Loading...
ZRC 2010 Agendas and Minutes 11/8/2010Planning Board Meeting Agenda- Janua… 3ODQQLQJ%RDUG 3ODQQLQJ%RDUG+RPH =RQLQJ5HYLVLRQV &RPPLWWHH+RPH 0HHWLQJV -DQXDU\ 'RFXPHQWV $JHQGD 0HPEHUV 3XEOLFFRPPHQW 6XEFRPPLWWHHUHSRUWV %HDQ)DUPFRPPLWWHHQRPLQDWLRQV 3XEOLFIRUXPSODQQLQJ ‹&LW\RI1RUWKDPSWRQ0$'LVFODLPHU&RQWDFW8V'LUHFWLRQV6LWH0DS &LW\+DOO0DLQ6WUHHW1RUWKDPSWRQ0$:HEVLWHGHVLJQE\JUDYLW\VZLWFKLQF northamptonma.gov/planbd/…/100106a/1/1 Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Agenda February 3, 2010 Room 11, City Hall 7:00 – 9:00 PM 7:00 PM 1. Public comment 2. Updates a. Housing Needs Assessment b. Work Groups 3. Public Forum a. Breakout Groups: Formation and Discussion Questions b. Event Preparation (outreach, publicity, etc.) 4. Conz Street Improvements a. Coordinating Zoning Revisions with Proposed Improvements b. Future Steps 5. Next Steps After Public Forum Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting March 31, 2010 City Council Chambers 7:00 – 9:00 PM Proposed Agenda 1. Public comment and updates from committee members 2. Discussion of Public Forum a. Discussion and debriefing b. Review of synthesis of comments c. Distribution of synthesis 3. Protocol for responding to public comments to our website, in meetings, and in communications to individual members 4. Where do we go from here? a. Has the forum changed our priorities or workplan? b. Revised timeline for moving forward (see Dillon’s draft of 3/7/10) c. Notification issues and future public forums 5. (If time permits) Review of summary of “Smart Growth Fixes” Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting April 21, 2010 Room 18, City Hall 7:00 – 9:00 PM Proposed Agenda 1. Public comment 2. Review of Table of Use/Dimensions Formatting & Substance 3. Smart Growth Publication Summary- Stephen Gilson (implications for ZRC?) 4. Mixed Use Questions: a. What Mixes? b. Where? 5. Dimensional Changes & options: Setbacks, lot size etc. 6. Other Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting May 5, 2010 Office of Planning and Development, City Hall, 210 Main St 7:00 – 9:00 PM Proposed Agenda 1. Public comment 2. Announcements and reports 3. Review of Revised Table of Use/Dimensions - Formatting & Substance 4. Parking (Table 4) in Smart Growth Publication Summary 5. Assessment of progress to date (preparation for City Council meeting on May 6) 6. Workplan and Timeline (Dani and Dillon) Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting May 19, 2010 Office of Planning and Development, City Hall, 210 Main St 7:00 – 9:00 PM Proposed Agenda 7:00 Public comment Announcements and reports: City Council meeting, others Review of Revised Work plan 7:30 (if not earlier) Break into Task II work groups 8:45 Reconvene to discuss next steps Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting June 2, 2010 Office of Planning and Development, City Hall, 210 Main St 7:00 – 9:00 PM Agenda 7:00 Public comment and updates on upcoming meetings  June 10, Planning Board  June 22, EDHLU  July 12, Ordinance 7:15 Reports from Task II work groups and discussion  Outreach  Technical (Dimensional tables and infill special permit) 8:00 Break into Task II work groups 8:45 Reconvene to summarize and discuss next steps Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting June 16, 2010 Hearing Room 18, City Hall, 210 Main St 7:00 – 9:00 PM Agenda 7:00 Public comment Reports from Task II work groups and discussion  Technical (Dimensional tables and infill special permit) 7:15 Summer Agenda – incl. June 30 Upcoming meetings  June 22, EDHLU  July 12, Ordinance 7:20 Review of King Street Report from Chamber of Commerce 1. Discussion of Conceptual Plan 2. Relationship of King Street plan to other ZRC work (tables, CB and GB changes) and zoning revision overall; “fast-tracking” King Street 3. Outreach process to community; coordinating King Street outreach with infill special permit and dimensional tables. 4. Ongoing coordination with Planning Board, Chamber, and City Council 5. Steps to move from concept to details to zoning language 6. Timeline for review and submission of recommendations to the Planning Board 8:45 Next steps  Dimensional tables  Infill Special Permit  Previous work group products (energy, agriculture, cluster)  King Street zoning  Outreach Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting June 30, 2010 City Council Chambers, 220 Main St 7:00 – 9:00 PM Agenda 7:00 Public comment 7:10 Detailed outline/Q & A Chamber Report Office of Planning and Development Staff/ Suzanne Beck 8:15 Time frame forreview, analysis, outreach, and reporting 8:50 Next steps Zoning Revisions Outreach Subcommittee July 20, 2010 Bluebonnet Diner, 324 King St, Northampton 8:00 AM Agenda 1. Planning for King Street Public Forum Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting July 21, 2010 City Council Chambers, 220 Main St 7:00 – 9:00 PM Agenda 7:00 Public comment 7:10 Discussion of application of Open Meeting Law to ZRC subcommittees 7:20 King Street Proposal Discussion Report from Chamber – OPD - ZRC technical group: synthesis of OPD and Chamber recommendations Discuss ZRC’s areas of agreement and disagreement/ further discussion with Chamber/OPD recommendations Discuss what the ZRC will submit for public discussion Discuss outreach process for community input, including electronic feedback on proposal 8:40 Next steps and meeting schedule (Aug. 4 and/or 18) Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Sept 2, 2009 Agenda Room 10 (Wayne Feiden’s Office), City Hall 210 Main St 7:00 PM 1.Public comment 2.Joel presentation on traditional urban design infill a.Place based zoning King and Conz Corridors 3.Reports from subcommittees: a. Cluster rewrite- tie in to Energy and housing group b. Energy c. Housing d. Urban ag 4.Discuss next steps for Design/Performance 5.Discuss election of ZRC chair & vice chair 6.Meeting Dates/ location (Bridge St/ Senior Ctr?) Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Sept 15, 2010 Hearing Room 18, 210 Main St 7:00 – 9:00 PM Agenda 7:00 Public comment 7:10 King Street Public Forum Organizing Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Oct 6, 2010 Room 10 (Office of Planning and Development) City Hall, 210 Main St 7:00 – 9:00 PM Agenda 7:00 Public comment 7:10 ZRC Structure: membership, chair; Timeline; work plan to April 2011. 7:25 King Street Forums Assessment, Next Steps Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Oct 20, 2010 Room 10 (Office of Planning and Development) City Hall, 210 Main St 7:00 – 9:00 PM Agenda 1. Public comment 2. King St Charrette a. Sponsorship b. Questions/data input & discussion (re: recommendations from the Outreach Working Group on King Street Forums) c. Review of outline/attendees 3. Alternative King Street Zoning Proposal 4. Other Business: Work Plan update (time permitting) Next Steps (schedule forum for Jan/Mar?) Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Nov 3, 2010 Room 10 (Office of Planning and Development) City Hall, 210 Main St 7:00 – 9:00 PM Agenda 1. Welcome the 2 newest members: Bob Reckman and Mark NeJame 2. Public comment 3. Parking Issues(Jim and Dennis) 4. Alternative King Street Zoning Proposal- Follow up discussion from last time 5. Design Guidelines (Carolyn, Stephen, Dillon, Dani). 