Loading...
ZRC 2011 Agenda and Minutes ZONING REVISIONS COMMITTEE Minutes of Jan 5, 2011 7 PM, City Hall, Room 10 Main St, Northampton Members Present Comments  Dennis Bidwell  Steve Gilson  Danielle McKahn  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 No Public Comment The ZRC discussed line by line the Home Occupations bylaw language and made changes that make it easier to have a home-based business. The proposal will include many of the changes that Carolyn originally proposed, as well as additional changes that allow home-based businesses to see clients, work with others in their home, and have a small sign affixed to the building, all by right. Instead of regulating client visits, having special cases for different uses, etc., we are proposing that all home businesses be regulated based on the automobile traffic (vehicle trips) they generate. If less than 5 round trips are generated daily, the home occupation would be allowed by right. Otherwise, a special permit would be required. The new regulations would also encourage the creation of home-made goods, provided that the business meets the original criteria of not creating noxious smells, noise, etc. that can be detected beyond the property line. These home-made goods could be sold from the home, subject to the maximum daily vehicle trips limit and a new provision allowing up to 2 yard/home sale events each year. The committee discussed residential design standards and what approach might work in Northampton. It was agreed that a subgroup would get together to further filter the concepts and come up with a possible working document The committee also discussed the upcoming public forum for Feb. 15th in Florence and Feb. 16th at Bridge Street School. The outreach folks will begin to formulate a plan for forum outreach. It was determined that additional coverage should be sought in the form of a longer news article. Carolyn and Dani will work on that. There was a discussion about a possible March forum for chicken ordinance and possibly cluster. 9 PM Adjourn Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Mar 16, 2011 Agenda Room 10, City Hall 7:30 PM 1.Public comment 2.Review Draft Agricultural Recommendations and the Chicken Ordinance 3.Ctd. Discussion of Schedule, Tasks To Be Completed and Final Products 4.Discuss Future of ZRC 5. ZONING REVISIONS COMMITTEE Minutes of Mar 2, 2011 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 Public comment: There was a request for the committee to include a “glossary of terms” when presenting or providing a final report. The ZRC discussed summaries of public forums drafted by Jim Nash (see attached) 1.Summary of Public Forums and What We Learned in relation to home occupations: a.Committee discussed possible changes to the Home Occupations and interest in receiving feedback from the building department on enforcement options/ability. Committee discussed various aspects of public feedback including parking, truck traffic/deliveries and enforcement. b.Carolyn Misch proposed instituting a registration permit process that would be administrative approval for business with clients/employees up to 5 trips per day. There was further discussion about modifying the trips based on averages per week with daily maximums and hours of operation to allow more flexibility. Committee asked staff to revise language to incorporate changes discussed. c.Dani suggested that the summary of the forum should also include discussion of interest in focusing on bulk, height, setback, solar standards and not so much on architectural details. 2.Discussion of public feedback relative to dimensional and design standards put together by Danielle McKhahn and Dillon Sussman (see attached). a.Further discussion was held regarding detached accessory units and accessory units in general vs. multifamily units and allowing additions to existing structures. 3.Discussion of next steps: Committee discussed the amount of work needed to wrap up the term and that meeting through June might be the best way to accomplish this. Committee discussed putting forth a request to Planning Board to extend their term through June in order to finalize home occupation permits, finalize language for dimensional changes and put together a report on the process, what the committee has learned etc. as well as a recommendation for further implementation. There was general agreement toward requesting an extension from Planning Board to meet through June to accomplish tasks. 9 PM Adjourn ZRC Infill Forums Summary th Florence Civic Center February 15 th Bridge Street School February 16 th On February 15 & 16th, 2011, the Zoning Revisions Committee held two public forums to discuss methods for meeting Sustainable Northampton infill goals. Three topics were covered: a proposal called Home Business, a discussion of Dimensional Standards, and an exploration of Design Standards. The ZRC sought public input to improve our understanding of citizens concerns to discern our next steps forward. Twenty-eight citizens attend the forum at the Florence Civic Center and twenty-two attended at Bridge Street School. Feedback for the three topics have been clustered into themes and are followed by summaries. 