Zoning Revisions Committee Final Report - July 7 2011

April 29, 2011 Planning Board City of Northampton 210 Main Street, Room 11, City Hall Northampton,
MA 01060 Dear Members of the Planning Board, The Zoning Revisions Committee has completed its two year term, and I am writing to report back on what we learned, what we have to pass on to you, and potential next steps. In the first year of our work, the committee developed a process for conducting its work, learned about a number of sustainability topics related to zoning (housing, energy, urban agriculture, etc.), conducted a detailed analysis of how well the current zoning meets the goals of the Sustainability Plan, and completed an in-depth study of one issue of particular concern: infill. In the second year of our work, we spent the first six months reviewing and discussing the King Street Rezoning Proposal that we received from the Chamber of Commerce. In the final six months of our work, we developed detailed proposals on home occupations, backyard chickens and residential infill development. In the course of our work, we took our charge of involving the community seriously In all, we have had discussions with numerous stakeholders, from community and ward associations to developers, backyard chicken advocates, and others and we held five well-attended public forums, including one forum to hear general community feedback on infill development, two forums on the King Street proposal, and two forums to get more specific feedback on home occupations and residential infill. In sum, I submit to you the following products of our work, which are appended to this letter: 1. A General Process Flow Diagram illustrating the process adopted by our committee. We believe that this is a useful process because it describes how and when public input should be collected and how it should be used in the decision making process. In short, we should first learn about the zoning issue (analysis and synthesis), we should then go out and ask particular stakeholders for their input about the issue, then we should solicit input from the larger community, and finally, we should generate recommendations. Youll notice that the diagram includes circular feedback loops, indicating points in the process where it may be appropriate to go back through again to refine our understanding of the issue or our recommendations. 2. A Review of Zoning and the Sustainability Plan. The ZRC reviewed the citys Sustainability Plan and its Zoning Ordinance to determine how well the current zoning meets the goals of the Sustainability Plan. The Preliminary Zoning Analysis adopted by the ZRC is included at the end of this report. Key findings in this analysis were: The zoning district regulations in many cases do not support sustainability goals Only a small amount of the City is zoned for walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods Our zoning does not allow for the variety of types and scales of infill development that are desirable Design standards to guide development are lacking, especially for infill Parking requirements are arbitrarily high in many districts, discouraging infill development and forcing sprawl patterns Rural areas are zoned for suburban sprawl type development
There are significant organizational and readability issues
In addition to improving the citys zoning incrementally over time, the ZRC recommends that the city begin planning for a comprehensive zoning overhaul process. 3. King Street Analysis. The ZRC spent over six months of its two year term reviewing, analyzing and discussing the King Street Rezoning Proposal we received from the Chamber of Commerce. Two public forums were held as part of this process. For your review, a copy of the ZRC portion of the forum presentation has been provided. 4. Home Occupations Proposal. Beginning in January, based on a recommendation from the Office of Planning and Development to select a Low Hanging Fruit item to address in addition to our main area of work (infill), we began to develop a proposal to improve the current Home Occupations regulations. After four months of work, we are pleased to pass this completed proposal on to you. We spent significant time crafting the details of this proposal, and our process incorporated public input from our recent community wide forums and our committee meetings, as well as input from Zoning Enforcement Officer Louis Hasbrouck. The committee adopted a summary of the input we heard at these forums, which is also appended, as is a copy of the forum presentation. 5. Backyard Chickens Proposal and Urban Agriculture Recommendations. At the very beginning of the committees term, several members of the community asked that we look specifically at the issue of backyard chickens. The results of this work, a Framework for Revised Zoning Addressing Fowl and an additional Urban Agriculture Summary & Recommendations, are appended. Our zoning proposal would increase the current number of backyard chickens allowed from three to twelve per lot. This proposal incorporated input from many participants, including backyard chicken owners and advocates, the Pioneer Valley Backyard Chicken Association, the Agricultural Commission, Department of Health Director Ben Wood, Zoning Enforcement Officer Louis Hasbrouck, City Stormwater Coordinator Douglas McDonald, and City Planning staff Wayne Feiden and Carolyn Misch. A letter of support received from Grow Food Northampton has been appended along with the proposal. 6. Residential Infill Proposal and Next Steps. The bulk of the ZRCs work over the past two years has addressed residential infill. First, we conducted a thorough analysis and learned that there are many ways in which the current zoning discourages or does not allow for infill. We discussed infill issues with community groups, developers and others. We then held a community wide forum on infill, which led to a summary of the forum (attached), more analysis, and initial proposals for how to address infill issues. We then took these more concrete ideas back to the public at two additional community wide forums. Finally, we synthesized everything learned throughout the process to develop the attached recommendations, which include proposals that address both dimensional standards and design. In addition, I have attached initial language, created earlier in the ZRCs term, for an Infill Special Permit this is intended to serve as a temporary stopgap measure to allow good projects to move forward while the base zoning is being fixed to allow for desirable types of infill. Please note that the committee worked on this language in several iterations, but never formally adopted it. However, it may provide a useful starting place for the Planning Board to adopt a short-term solution.