6. chair/vice chair 7. Other Business: Work Plan update (time permitting) Next Steps (schedule forum for Jan/Mar?) MINUTES FOR JANUARY 7, 2010 MEETING OF THE ZONING REVISISON COMMITTEE Attending: Joel Russell, Tom Weiner, Steve Gilson, Dillon Sussman, Dennis Bidwell, Peter McLean, staff representative, Carolyn Mish Absent: Adin Maynard, Danielle Kahn 1 There were no public comments 2 Nominees to be presented to the Bean Farm Task Force Potential nominees for the ZRC to present to City Council for appointment to the Bean Farm Task Force, Peter Flinker and Donna Lilborn were both present. Each are landscape architects and each had presented resumes to the committee prior to the meeting. Peter and Donna both introduced themselves to the committee and spoke briefly to their qualifications. Recognizing the demanding schedule of the Beans Farm Task Force, the already scheduled list of meetings and the prospect of additional meetings, both Peter and Donna said they could attend the scheduled meetings and are committed to doing their best to meet what additional demands arise. The ZRC was asked to submit two names but only one individual will be selected to serve on the task force. It was also noted that the individuals forwarded by the ZRC are not representatives of the ZRC and have no obligation to the ZRC including attending ZRC meetings or reporting to the ZRC. Joel proposed the committee recommend Peter and Donna. The committee was in unanimous agreement and expressed their thanks to both Donna and Peter for their willingness to be part of the Bean Farm Task Force. 3 Committee Reports Cluster Committee: nothing new to report. Energy Committee: Adin had prepared and circulated an outline of possible energy related zoning changes prior to the meeting. Agriculture: no news at this time. The committee is working in their final report. Housing: the housing committee met and identified three areas to focus on— Single Room Occupancy units (SRO’s), live/work space and multi family homes. The committee talked about how to approach these topics, including attaining public input. Before proceeding the committee is looking for—input from February’s public forum, further input form the Housing Partnership and direction from the ZRC. The direction from the ZRC would include input on the selection of the identified three areas to focus on and, more generally, conformation that the committee structure will continue long enough to allow the housing group to pursue these topics. 4 EPA publication Joel noted that the EPA has a publication, “Essential Smart Growth Fixes for Urban and Suburban Zoning Codes." The publication addresses specifically housing and zoning issues. Joel will circulate information on how to find it. 5 Design Forum and Form-Based Zoning: Joel noted that the Northampton Design Forum (NDF) proposed a public meeting on form-based zoning codes. Discussion followed as to weather the ZRC could offer to co-sponsor the event. To be clear that the committee is encouraging public education on the topic of form-based zoning but not proposing form-based zoning at this time as a solution to Northampton’s zoning issues, the committee agreed to endorse the proposed forum and will help to promote and advertise the event. Dylan reported that the NDF is also considering doing a charrette focused on the Conz Street area and was looking for input for the ZRC. It was noted that this would be a timely project given the consideration of expanding the business district on King and Pleasant Streets and given the city’s plans to rebuild Conz Street in the near future. 6 Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Committee, King Street Group. The next meeting of the King Street group is Monday January 11. Dennis, Dylan and Jim intend on attending. 7 Preparation for Public Forum. Joel lead a discussion of the public forum taking the committee through the draft th outline (attached). The forum is proposed for February 24, 7-9 PM at the JFK Middle School Community Room and adjoining classrooms. The title of the forum is “Rezoning Northampton for a Sustainable Future”. There was general agreement on the goals and outcomes as presented in the outline. The committee also agreed on the proposed agenda. Danielle, Dylan and Joel will organize and present the plenary session. At the conclusion of the plenary session the group will be divided into smaller work groups. Each ZRC committee member will be prepared to lead a work group. The entire group will come together again for the work groups to report back and for a synthesis of the evening’s program. Regarding smaller work groups: -The groups will be divided by neighborhoods -visuals maybe used, possibly locate your home on a city map -while the groups are defined by neighborhoods, there will be questions that solicit input on general issues like zoning on King Street. -the sessions may begin with a specific discussion on issues around infill. -Joel, Dylan and Danielle will also work on refining the outline for group leaders to work from when leading the smaller work group sessions. Regarding publicity: -Jim and Peter reported meeting and listing the various print, radio, TV and internet media to contact. -Northampton Cable will be contacted regarding covering the event and address the issue of having a video record of the plenary and final group sessions that will be accessible. -Joel and Dylan will draft a press release. - Personal contacts will be made where possible: Tom volunteered to contact the High School, Casa Latina and Peter Ives from the worship community. Dennis volunteered to be in touch with the Unitarian Society and the Chamber of Commerce. -potential email links to larger groups were listed including the city counselors, houses of worship and neighborhood associations. Regarding food and drink: -the Ward 3 Neighborhood Association will sell refreshments, the proceeds going towards their efforts to do design planning for their neighborhood. Regarding synthesis following the event: -Joel will prepare a synthesis of the event and circulate it to committee members within 2 days following the forum. -the content of the synthesis and its distributions will be on the agenda of th the ZRC March 17 meeting. 8 Next meeting At the next ZRC meeting, January 20 in Wayne’s office, the committee will discuss the press release and publicity progress along with more specific plans for the small group portion of the forum. The meeting was adjourned shortly before 9:00 pm. Respectfully submitted by Peter McLean Attachment: Draft January 10, 2010 Suggested Outline for Rezoning Northampton for a Sustainable Future ZRC public forum, 7 – 9 PM, February 24, 2010 At JFK Middle School Community Room (and adjoining classrooms) Goals 1. To inform and educate the public about Northampton’s Zoning and how the ZRC’s process works, including some or all of the following topics:  What is zoning? Why is zoning important? What is its connection to the Sustainability Plan? (Clarify that many important issues aren’t about zoning.)  The Northampton you know and love is mostly illegal under its current zoning!  Disconnects between current zoning and sustainability goals  ZRC’s charge: to bring the zoning into consistency with the Plan  What would more sustainable zoning look like?  