1. Home Business The ZRC sought feedback on a proposal to change the restrictive Home Office regulations in order to create a more flexible Home Business permit. The impact of the business would be measured by the number of vehicle trips generated. Home Business Feedback Enforcement. Many participants expressed concern about how the city might enforce the ZRC Home Business proposal. Some were concerned about the complications of monitoring the number of trips and what mechanism would trigger a response from the city. Some were concerned that monitoring and reporting would fall to neighbors “ratting” on neighbors. Several spoke of how they find current enforcement of home based businesses as lax or inconsistent. Some expressed concern that Home Business would further uncap home occupation pressures and “open a can of worms”, “it’s a great plan for sprawl”. Some expressed the desire to see hours of operation for Home Business. Rights and Over-regulation. Several people stated that they do not like the idea of further regulation. Some participants pointed out that deliveries are currently unregulated. One person spoke of concern surrounding Home Business in condos and rentals where customers and employees would be using common spaces; what rights would neighbors, abutters, (or property owners) have? Traffic and Parking. Several participants expressed concern that Home Business could significantly increase traffic and parking pressures. Several people mentioned the inconvenience that snow has already put on city streets, and in some cases eliminated on street parking. Questions were raised about the range of deliveries (lunch delivery, UPS/FEDEX, tractor trailer trucks) and which of these constitutes a delivery. Several people thought five trips was too much; one person thought it was not enough. One citizen asked if we had considered limiting the number of Home Businesses on a street. Nuisances. Concerns were expressed about noise, odor, increased trash, vehicle cleaning, vehicle repair, large signs, children learning to play piano, significant pedestrian traffic. Other Concerns. One citizen expressed concern about businesses such as law offices or pizza restaurants in “beautiful old homes” creating decay. Home Business Summary Enforcement, Traffic, and Parking dominated both discussions. All three were regularly discussed in conjunction with the others and are seen as related. The ZRC should review the Home Business proposal with the Building Inspector to explore if there are ways to monitor and enforce the number of vehicle trips. Developing mechanisms to monitor and enforce should help to ease many citizens concerns. We may also wish to have a more general discussion with the Building Inspector about enforcement issue. Some of the feedback received around Home Business indicated some broader concerns about enforcement. Many citizens were concerned we were proposing to soften regulations that currently require a Special Permit. In the future the ZRC needs to emphasize that we continue to support strict enforcement of the thresholds that require a Special Permit. Participant feedback did not give us a clear idea of whether there would be public support for the Home Business proposal once we address concerns. 2. Dimensional Standards The ZRC sought input on three different strategies to promote infill in our urban residential zones: URA, URB, & URC. The three strategies discussed were  Adjusting the Dimensional Table so they better match neighborhood realities  Replacing Dimensional Tables with “performance-base” requirements  Creating a Special Permit for Infill Feedback The complexity of the topic was ever present in our discussions. Participants asked many pertinent questions, “What choices are you presenting?” “Which choice gives us the greatest flexibility?” “How does owning a non- conforming home effect me?” “Has the ZRC done economic impact studies for these proposals?” “Are we considering an incremental approach to zoning changes?” To their credit, participants worked diligently to grasp the topic and give helpful feedback. Types of Infill Supported. Several citizens thought it would be fine for property owners to convert garages and carriage houses (even non-conforming structures) into residential units. There was support for infill flexibility (adding/subtracting units) within existing structures. Parking. Some concern was expressed about parking pressures, even when the infill is in an accessory structure or is within an existing structure with no outward changes. One participant expressed support for on-street parking. Another participant expressed reservations when the on-street parking lacks a tree belt and lax parking regulations.. However, one participant called for lifting the parking requirement for residential areas citing she often rents to people without autos. Types of Infill that raised Concerns.  New/expanded structures that take greenspace  Teardowns  Additions to structures that significantly increase size, bulk, height  Additions to structures that decrease an abutter’s sunlight  Density that is out of proportion to the neighborhood Restrictions. Several participants spoke of how our current zoning restricts what they can do on their properties (Bridge Road mobile home, Suburban homeowner, Dimensional Complexities. Several people noted the variety of differences in dimensional realities from neighborhood to neighborhood, street to street. One participant noted how poorly sited many homes are throughout the city. Blending/Combining Infill Strategies. Several participants suggested the ZRC develop proposals that combine the strategies discussed (Adjusting Dimensional Tables, Developing Performance Based requirements, Infill Special Permit, and Design Standards) One participant suggested we apply new Dimensional Standards to create greater conformity and then have non-conforming properties apply for Special Permit that is Performance driven. Another participant asked if Performance Based standards could be developed as an incremental step between By Right infill and Special Permit. Greenspace. Some participants were interested in knowing how greenspace would be protected or preserved in infill zones. Support was expressed for protecting greenspace for backyards, trees, gardens, and chickens. Special Permit. The Special Permit process received divergent feedback. One participant spoke of trusting the SP process