be an economic incentive for developers. A developer has no real incentive to
construct a cluster development of say 10 units, with say 50% open space preservation,
because the rate of return for them would not be great. But if they were allowed to build 15
units where they’d normally only be allowed 10, with the condition that they preserve 50%
open space, then the incentive is getting 5 additional units – a more appealing economic
incentive for the developer.
Another Committee member added that the developer’s cost might also be significantly less
because the units would be clustered and wouldn’t have the cost for the infrastructure (i.e.
road, gas, electric, cable, etc.) that conventional development usually has.
One Committee member was concerned that the more open space required, the fewer units
one could have on the same amount of acreage and the smaller the units would have to be.
Planning staff explained that this would not be the case, which spurred a long discussion
regarding ways to balance cluster developments by using density bonus methods.
4) Existing regulations need to better clarify the height and setback requirements. Which regulation
(subdivision or zoning) should apply when building certain types of buildings? The staff
recommendation is to have a regulation that applies to each district and to locate the regulation in
one place.
5) Staff summarized that looking at a 30-foot minimum building spacing essentially included a 15-
foot wide side yard. If we are trying to maximize the efficiency of how the land is used in a cluster
subdivision, then putting the buildings closer together would be more effective and 30-feet would
be excessive. The Committee used the dimensions of the Aurora Conference Room as a visual
example of a 30-foot wide space. Staff mentioned that that much space would defeat the purpose of
having a cluster subdivision in the first place. One Committee member disagreed with staff – it
might defeat the purpose of a cluster subdivision where individual houses were put on individual
lots, but it may not defeat the purpose of a cluster subdivision where one has three or four units in a
structure and then a space. The Committee then engaged in a discussion regarding the appropriate
minimum setback that should be required between buildings in a clustered subdivision.
6) Staff questioned why the existing cluster subdivision regulations required items like chimneys,
solar panels, antennas, etc. to be detailed on a final plat. If the applicant needed to later add
information on the final plat, they would need to go through another Board process to amend the
plat. Staff strongly recommended removing this entire clause of the regulations.
7) Staff also questioned why the developer should be required to provide MATV or cable television,
particularly when it was something the Town could not control or enforce. Staff also recommended
removing this entire clause of the regulations.
One Committee member asked staff if there was any harm to keeping the requirement to
provide cable television, indicating that there was a need for requiring the developer to bring
in cable from the outside into a building. Staff replied that cable television was available
everywhere in the Town of Ithaca, and reiterated that the Town Code staff did not have
enough manpower to take on the responsibility of trying to enforce this clause.
8) The current regulation contains a section that says the Planning Board may require the developer
to have a greater restriction on the number of unrelated persons that live in a cluster development
3
than under existing zoning. This could present some problems when it comes to equal protection of
the law. The Town clearly defined a “family” and the regulations should just follow the definition
of a family, just like in the Zoning Code. The Town Attorney agreed that this was the best
approach. Staff suggested removing this entire section.
One Committee member questioned whether cluster housing would be used by landlords for
packing in students, or “unrelated persons,” so they could maximize the rent they’d get.
Staff replied that the Town did not have any cluster housing that catered to college students
and that the Commonland Community homeowner’s association documents contained a
provision that prohibits unit owners from renting their units.
9) This part related to #4 above, regarding setback requirements that should apply to the underlying
zoning district. The Committee and staff will work on clarifying that particular section of the
regulations.
Summarizing, Chairman Goodman felt that items #6, 7 and 8 might be simple and easy to agree
upon, but that the Committee might need to spend more time on item 3. He asked for any thoughts
from the Committee. The Committee decided to tackle fixing items #1, 2, 4, 5 and 9 from the list,
and that, if there was time, to try and work on item #3. The Committee also decided to continue the
discussion of the cluster subdivision regulations at the next meeting in January. Staff will provide
more educational material about density bonuses and density penalties.
Agenda Item No. 4 – Continued Discussion of the Town Sprinkler Law – “S” Occupancy
Category:
COC decided to move this agenda item to the January COC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5 – Continued Discussion of Town Draft Revised Sign Law, “Prohibited”
and “Exempt” sections (picking up on page 2, Section 221-4(I): Chairman Goodman directed the
Committee to pick up where they left off at the last COC meeting, which was on page 2. He added
that staff was recommending to eliminate (K), (L), and (M) as they were redundant, but had no
recommendation on items (I), (J), and (N).
Beginning with (K), (L), and (M), staff noted that these items were listed in other sections of the
law ((K) listed under Chapter 221-9 (D)(4) and (M) listed under Chapter 221-9 (E)(4)). After a
short discussion the Committee tentatively decided to eliminate (K), (L), and (M). However, the
Town Attorney wondered if the failure to carry over the current exemptions for political window
signs would restrict the rights of people to erect political/personal expression signs. The Attorney
will look into the matter and the Committee will revisit these items at a future meeting.
The Committee then discussed items (I), (J), and (N):
(I) At the last COC meeting there was a discussion about signs on vehicles, whether they could be
moved, or were being used in the course of a business. Entrance signs and signs on a rock were
brought up and Chairman Goodman stated that he’d like to see a way to allow rocks to have some
types of sign on them. After a short discussion, the Committee decided to eliminate (I). Regarding
the portion of (I) that pertained to no-trespassing signs, signs on utility poles, etc., the Committee
acknowledged that this was already noted in Section 221-5K. The Committee decided to add the
words “and boundary markers” after the word “signs” in the first line of the sentence in that section.
4
(J) Staff mentioned that this was quoted from the existing law, except the correct chapter of the
Outdoor Lighting Law was added. Staff also added there were some illumination sources on signs
that were not listed in the Town’s Outdoor Lighting Law and that the Outdoor Lighting Law would
need to be updated after the Sign Law update was completed. The Committee felt that (J) was
redundant and decided to eliminate it.
(N) Chairman Goodman mentioned that (N) was the catch-all for any other prohibited signs that
might’ve been missed in list. The Committee discussed whether to leave (N) in and decided to
think more on it and revisit at the next meeting.
The Committee left off at the bottom of page 2.
Agenda Item No. 6 – Other Business: None.
Agenda Item No. 7 - Next meeting date and agenda:
Next meeting has been scheduled for January 16, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. and the agenda will include:
• Approval of 2013 Meeting Schedule
• Discussion of 2013 Work Plan
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandy Polce
Administrative Staff