Where does design fit in?  What is form-based zoning?  ZRC process – desire for public input and transparency; need to reconcile the goals of plan with the practicality of economics and the marketplace  Making the zoning ordinance comprehensible  How people can involve themselves in the unfolding ZRC process 2. To discuss and gather input on important zoning issues such as:  What is infill? What are the ingredients of good infill?  Where are the best infill opportunities, both small and large-scale?  How does zoning relate to: Walkability and transit o Economic Development o Agriculture; urban, suburban, rural o Energy use and conservation o Design and urban form o Reduction of carbon footprint o Affordable Housing o Open Space Preservation o Desired Outcomes 1. Increased public understanding of zoning, sustainability, and what the ZRC is doing 2. Public input on key issues: identifying issues and getting initial input 3. Identification of next steps for an ongoing process of outreach and meaningful public input 4. Preliminary identification of areas of agreement and areas of controversy Proposed Agenda 1. Plenary session to present introductory content and explanation; q and a (30 minutes) 2. Breakout groups for discussion of key issues (breaking up by neighborhood – see discussion questions below) (45 minutes) 3. Reporting back to plenary; plenary group discussion (30 minutes) 4. Synthesis of breakout group reports (15 minutes) Preparation and Follow-up Tasks (with assignments for each) 1. Logistics: supplies, audio-visual materials, maps (Carolyn; presenters) 2. Food and drink: sales by Ward 3 neighborhood association (Jim) 3. Advance publicity and event coverage: print, web, NCTV, radio, etc. (Jim, Peter, Tom, Carolyn) 4. Outreach to frequently absent constituencies: minorities, working parents, business leaders, students, farmers, land use professionals, developers, etc. (Tom + all of us) 5. Preparing workshop content and organization: presentations, handouts, facilitation of breakout groups, etc. (Dillon, Danielle, Joel) 6. Dry run of presentation on February 17 (presenters) 7. Preparing for breakout groups: facilitators, room assignments, breakout logistics (Joel, Steve?) 8. Preparing a synthesis for distribution after the event (Joel) *********************************************************************** Suggested Breakout Session Format and Questions (to cover in 45 minutes): 1. Introductions of small group members 2. Briefly locate your immediate neighborhood on a map and draw a circle around it; locate your house and key places in your neighborhood (schools, parks, major streets, bike paths, shopping areas, etc.) 3. What are your overall hopes and concerns for the neighborhood - for the City overall? How do these relate to sustainability and infill?  What are the ingredients of good infill?  Where are the best infill opportunities, both small and large? 4. What are the key zoning issues that your neighborhood faces? The City as a whole? 5. What issues are most important for the ZRC to address? Consider one or more of the following: Infill development (King St., Pleasant/Conz, Downtown, Florence) o Walkability and transit o Economic Development o Agriculture; urban, suburban, rural o Energy use and conservation o Design and urban form o Reduction of carbon footprint o Affordable Housing o Open Space Preservation o Materials we will need : 1. Large city map with neighborhoods shown for purposes of forming breakout groups 2. Large maps: Current zoning; Sustainability Plan Land Use Map; (others?) 3. Flip chart pads and easels 4. Forum Agendas 5. List of breakout session questions 6. List of Ground Rules for discussion 7. Summary of main points in presentation Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Minutes February 3, 2010 Present: Dillon Sussman, Danielle Kahn, Jim Nash, Peter McLean, Tom Weiner, Steve Gilson, Dennis Bidwell, Adin Maynard Staff: Carolyn Misch Next ZRC Meeting will be 2/17 at 7 in Wayne Feiden’s Office, Room 11 There was no public comment. Group Reports: Carolyn Misch provided update on review of Housing Partnership Needs Assessment zoning analysis. Next step will be to offer recommendations for zoning changes after the forum based on the assessment and work of ZRC housing subgroup. Jim and Peter asked for feedback on the flier for the public forum. Group discussed text and layout changes. Any need for printing hardcopies for distribution to locations should be provided to Carolyn. Tom noted his contacts with the High School and Casa Latina and will follow up with these for distribution of invitations/flier. Dennis provided update on Chamber’s King Street discussion and noted that there would likely be a formal request to present its recommendation to the full ZRC at some point after the formulations are made on or after 2-19-10. Forum Discussion: Danielle described the work that she, Dillon and Joel are doing on the presentation and the plan to conduct a dry-run at the 2-17 meeting. There was a discussion of break out groups and whether the groupings should be by neighborhood. Consensus was to make a map with circles that generally cover the city based on a list of existing civic groups and their geographic constituencies. Carolyn will bring a draft map to the 2-17 meeting for review. Committee discussed the break-out questions and Tom agreed to put together final list, based on discussion for final review on 2-17. Other: Committee decided it would be beneficial to invite Laura Hanson from Department of Public Works to a meeting after the forum to discuss ZRC work as it may relate to the reconstruction of Conz Street. Committee decided to put off discussion of post forum work plan until next meeting or beyond when everyone has a chance to bring the work plan and timeline and list of possible changes looked at in Nov/Dec 2009. 9PM Adjourn ZONING REVISIONS COMMITTEE Meeting – March 31, 2010 Members in attendance: Adin, Danielle, Dennis, Steve, Dillon, Jim, Joel, Peter, Tom Staff: Carolyn Public comment: John Robinson affirmed ZRC’s recent public forum – his own session and Joel’s presentation – and supported holding additional forums on other issues in the future. Committee and other Updates: Danielle – Urban agriculture is ready to give report at next meeting Dillon – met visiting professor of Landscape Studies from UC Berkeley who has agreed to have some of her students study “What makes a neighborhood” and focus on Ward 3 looking at social analysis as lens through which to understand planning needs. Dillon and Jim will follow up on this to see if residents/ZRC members could attend their presentation session. Adin – reminded that the City Council is holding a hearing on April 8 on adoption of the STRETCH CODE to improve energy efficiency of buildings. Since this building code revision supports goals of sustainable Northampton our committee should recommend that STRETCH CODE be adopted. Adin will draft a proposed endorsement recommendation and send around to committee. If supported by our committee Adin will find out from Carolyn how to convey to City Council. Dennis – King St. subcommittee of Chamber of Commerce will consider possible recommendations for zoning changes on King St. Dennis hopes