and city committees. Another spoke of it as a way to get community input to regulate infill projects. One participant shared a story about a Special Permit project that ended well with the neighborhood pleased. Another participant spoke of how SP politicizes the permitting process. Several people spoke of being wary of city boards and distrusting their ability to make decisions Zoning is personal. As one participant pointed out, while the ZRC is talking zoning in general, participants are often responding in very personal ways that relate to their properties. Dimensional Standards Summary Participant feedback indicates that they understood and accepted our premise that Northampton’s current zoning does not match the dimensional realities in our neighborhoods. People often regularly cited the inconsistencies we are wrestling with from street to street, neighborhood to neighborhood, village to village. Based on the feedback received the ZRC should consider developing proposals that combine the various strategies discussed: Adjusting Dimensional Tables, Developing Performance Based regulations, Infill Special Permit, and Design Standards. Several participants saw a need for combining strategies and saw them as way to get to concrete proposals. Citizens would like to know with reasonable certainty the level of infill we are talking about. Developing scenarios that model different outcomes will help focus discussion and assist citizens in understanding zoning choices. Sustainability. The discussion in Florence yielded some interesting feedback around how people feel about Sustainability. We heard a participant refer to Northampton as a Suburban city and how the Sustainability Plan will change this. One person whose home was not in URA-B-C left when he realized his home was not directly affected by our discussions. One person thought our Home Business recommendations were promoting sprawl, while another participant thought we were emphasizing economic interests over environmental and social equity. The discussion was qualitatively different from previous forums. The ZRC may want to consider exploring this further. Sustainability Goals. One participant suggested we be more precise with our infill goals by identifying particular Sustainability objectives. The example given was student housing. 3. Residential Design Standards When discussing infill the ZRC heard a lot of support for Design Standards . This discussion aimed to discern how broad or specific people wanted the regulations. Feedback Suggested Design Targets. “aesthetics beyond architecture”, greenspace and trees, siting of structures on lots, mass/bulk, loss of sunlight, setbacks, height, new additions and new structures, tiny or cottage housing, historic districts that preserve a neighborhoods vernacular. Several people mentioned the differences between neighborhoods and developing a method for determining Neighborhood/Street averages. Over Regulation. Many participants were wary of over-regulation. Examples of excessive design standards were restrictions on materials, windows and doors, limits on the range of architecture allowed, establishing a standard of taste. Several people spoke of being supportive of modern and contemporary architecture. One participant saw frontage as a dubious requirement when compared with setbacks. Public Process. Several people mentioned the need for neighbor/neighborhood to weigh in on infill projects. Care/Upkeep. One participant asked if there were a way to better regulate the care and upkeep of structures, that the biggest “eyesores” are not infill but poorly maintained buildings. Number of Units and Size. A question was asked about the threshold between small and large projects. A ZRC member suggest the number was around five units. Design Standards Summary There was strong support for the ZRC to continue exploring Design Standards. Feedback was clearly in favor of standards that allow for flexibility. Further Design Standard discussion should explore the targets listed above. Residents said that they did not want detailed architectural standards or to discourage modern architecture. They were most concerned with height, bulk, setbacks and making changes that block light or change views. When meeting with the Building Inspector we could also discuss the possibility of enforcing upkeep issues. It maybe helpful in the future to have a clearer idea of the threshold between small and large projects. Northampton’s Urban Residential Zoning Districts: Some Initial Ideas for a ZRC Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal Some key points from the Zoning Revisions Committee analysis : The existing dimensional standards, especially the requirements that govern the number of units per ● square foot of lot size, and frontage requirements greatly limit the creation of new units in urban districts. When structures are converted to a lower number of units, it can be impossible to convert them back to ● a higher number of units. These standards are contributing to the loss of units and population in urban districts. Many accessory structures do not conform to residential setback requirements. This limits their ● conversion to accessory apartments. The setback requirements do not match our current neighborhoods, so new structures are unlikely to be ● sited in a way that matches—or is in character with--the other homes on the block. The current zoning forces the city to lose units over time, which is in direct contradiction to the city’s ● comprehensive plan, which calls for concentrating development in traditional neighborhoods. Public Feedback and Discussion: The community expressed general support for infill as long as it does not affect the existing character of our neighborhoods. Major concerns that were voiced include traffic, parking, intrusions