In addition to these products, the ZRC supported: A proposal to improve watershed protection by amending the boundaries of the Watershed Protection District to reflect updated FEMA floodplain maps Efforts to adopt the Stretch Code, an optional energy efficient appendix to the state building code that can be adopted by individual municipalities Improvements to the citys driveway grading standards The creation of the Bean Allard Farm Task Force, and we appointed two adjunct members to this task force Efforts by the Office of Planning and Development to combine and make the Tables of Use Regulations and Dimensional and Density Regulations easier to understand Lessons Learned & Next Steps The Zoning Revisions Committee was established to tackle a daunting task: to implement the Sustainability Plan through zoning. In the process, we learned a great deal about both zoning and public engagement. We learned that smart growth means focusing growth near existing goods and services while minimizing development where there are significant natural resources and where there is little or no infrastructure or services. During its two year term, the ZRC focused largely on mixed-use and infill issues. We learned that there are significant barriers in our zoning laws that prevent mixed-use and infill development, and we were surprised to learn that the zoning regulations that govern our urban residential districts are wildly out of sync with the actual traditional neighborhoods that we have. We also learned that quality of life is a key component of smart growth - residents care about walkable neighborhoods, green spaces, and good design. In the attached Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal, there are ideas that are not fully detailed and loose ends that suggest logical next steps for future work. This proposal was developed in keeping with our overall goals, but will need additional analysis and revisions. In addition, our committee has discussed next steps for implementing the Sustainability Plan. Based on our discussions as well as an early Work Plan of the ZRC, some unfinished issues that could be a priority in the future include: Affordable housing issues Making revisions to cluster development regulations Developing Zoning Map changes by comparing the Zoning Map to the Future Land Use Map Revising parking and landscaping regulations Developing environmental performance standards for development (e.g. solar orientation in subdivisions and new construction, tree preservation, limits to site disturbance, water use reduction in landscaping, parking and trip reduction, farmland protection, site assessment, etc.) Determining areas within walking distance of commercial centers whose zoning designation should be amended (e.g. properties zoned URB that should be zoned URC) Proposing locations for higher density residential districts (e.g. within proximity of the greenway, bus stops or commercial services) Proposing locations for mixed-use neighborhood commercial districts in order to allow and encourage more walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods Identifying good parcels for mixed-use development or multi-unit residential development to further test the current zoning In addition, the Sustainability Plan provides additional suggestions for zoning amendments. Although we were able to address a few key issues, there are many topics we were not able to address.
Successes, Struggles & Continuing to Implement the Sustainability Plan Overall, the committee agreed that the ZRCs greatest success has been its efforts to reach out to and involve the community. The committee felt that it had generated a valuable dialog about sustainability and zoning. The ZRCs process involved the public in discussions about zoning, and community input was considered carefully as we refined our recommendations. Many members of the ZRC expressed that it would be desirable to see the dialog continue. Both the forums and smaller-scale public outreach efforts have been a success. Continued efforts could be made to further the dialog about sustainability, particularly in Florence, and to reach out to underrepresented parts of the community. In addition, although the committee did engage the community, more efforts need to be made to access less involved residents particularly ethnic minorities, residents of color and low-income residents. While the committee was successful in certain endeavors, we struggled from the beginning with the scope of our task. We also faced a steep learning curve. In retrospect, it was too big a job for one committee, within a two-year term, to learn about and analyze the citys zoning problems, propose significant changes to fix them, conduct an extensive and meaningful public process, and also develop detailed final zoning language to be passed onto the Planning Board. In one discussion, the ZRC talked about the various possible roles that need to be played in the zoning revisions process in order to implement the Sustainability Plan. For example, the Planning Board may continue to need additional technical resources, and one suggestion was made that there could be some sort of reviewing body that looks at all zoning proposals through the lens of the Sustainability Plan and issues comments. With regard to zoning, the committee understands that the Planning Board is charged with implementing the Sustainability Plan and using the plan as guidance for amending the citys zoning. If this task of assessing zoning amendments through the lens of the Sustainability Plan is already being systematically completed by the Planning Board and/or Office and Planning and Development Staff for all proposed zoning changes, it would be helpful for the results of these assessments to be made explicitly available in writing to the public, including a discussion of: Whether the proposed change is consistent with the Sustainability Plan Any recommended improvements that would improve the proposal Any future steps the city might consider to continue to move towards full implementation of the Sustainability Plan The role of reviewing zoning proposals through the lens of the Sustainability Plan and issuing comments for the public to view could be taken on by the Planning Board (or a subset of Planning Board members), by the Office of Planning and Development, or by a separate committee. To implement the Sustainability Plan, another important job is to foster public discussion and collect community input regarding topics ranging from general Sustainability Plan concepts to detailed rezoning proposals. Finally, we found there to be a significant time tradeoff between two other important roles: focusing on refining proposals crafted by other parties (i.e. Home Occupations from the Planning Department, King Street from the Chamber of Commerce) versus being able to engage in a public dialog about sustainability and generate new proposals based on that dialog (i.e. our infill efforts). The committee also discussed whether it should recommend to the Planning Board that another version of the Zoning Revisions Committee be convened in the future. Some members of the committee believe that the ZRC should continue to exist because its job implementing the Sustainability Plan through zoning is not done.