that these recommendations will come to ZRC in early May. One idea under consideration is to bring various tables from zoning code together in one table – giant step forward in user friendliness. Wayne and Carolyn showed the Chamber subcommittee and the Planning Board a sample in which they took central business district and highway business as trial showing what this new format could look like. Joel suggested showing this example to ZRC to see what advantages and problems are. Dennis prefers to have the Chamber subcommittee develop a complete recommendation for King St. first. To introduce the concept, there was discussion of bringing the new format to the ZRC without including any substantive changes in zoning. DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC FORUM -Jim shared verbatim transcript of Bay State and Ward 3 notes from forum -Joel’s synthesis did not record all notes from forum, but rather was an attempt to put out to public a summary of what we heard -Dennis offered disclaimer insofar as making sure folks realize that just because it was said at the forum doesn’t mean it will happen. -Peter commented on the way in which the Ward 3 group felt positive about Joel’s presentation and about how knowledgeable folks were and that they now want to see what action will be taken -Jim was pleased with the overall turnout, except for low numbers from Florence and Leeds. Suggested possibility of future event in Florence. -Dennis heard much positive feedback – range of comments on neighborhood as well as city-wide issues and format allowed for that -Adin found it hard to stay quiet as a facilitator and tried to keep group focused; heard afterwards that some facilitators spoke a lot so some folks didn’t feel like they had enough air time. DISCUSSION OF SYNTHESIS (revised version will be sent out by Joel) Joel will revise synthesis based upon discussion of it at the meeting, and Dennis suggested doing so with 24 hours for us to comment after which it will be sent out to various lists including OPD list (linked to various other lists) and list generated at our forum. Also send to newspapers, neighborhood associations and Green Northampton. WHAT TO DO WITH E-MAIL INQUIRIES/COMMENTS Joel suggested developing protocol for responding: that Carolyn would acknowledge and correct factual matters, but if comment raises issue she would bring it to ZRC to discuss. If anyone else gets comment simply acknowledge and bring to committee. Next meeting is April 7 in Planning Office. th This is the agenda (following public comment): 1.Urban Agriculture report – Danielle and Jim 2.Discuss Stretch Code ordinance and agree on strategy for getting our recommendation to City Council 3.Where do we go from here? (left over from this meeting) -Has the forum changed our priorities? -Revised timeline for moving forward (re-examine Dillon’s draft of 3/7/10) -Notification issues and future public forums In response to discussion about how to prepare and present proposed zoning revision recommendations, Joel suggested having a meeting with OPD (Carolyn, Wayne) Planning Board (Steve), ZRC (Joel) and City Council (David Narkewicz) to discuss how ZRC recommendations should come to Planning Board and then City Council, what the size and scope of these recommendations should be, and more generally, how to coordinate among the groups. Zoning Revisions Committee Minutes for 4-7-10 Present: Danielle Kahn, Tom Weiner, Jim Nash, Peter McLean, Dillon Sussman, Absent: Joel Russel, Dennis Bidwell, Steve Gilson, Adin Maynard. Minutes submitted by Jim Nash Public Comment : None Energy The committee was expecting to approve a draft letter in support of the Stretch Code ordinance to present to City Council. Dillon committed to following up with Adin to assist with meeting this deadline. Urban Agriculture A draft report of Urban Agricultural issues was presented. This draft was made available to ZRC members via email prior to this meeting. A wide range of thoughts were shared while reviewing and editing.  Carolyn noted that people are currently allowed to sell goods such as produce by right for 3 months each year. When selling produce downtown, people are required to have a vender’s license.  Dillon inquired about the possibility of pushcarts for selling farm produce. Carolyn suggested that this would be a conversation to have with shop owners, the chamber, and the farmers market.  Danielle suggested that we prioritize land use in order to best meet sustainability goals. Thom and Dillon concurred on having a goal of walkable community gardens as a means to meeting open space requirements.  Dillon also suggested an initiative to have fruit and nut trees as street trees.  Peter noted that when we send forward our recommendations we should direct citizens who participated in discussion to follow their recommendations through Review of the backyard chicken proposal was postponed due to renewed discussion by chicken advocates. Actions  The Urban Ag workgroup will add ZRC edits to Urban Ag Report.  The Urban Ag workgroup will further research retail sale of agricultural goods such as eggs OPD Report Carolyn reported on Joel and Steve’s initiative to discern the best way to package zoning proposals for Planning Board and City Council. Others part of this discussion are Wayne and David Narkewicz. To encourage this dialog, City Council will be provided a repeat performance of the ZRC presentation from our public forum in March. Carolyn shared a concept for simplifying the zoning manual using a chart format. A sample of how Central Business might appear was examined by the ZRC. Members expressed that the new format would be helpful for focusing ZRC discussions. Actions  ZRC will re-present the public forum presentation to City Council  Carolyn will convert a few more zoning districts into chart formats to present at our next meeting. Next Meeting April 21 at 7 PM in Room 18. MINUTES FOR APRIL 21, 2010 MEETING OF THE ZONING REVISION COMMITTEE Attending: Joel Russell, Adin Maynard, Danielle Kahn, Jim Nash, Tom Weiner, Steve Gilson, Dillon Sussman, Dennis Bidwell, Peter McLean, staff representative, Carolyn Mish. No members were absent. 1. There were no public comments. 2. Announcements. Peter noted that the Bay State Village Association’s Visioning Committee will shortly be conducting a survey of the residents of Bay State Village. The survey is focused on issues surrounding sustainability including potential zoning changes. Peter provided a draft of the survey to the committee members for their input. 3. Progress report to City Council. On May 17 Joel will be reporting on the progress of the ZRC to city council. Joel plans to give a brief version of the presentation from the March forum and a short synopsis of what the committee has done. He also will ask what is the best way to present the ZRC’s recommendations; in small pieces or larger more comprehensive packages? It was noted that it is important to keep council informed, or in the loop regarding what to expect from the ZRC and Planning Board. This is important in order to help councilors make informed votes on proposals and not vote against recommendations because the council feels it does not have enough information. 