into views or solar access and loss of “green space”. Residents are most likely to be sympathetic to: Small infill ● Owner-occupants who want to add units ● Conversions that revert a structure to its historic number of units ● Additional units that help maintaining affordability for owners, as well as renters to a lesser degree ● Residents expressed concern about infill projects that: Are out of scale with the neighborhood in terms of height, bulk, or number of units ● Add new houses on existing streets (especially through subdivision of lots) ● Create multi-family housing on predominantly single-family streets ● Affect land that neighbors feel a “sense of ownership” over, such as privately owned wood or field lots ● that have been used informally by neighborhood residents Result in the demolition of “loved” structures ● Consolidate lots for larger projects ● Residents also expressed concerns about: Zoning that is difficult to understand, unpredictable or unequally applied ● Effects on property values (increases or decreases in property value) ● Design-Related Feedback  Concern about projects the block views or sunlight, and that are out of scale with the neighborhood.  However, residents do not seem to want to over-regulate design by creating very specific architectural standards or a complex design review process.  In general, residents expressed a preference for standards that address site design characteristics (how a building is situated on a lot, for example) rather than architectural characteristics (the style and characteristics of the building itself, other than its height and bulk). Summary of Possible Considerations for Short-Term Improvements (next few months) 1.Revise the city’s accessory apartment regulations to make it easier to have accessory apartments on owner-occupied properties Key Pts:  Allow accessory units in garages that are closer to property boundaries than homes. For example, this would allow garages that were built at or near the lot line to be converted to accessory units.  Allow conversion of a detached accessory structure into an accessory apartment by-right rather than requiring a special permit.  Allow accessory units in all owner-occupied buildings (not just single-family homes). For example, this would allow owner-occupier residents of two-family or multi-family homes to add an accessory unit.  Allow the entrance to an accessory apartment to be located in the front of the building (in addition to the side or rear) 2.Amend the city’s Planned Development regulations to allow for innovative housing and adaptive reuse of obsolete structures by Special Permit. Allow larger projects (pocket neighborhood, cottage housing, adaptive reuse, urban-style townhouses, subdivision projects) by SP with Site Plan Reivew. 3.Amend the dimensional tables in the city’s urban residential zoning districts to allow for small infill projects by right. Key Pts for Short-Term Changes  Use performance based approach for small projects: eliminate lot size per unit and adjust setback and open space requirements. Keep current parking requirements o Replace % open space with contiguous square feet of open space per unit o Set setbacks to better match neighborhoods, with relief by Site Plan Review o  However, continue to use minimum lot size and frontage requirements, keeping these numbers somewhat high to minimize splitting of lots that could lead to houses between houses.  In URC, allow 1-4 family projects by right (and change the stds for these, as noted in first bullet pt. above)  In URB, allow 1-4 or 1-3 projects by right. SP for 4-family? (“ “)  In URA, allow 1-2 family projects by right. SP for 3-family? (“ “) 4. Establish general design standards with Site Plan Review that apply only to larger projects, projects allowed only by special permit (like innovative dvpts and adaptive reuse above) and projects asking for special permit relief from dimensional stds  Design standards by site plan for any project over 500 square feet?  Standards to cover setbacks, parking, street presence and solar access. Solar access provisions are used to control building massing and distance from neighbors. Possible Medium and Long-Term Recommendations 1.Develop a Design Guidebook with more detailed (non-binding) design guidelines 2.Make map changes / redistricting (medium term – next task of ZRC?) 3.Step by step guide for assessing zoning for typical projects (by OPD) 4.Consider parking permits and parking requirement reductions, with provisions for snow emergency parking. Esp. In URC 5.Add recommendations to make zoning easier to understand. E.g. by reorganizing tables Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Mar 30, 2011 Agenda City Council Chambers, 212 Main St 7:00 PM 1.Public comment 2.Final Review of Home Occupation and Draft Agricultural Recommendations and the Chicken Ordinance 3.Review Dimensional Standards Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Mar 30, 2011 Agenda City Council Chambers, 212 Main St 7:00 PM 1.Public comment 2.Final Review of Home Occupation and Draft Agricultural Recommendations and the Chicken Ordinance 3.Review Dimensional Standards Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting April 20, 2011 Agenda Room 10, 210 Main Street 6:30 P.M. 1. Public Comment 2. Dimensional Standards Proposal 3. Next Steps for Implementing the Sustainability Plan 4. "Final Report" Letter to the Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting April 6, 2011 Agenda Room 10, 210 Main Street 7:00 PM 1.7:00 p.m. Public comment 2.7:10- 8:30 p.m. Review of Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal, and Discussion of Which Parts of Proposal Should be Forwarded to the Planning Board as Part of the Final Report 3.8:30 Next Steps for Implementing the Sustainable Northampton Plan through Zoning