Loading...
ZRC Feb Forum Summary 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.