4. Chamber of Commerce, review of King Street. Dennis reported on the progress of the Economic Development Committee’s King Street review. On May 17 the group is inviting property owners and tenants on King Street, north of Finn, to a community meeting. From their work so far, and with the input form the May 17 meeting, they plan to have recommendations ready to present by the end of May. Dennis is hoping to organize a joint meeting of the ZRC and Planning Board to present recommendations to. 5. Table of Use reformatted Carolyn presented drafts of new use tables. It is proposed that the new tables would replace the existing Table of Dimensional and density Regulations and the Table of Use Regulations in the current zoning ordinance. The objective of inserting the new tables would be to make the ordinance more user friendly; making it clearer what rules are relevant to particular projects, making it easier to find the information relevant to your project and organizing information in a way that the user can more quickly find what they need. Thus far Carolyn has drafted tables organized by zoning districts. The committee looked at the General Business and then the Central Business tables as examples of the new format. The discussion included the following: -generally the format has the potential to meets the objectives of making the ordinance more user friendly. -the people using this the most have some familiarity with the ordinance, contractors or architects for example. It would be good to keep those users in mind as we propose changes. -finding the balance between too much information and too little is challenging. If the table is too crowded with details it takes away from it being user friendly. Too little information could lead the user to an incorrect conclusion. -could the landscaping and parking columns be eliminated or could there be less detailed information there with more referrals to other pats of the ordinance. -tables must be closely reviewed to ensure that the information in the table is consistent with the regulations in the ordinance. -could presenting the tables to the Planning Board and on to City Council be a method of organizing the committee’s recommendations for zoning changes? For example, presenting the Central Business table, including in it all recommended zoning changes for the Central Business district. To have any new table added to the ordinance, tables that include ZRC recommendations or tables that help untangle the ordinance as it currently stands, they would have to be adopted by the city council. It was proposed that the ZRC would continue the development and refine the tables and, for now use them as an organizing tool as proposals for changes to zoning are discussed. It would be good to ultimately incorporate the tables into the ordinance. Carolyn will take the information from the discussion to incorporate in the next draft of the General Business table. Carolyn will also organize data showing what portions of various districts are in compliance with the present zoning rules. 6. Essential Smart Growth Steve had made a summary of Essential Smart Growth fixes fro Urban Zoning Codes, creating a series of eleven tables. The tables each address areas where zoning could be changed to promote smart growth. Each table lists the benefits of pursuing the concept and then a series of steps to enact change; modest, major and wholesale steps. It had been agreed that the tables were well organized and it had been proposed that working through the tables could help the ZRC move forward towards recommendations. In looking at the first two tables, Allowing or Requiring Mixed-use Zones and Use Urban dimensions in Urban Places the committee agreed that what was listed as benefits were in fact benefits. It was also recognized that a number of the prescribed steps for change had already been taken but not necessarily consistently across the relevant districts. The committee will continue to work through the tables starting with Fixing Parking Requirements, at the next meeting. 7. Committee Progress Peter suggested that some time be taken at the next meeting to discuss how we proceed to reach our objectives. After talking about the drafted ordinance tables or the Essential Smart Growth plan as possibly providing a format to structure the committee’s next steps, and having the ZRC Timeline which was discussed at the previous meeting, it was agreed that a portion of the next ZRC meeting will be dedicated to talking about how we will proceed. This also seemed beneficial as Joel will be making a progress report to the City Council after the next ZRC meeting. (See #3) Next Agenda The agenda for the next meeting will include, Table of Use revisions, continuing on the Essential Smart Growth review and the discussion of how the committee is to proceed. Submitted by Peter McLean Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Meeting Minutes June 10, 2010 Present: Joel Russell, Adin Maynard, Dillon Sussman, Danielle Kahn, Tom Weiner, Peter McLean, Jim Nash, Dennis Bidwell, Steve Gilson, OPD Staff- Carolyn Misch Public Comment None Work Group Reports Outreach Workgroup The workgroup reported that it is developing outreach scenario’s for Fall ‘10 Technical Workgroup Working on dimensional tables Dimensional averaging for setbacks Investigating parking alternatives Other Business and Reports Peter McLean reported that Bay State Village Association has completed their survey. The report is in powerpoint and is posted on the BSVA site. Tom. Requested reserving 10 minutes at the end of the meeting to review next steps. The ZRC reviewed its scheduled of summer meetings th June 30full ZRC th Then July 7 for Workgroups st July 21 for full ZRC th August 4 th August 18 King Street Discussion ZRC members began tackling ways to move forward with the Chamber’s recommendations for King Street. Questions about the proposal itself arose during this discussion. These notes try to recreate much of the give and take. Dennis- We should have an accelerated process and using the summer to begin to flesh out ideas such as the buffer zone, signage, depth of setback, screening and landscaping. He proposed that we create workgroups to begin these discussions. Adin asked if we should have such workgroups be ZRC or an outside group or a mix. Peter-How does the buffer create bike friendliness? Dennis-currently the infrastructure for bike lanes does not exist. The proposal is not just a zoning solution but infrastructure improvement. Joel- this could be required by zoning. Steve-this is what we have done with all developments on King Street however the result can be piecemeal. Adin- He liked the idea of developing themes for the buffer zone which would run the totality of King. Expressed concerned that we could encourage more traffic. Dennis- responded to this that these are automobile oriented properties and that an increase in traffic could occur. Danielle- Senses consensus amongst the ZRC up to the bike path. Maybe we should consider extending CB further up King if we address the parking issue identified by the Chamber. She asked what studies and reports have we done before for King and other areas of the city. She believes the upper King portion will require further study and discussion. The ZRC needs to look