There may be a role for a standing committee to take on some of the functions listed above. We understand that the city is committed to implementing the Sustainability Plan. Therefore, a standing committee could be a proactive tool for the city to continue pushing implementation of the Sustainability Plan forward. There is precedent for this in other communities. For example, in Hadley, there is a standing Long Range Planning Committee that was originally responsible for creating the Master Plan and now is responsible for making zoning recommendations to implement it. On the other hand, some members of the committee do not think that a standing committee is needed or appropriate. Instead, the Planning Board could continue to form ad hoc committees to address different issues as needed. Some possible areas that seem particularly appropriate for ad hoc committees would be large, stand alone topics like King Street, form-based code in a particular area of the city, design standards, etc. Depending on the Planning Boards objectives, it would also be possible to use a combination of the two approaches, using a standing committee for some roles and ad hoc committees to address special topics. Should the city decide to have a standing committee in the future, the ZRC believes that continuing the community dialog about sustainability and soliciting public input on zoning proposals would be significant roles to consider giving to that committee. In addition, some members of the ZRC felt that, if possible, it could be helpful to have a consultant to help the committee with difficult rezoning issues. In closing, thank you for giving us the opportunity to serve our community, and best of luck as you decide on your next steps forward. Sincerely, The Zoning Revisions Committee: Dennis Bidwell Stephen Gilson Danielle McKahn Peter McLean Jim Nash Bob Reckman Dillon Sussman Tom Weiner
Zoning Revisions Process
Summary of Preliminary Northampton Zoning Analysis: Content

The purpose of this analysis is to present an overview of Northamptons zoning ordinance in order to help the ZRC identify areas on which to focus in making the zoning an effective tool for implementing the Sustainability Plan. Sustainability Plan goals do not translate directly to zoning because they are organized topically (housing, transportation, land use, arts and culture, etc.), while zoning is organized by land uses, districts, development standards, and dimensional requirements. The ZRC needs to translate the goals and recommendations of the Sustainability Plan into terms that are relevant to zoning. This preliminary analysis highlights major big picture issues but does not go into detail. Issues relating to organization and readability of the ordinance are listed on a separate sheet. 1. The Zoning Map appears to largely reflect the Sustainability Plans land use map. However, the text and district regulations do not necessarily support sustainability goals and the map does not zone enough areas for mixed use. 2. Emphasis is on use-based regulation: lack of flexibility of uses; uses are very detailed and specific; only a small amount of the City is zoned for walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods; the lack of mixed use zoning undermines goals of walkability and mixing of uses. 3. Infill is discouraged in many ways that are difficult to discern from initially reading the document (especially lot area, frontage, and setback requirements, nonconformity, use regulations, parking requirements) ; the zoning does not allow for the variety of types and scales of infill development that are desirable. . 4. Design standards to guide development are lacking, especially for infill; instead of design, arbitrary dimensional standards dictate urban form in many areas; there is insufficient emphasis on desirable urban form and flexible building types; the result is tendency toward single-use buildings in single-use districts; another result is infill proposals and developments that comply with the zoning dimensional standards but do not fit the character of the neighborhood. When badly designed infill is built, people turn against infill in general. Where design standards do exist (e.g. Central Business, Village Hill), they are not always understood or followed. There is a need to foster more public understanding of what design is and why it is good for the community. We have been lucky that some owners have voluntarily practiced quality design, especially downtown, but we cannot rely just on luck. 5. Parking requirements are arbitrarily high in many districts, discouraging infill development and forcing sprawl patterns. There is a lack of understanding and support for putting parking where it does not harm urban form and this cannot just be legislated but must also be understood and discussed with affected parties. . 6. Rural areas are zoned for suburban sprawl types of development (single-use, large-lot residential); cluster regulations need to be strengthened and made more flexible; cluster sprawl is not a significant improvement over conventional sprawl in terms of sustainability; cluster regulations need to be made clearer in defining what kinds of open space are to be protected.