at the data and studies that the Chamber used. This proposal seems more in sync with the perspective of property owners and this appears at odds to a sustainable vision. Dillon- we need to use the different lenses to evaluate the King Street proposal. It’s a good start, but requires more public input. Adin- commented it would be important to identify the lenses Dennis proposed that the ZRC sponsor listening sessions, where the Chamber presents its proposal. Tom- Are we endorsing the proposal by bringing it to the public? How does it not look like we are backing this plan? Peter- What are we going to do with the input we get back? We are down the track. We are not talking about being at the beginning. From a member of the public- This is a commercial venture and it needs to reflect the committees concerns. Tom- To ZRC, what details are not sitting well? Dillon- I would like to know how many buildings were built under the current zoning? How does the rate of development compare with other communities? There has been an increase of density on Damon. There needs to be increased walkability for the surrounding neighborhoods. Is the best use for these properties retail? Carolyn- We should walk through the report and discuss. Jim- Perhaps we should do this review with the chamber members who helped develop the proposal so these questions can be directly answered. Suzanne Beck (member of the public)- the Chamber would like to participate in such a discussion. Suzanne-It is not the Chamber’s role to do the outreach for this proposal. This is the ZRC’s role. Steve- We need to keep the momentum going and should plan to do outreach over the summer. Dennis- The next meeting will likely determine our next actions th The ZRC agreed to invite Chamber Representatives to the June 30 meeting to review the proposal in detail. th It was requested that for the Chamber be emailed prior to the meeting on June 30. The rd The ZRC agreed to set a deadline of June 23for questions Questions that arose. Were there any transportation demand reports? What is the difference between CB and GB in the proposal? What general ideas are tied to infrastructure development? What design ideas were discussed? The Outreach Workgroup agreed to draw up some scenarios for seeking public input to account for this accelerated track. ZONING REVISIONS COMMITTEE Minutes of June 30, 2010 7 PM, Council Chambers 210 Main St, Northampton Members Present Comments  Dennis Bidwell  Steve Gilson  Danielle Kahn  Adin Maynard  Peter McLean  Jim Nash  Joel Russell  Dillon Sussman  Tom Weiner Office of Planning and Development Staff  Carolyn Misch  Wayne Feiden 7 PM—Joel Russell opened the meeting for public comment. None. Russell described the intention of the meeting to get detailed questions answered by the Chamber of its recommendation for King Street. Rick Klein, Andy Crystal, Suzanne Beck sitting for Chamber, with comment by Teri Anderson, ED staff. Dennis described the framework for description and question/answer session. Wayne Feiden provided an overview of the guiding principles memo distributed to ZRC about the 2002 zoning and proposed changes. Dennis responded to questions regarding differences in report about infrastructure recommendations versus zoning recommendations. Both make up pieces to the puzzle for redevelopment along the street. Teri Anderson noted that the city is having discussions about how infrastructure improvements could be made and evaluation of King Street as a whole. Study could incorporate rezoning recommendations. Dennis guided ZRC point by point through each sub district recommendation. Suzanne provided additional information on data collected relating to presumed setbacks along the corridor. Joel Russell asked about provision to allow construction up to the sidewalk. Dennis noted that the idea is to allow that and flexibility but not to mandate it. Danielle asked how an off-road bike path would function? There was discussion about curb cuts. Discussion of the proposed transitional area between CB and HB. The ZRC discussed next steps including getting more detailed drafting about how the concepts could be specified into actual zoning language while gathering public input at the conceptual recommendation level. There was discussion on whether the ZRC needed to decide the merits of the proposal first before going out for public comments. Perhaps a separate work-group should be established to address the technical details? Determined agenda dates for the summer: July 21, Aug 4, Aug 18. July 21 should be discussion on points of agreement with Chamber concept. Staff should merge Office of Planning and Development and Chamber document to evaluate points side-by-side. Outreach committee should meet to decide on timing, course of action to obtain public input. 9 PM Adjourn. ZONING REVISIONS COMMITTEE Minutes of September 1, 2010 7 PM, Hearing Room 210 Main St, Northampton Members Present Comments  Dennis Bidwell  Steve Gilson  Danielle Kahn  Peter McLean  Jim Nash  Joel Russell  Dillon Sussman  Tom Weiner Office of Planning and Development Staff  Carolyn Misch Wayne Feiden 7 PM—Joel Russell opened meeting No public comment Russell asked for input from committee on King Street proposal. Jim Nash stated concern with making decision without public feedback. Stephen Gilson stated interest in getting feedback without having ZRC made a decision on the Chamber recommendation. Peter McLean stated interest in putting forward a recommendation without a ZRC decision. Joel suggested that there should be ZRC analysis of proposal before going to the public. Sussman agreed that ZRC should provide additional input/analysis but not necessarily detailed alternative proposal. He stated that there was essentially a three-pronged approach: Chamber, Office of Planning and Development, and ZRC. Danielle suggested that committee look at original accepted process for analysis/recommendation loops. It would be best to see some analysis included in public discourse and there needs to be more time for such analysis. Tom stated concern that there was no ZRC analysis as was originally planned to occur over the summer. He suggested that there should be no meeting until full analysis is complete. 1 Dennis clarified that there has been debate and discussion equating to analysis. Content group did look at public meeting agenda and that agreement on agenda was almost complete with one outstanding question being whether alternatives to the proposal should be presented. He emphasized that the main focus should be to gather input on concept of proposal then do analysis if necessary. Dillon confirmed that the three proposed agendas are very close. There was more discussion on what ZRC response should be. Dillon began presentation of his analysis showing existing (rough) setbacks and buildings map in the 3 proposed sections of King Street. Data was taken from Department of Public Works street layer with aerial photography. He concluded that 55’ setback doesn’t seem unreasonable since most buildings are already in conformance and therefore 55’ not historically an impediment to development. Staff presented concerns about existing setbacks and lack of screening. Dillon reiterated interest in keeping 55’. Dennis clarified that the goals of the recommendation. Danielle pointed out that proposals are assuming that it is better to have green strip for pedestrians than buildings that frame the street. Staff Clarified position. Dillon suggested that Entranceway Business should also extend from Barrett to Damon, then revert back to HB to the River Valley Market. There was discussion of the merits of keeping zoning vs. proposed changes. There was a need to ensure that the analysis should be either open ended or leading to an alternative proposal and not somewhere in between. Dani asked whether discussion of other alternatives (Dillon’s or otherwise) is appropriate at forum or should it be done after? The committee discussed what to show. Tom stated that he was not sure that it should go public without alternatives since some members of the committee are not wholly on board. Teri Anderson, Economic Development, suggested that the way questions asked is important. Tom agreed. Dani stated we should have more graphics to show alternatives that may not be fully analyzed but close. Peter concurred with Dani and Dillon as needing to allow for alternatives. Steve suggested that analysis be narrowed to 2 slides but there shouldn’t be formal ZRC recommended alternatives. Dani asked about scheduling another meeting after September forums Jim raised a concern that showing alternatives implies that there is a better alternative. He noted that none of the chamber discussions lead to idea that there are other viable options. Framing alternatives does disservice to the recommendation. Nobody in discussions with chamber was talking about building up to the street. Suzanne Beck, Chamber suggested that the chamber proposal could be contrasted with data Dillon presented about existing zoning. Dennis- reiterated point of not providing alternative recommendation until a later date. Joel summarized conversation: Consensus on bike path south to Main St. Agreement that proposal north of bike path should show analysis(section graphics) Say more on existing zoning & improvements, show what has happened since 2002. Impasse on how or whether alternatives are presented. Tom- questions for the public should be fleshed out in order to better understand issue of proposal. Joel- Asked about format/substance of meeting. These will be finalized at the meeting on 9-15. Adjourn 3 Minutes from Community Outreach Meeting – 9/7/10 5 PM 11 Linden Ave Jim Nash, Peter McLean, Tom Weiner Present 1.Determined contact people for leafleating – via city councilors (Plassman, Carney and Schwartz) as well as ward leaders. Numbers of flyers needed to be determined by councilors. Jim will tell Carolyn how many are needed. 2.Allocated responsibility for contacting/inviting/sending flyers to e-mail list. OUTREACH CONTACT CHECKLIST will be sent to Carolyn by Jim and will show ZRC person making contact. 3.Responsibility also determined for media outlets, which will receive press releases. 4.Discussed getting poster size announcement of forum to put up downtown and selected King St. sites. Carolyn lets Tom know when posters are available and also tells Jim so he can communicate with city councilors. ZONING REVISIONS COMMITTEE Minutes of September 15, 2010 7 PM, Hearing Room 210 Main St, Northampton Members Present Comments Dennis Bidwell  Steve Gilson  Danielle Kahn  Peter McLean  Jim Nash  Dillon Sussman  Tom Weiner Office of Planning and Development Staff  Carolyn Misch Wayne Feiden 7 PM—Danielle Kahn opened meeting Aaron Helfland, Leeds, asked the committee to provide a range of options for zoning on king Street in addition to chamber recommendation. Ben Forbes, Florence, reiterated idea that options should be discussed at the forum. He stated interest in having Notre Dame images shown and asked about outreach efforts. Tom and Steve responded to questions. Jim/Tom described outreach efforts. Danielle noted that the committee should take time at the end of the meeting to discuss committee structure and next steps now that the committee is down 2 members as a result of Adin Maynard and now Joel Russell leaving the committee. Danielle suggested that the rough draft of the slides be presented by Dillon, Suzanne and Danielle. Committee discussed format of meeting, slide changes, questions, and king street goals. 9:30 Adjourn` ZONING REVISIONS COMMITTEE Minutes of October 6, 2010 7 PM, City Hall, Room 10 Main St, Northampton Members Present Comments  Dennis Bidwell  Steve Gilson  Danielle Kahn  Peter McLean  Jim Nash  Dillon Sussman  Tom Weiner Office of Planning and Development Staff  Carolyn Misch Wayne Feiden 7 PM—Danielle Kahn opened meeting No public comment. Danielle opened the discussion about replacements for Adin and Joel. Committee suggested that the Planning Board go back to the list of original applicants to see if any candidates might still be interested. The goal would be to have replacements by the end of October. Committee discussed chair and vice chair position. Danielle noted that she would be willing to consider stepping up to chair depending on work plan and if there was consensus on making alternative recommendations regarding King Street proposal. Danielle agreed to remain acting chair for a few more meetings. Outreach team presented summary of King Street forum discussion noting there was consensus on several items but no consensus on setbacks, buffer, multi-use path. Questions raised that need further review include parking issues within the GB district, details of what would be located in the buffer, bike safety on multi-use trails, design standards, cap on building size. Board discussed Office of Planning and Development memo regarding moving forward on zoning changes. Committee agreed that a charrette would be an appropriate avenue to continue the discussions. There was discussion about additional technical resources that could benefit the process and in what capacity such resources could be used. Committee discussed, but did not conclude, how such a process might be structured and at what point there might be public input. Committee determined that Nov 13 would be available for everyone. The next few meetings should focus on questions that could be answered in such a charrette. Committee discussed concept of ZRC addressing “low-hanging” fruit in a series with possibly 2 public forums to get comment on clusters of ordinance changes. One at the end of January and one at the end of March. Staff will bring draft items to ZRC for review and outreach beginning with looking at concept of infill special permit, cluster, home occupation changes, some table of use changes and residential infill standards (with design). Next Meetings Oct 20 and Nov 3. 9:00 Adjourn ZONING REVISIONS COMMITTEE Minutes of November 3, 2010 7 PM, City Hall, Room 10 Main St, Northampton Members Present Comments  Dennis Bidwell  Steve Gilson  Danielle Kahn  Peter McLean  Jim Nash  Mark Nejame  Bob Reckman  Dillon Sussman  Tom Weiner Office of Planning and Development Staff  Carolyn Misch Wayne Feiden 7 PM—Danielle Kahn opened meeting with introductions of new members Public Comment: Ben Forbes suggested that the committee look at Randall Arendt’s new book when evaluating zoning changes to King Street and asked about the format for the charrette. Parking Issues: Jim Nash relayed information he and Dennis received from discussions with Bill Letendre, Director of Parking. It was suggested that further evaluation of non-resident parking sticker program is more complicated than resident only parking but could be studied. Discussion of alternative (to Chamber) rezoning approach on King Street: Dani distributed a revision of the detailed table initially discussed at previous meetings. Reckman asked how the proposal was developed. Committee discussed merits of proposal. There was discussion of stormwater issues and other possible changes to the details. Chair/Vice Chair: Dani offered to serve as Chair and Jim as Vice-Chair. Unanimous approval. Committee requested design standards be distributed for review at another meeting or the charrette. 9 PM Adjourn ZONING REVISIONS COMMITTEE Minutes of October 20, 2010 7 PM, City Hall, Room 10 Main St, Northampton Members Present Comments  Dennis Bidwell  Steve Gilson  Danielle Kahn Peter McLean  Jim Nash  Dillon Sussman Tom Weiner Office of Planning and Development Staff  Carolyn Misch Wayne Feiden 7 PM—Danielle Kahn opened meeting Public comment: Ben Forbes asked about Joel Russell’s letter and recommendation for outside consultant to study King St. and mixed uses. 2. King St charrette discussion regarding ZRC sponsorship and providing questions, data input for the charrette. The committee discussed possible recommendations from the outreach working group relative to the summary from King Street forums. Committee reviewed outline and attendees and discussed location ideas for charrette. 3. Committee discussed bringing an alternative to the Chamber’s King St proposal to the charrette. Other: work plan update, next steps (Adjourn 9) ZONING REVISIONS COMMITTEE Minutes of Dec 1, 2010 7 PM, City Hall, Room 10 Main St, Northampton Members Present Comments  Dennis Bidwell  Steve Gilson  Danielle McKahn  Peter McLean  Jim Nash  Bob Reckman  Dillon Sussman  Tom Weiner Office of Planning and Development Staff  Carolyn Misch Wayne Feiden 7 PM—Danielle Kahn opened meeting No Public comment Next Steps and Work Plan update were discussed. Urban infill special permit with design guidelines should be addressed at next meeting(12-15) to develop process for approval of odd projects. Dimensional table changes could also be reviewed along with the Home occupation draft (Carolyn Misch to bring marked up version of existing language). Committee asked staff to send out samples of design guidelines and draft Home occupation permits for review over the next 2 meetings. Jan 5 was scheduled for more detailed review of residential design standards and driveway changes and if time allows, changes to the cluster ordinance. Committee discussed holding a mid-February public forum at 2 locations: Bridge Street School and Florence Civic. Jim Nash agreed to arrange dates and times for Florence Civic and Carolyn Misch agreed to schedule Bridge St School for week of Feb 16. Adjourn 9 PM Minutes and Outcomes King Street Rezoning Charrette Nov 13 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Media Education Foundation Dec 2, 2010 5 PM to 7 PM 210 Main Street, Room 18 City Hall Planning Board Members: Stephen Gilson, Mark Sullivan, Debin Bruce, Francis Johnson, Katharine Baker, Andrew Weir, Marilyn Richards; Zoning Revisions Committee: Dennis Bidwell, Stephen Gilson, Dani McKahn, Peter McLean, Jim Nash, Mark NeJame, Bob Reckman, Dillon Sussman, Tom Weiner; Chamber of Commerce: Suzanne Beck, Andrew Crystal, Mark Darnold, Ed Etheredge City Staff: Teri Anderson, Wayne Feiden, Carolyn Misch Indicates consensus on issue and proposed concept  Indicates lack of consensus or clarity on issue/proposed concept where more work was necessary.  AGREED UPON GUIDING PRINCIPLES  Accommodate all modes of access to accommodate diverse funding options.  Simplify regulations.  Articulate principles guiding the zoning and regulate only those things that accomplish those priorities.  Improve visual/aesthetic context for corridor  Allow for current development as well as future development visions.  Allow a greater mix of uses  Encourage design for bikes and pedestrians  Encourage design that reflects local character  Maximize development on King St to reduce sprawl  Attract businesses that strengthen Northampton’s economy  Reduce excess parking and improve stormwater management  Encourage buildings that are built to last  Make zoning easier to understand and enforce CENTRAL BUSINESS (Main to Trumbull) Proposed Zoning  Setback/Build-to: 5’ MAX (unchanged)  Height Min. & Max: 30’ Min (unchanged)/65’ Max  Location of parking/Amount: Side/rear of front plane/ 0 (location unchanged)  Uses / Size Cap: Drop special permits for many; 90,000 sf  Design guidelines: Keep unchanged  Landscaping: Only change rear where abuts Res to 15’  Access Control: Unchanged  Open Space 0% [Type text] NEW “ENTRANCEWAY BUSINESS” ( replaces GB and URC between Trumbull and rail trail) Proposed Zoning Consensus/Outcome  Setback/Build-to: 8’ MIN 10’ from front(street side) of the sidewalk with goal of creating 10’ pedestrian walk  Height Min. & Max:20’ Min/ 65’ Max – 2 nd story not required. Issue of mandatory 2 nd floor vs. voluntary nd discussed. Keep proposed allowance for 2 floor with average height min.  Location of Side/rear of front plane (unchanged) parking/Amount:  Uses / Size Cap: Drop special permit for many; 90,000 sf . Issue of ground floor residential discussed/resolved to keep residential above first floor  Design guidelines:New for facades Apply to all facades visible from a public way.  Landscaping: in 8’ buffer and buffer to parking Reduce rear abutting res to 15’  Access Control: Keep Standard Site Plan language (1 per lot)  Open Space 0% landscape requirements only HIGHWAY BUSINESS (Rail Trail to River Valley Market) Proposed Zoning Consensus/Outcome  Setback/Build-to Chamber: Min 25’ from 10’ treebelt, 5’ sidewalk prop 12’ Tree Belt (unless 10’ recommended by line to parking or building Tree Committee) 12’ Multi-use Bike-Ped Walk  Setback/Build-to OPD: 10’ treebelt, 12’ multiuse Performance 12’ Planted buffer to bldg/parking based Trees and buffer to parked cars. (with clear performance standards)  Height Min. & Max: 20’ Min/ 65’ Max – 2 nd story not required Issue of mandatory 2 nd floor vs. voluntary discussed. Resolved to keep as proposed.  Location of parking Anywhere on site behind buffer ZRC did not reach consensus. Some wanted maximum 2 rows of parking in front of building.  Amount of Parking 0 Planning Board & Chamber consented to no maximum but 27’ +/- wide promenade connection from street to front of building. (10’ wide walk flanked by 9’ wide buffer).  Uses / Size Cap: Drop special permit for many; 90,000 sf Issue of ground floor residential discussed/resolved  Design guidelines: Add to all uses  Landscaping: Increased detail for parking lot/front buffer  Access Control: More stringent to 1/lot Discussion of alternative access. Create incentives for shared access. Special permit for more than 1 offset possibly by more traffic mitigation…  Buffer Depth/Details Improve details Discussion not finalized. Related to parking lot amount/setback with ped promenade b/w street and bldg.  Open Space 0% landscape requirements only Performance criteria 2