Northampton Zoning Analysis: Translating Sustainability into Zoning Some possible formulations of sustainability goals for zoning purposes: 1. Concentrate development in pre-1950 neighborhoods, especially within 1/2 mile of basic services and commercial areas (retail, schools, workplaces, etc). 2. Enable 80% of households to be within a 10-minute walk of stores, services, schools, workplaces, transit lines, parks, natural areas, and bikepaths. 3. Substantially increase areas zoned for walkable mixed-use neighborhoods with appropriate controls on scale and design 4. Identify and create detailed plans for intensive mixed-use infill in appropriate locations (especially King Street, Conz, Pleasant, and downtown infill); create zoning based upon the plan vs. plans based upon the zoning 5. Zone for a wide range of housing types (single family, 2 family, 3 family, multifamily, townhouse, cottages), unit sizes, and affordability levels. 6. Regulate urban design (form) to a greater degree; uses to a lesser degree; more use of design standards and guidelines 7. Permit and encourage local food production at different scales (residential lots, commercial and institutional properties, community gardens, agricultural areas) 8. Reduce energy consumption through compact development patterns and incentives for green building 9. Minimize development in outlying areas 10. Create a zoning document that is more accessible to users
Preliminary Northampton Zoning Analysis: Organization and Readability

These items do not relate directly to sustainability, except that insofar as the ordinance is opaque and difficult to use, it does not lend itself to productive public discussion and transparent decision-making, which is one of the goals of Sustainable Northampton. 1. Organizational issues: The zoning ordinance is difficult to navigate; it is hard to find information; many items are listed under the wrong headings or in the wrong sections; tables are overly complicated and have too much text in them; the result it is difficult to find information and understand the document. This has most likely resulted from the piecemeal way that the zoning has been amended over the years, dealing with specific issues by inserting new sections, rather than by reviewing and modifying the ordinance as a whole. The ZRC may want to step back and try to avoid continuing this pattern. Examples of material located in the wrong section, making it difficult to find: Regulations are often placed in definitions rather than in regulatory sections Definitions and textual regulations often appear in tables, either in the body of the table or in footnotes, rather than in regulatory sections Some important special permit requirements are listed in the wrong sections (e.g. the requirement of site plan approval as an element of special permit approval is in the site plan section, not the special permit section) Uses that do not require special permits are listed and regulated in the special permit section (e.g. home office) 2. Language and terminology issues: Many sections are overly complicated, vague and /or confusing, such as the provisions on dimensional averaging (350-6.3B); land countable as open space in a cluster (350-10.5G through I); zero lot-line (350-10.14); and big-box regulations (350-11.6G and H). The number of different overlay districts, and their labeling, are also confusing, e.g. Water Supply Protection District (WSP), Watershed Protection District (WP), and Special Conservancy-Flood Plain (SC), all of which involve protection of floodplains and water supplies. The Sustainability Plan relies heavily on Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) concepts (sending and receiving zones), but the TDR provision in the zoning does not reflect this broad application of the concept. 3. Need to Clarify Intent: The various districts in the zoning exist for specific reasons, but the zoning ordinance does not spell these out. There may be a need to develop different types of districts that better reflect the goals of the Sustainability Plan. District purposes should be revisited in light of Sustainability goals and changing circumstances (e.g. does URC allow sufficient density and mixed use, what City goals does the Educational Overlay serve?) 4. Process Issues: There is confusion as to how review and approval processes work and how to effectively involve the public, as witnessed by recent development controversies; some of this is process management, but some is related to the zoning itself, e.g. confusion over the relationship of special permits and site plan review.
SECTION 2 (Definitions) HOME BUSINESS A vocation, trade, small business, craft, art or profession which can be conducted in its entirety within the principal residential or accessory building of a property by a bona fide resident of that main building and which, by nature of its limited size and scope, does not cause any outward manifestation (such as traffic generation, parking congestion, noise or air pollution, outdoor materials storage, and public service or utility demand) which is uncharacteristic of or an additional disturbance to the residential neighborhood in which said property is located. The following occupations are not considered home occupations if clients will be seen in the home, although other uses may be excluded on a case-bycase basis: any clinical medical/dental practice veterinary hospital, restaurant, retail or wholesale supply shop or store, any mortuary. (See 350-10.12 for additional criteria.) Home businesses are allowed by-right when the following conditions are met:
1. Itmustnotoccupymorethan40%ofthegrosscombinedfloorareaofthemainresidential building,andtheaccessorystructure(ifsuchaccessorystructureisutilizedforsaidhome occupation). 2. Itmustbeclearlyincidentalandsecondarytotheuseofthebuildingorpropertyfor residentialdwellingpurposes. 3. Aprincipalpractitionerofthehomebusinessmustoccupythemainresidentialbuildingas his/herbonafideresidence. 4. Anybyrighthomebusinesseswithanaverageof30vehicleroundtripsperweekwhich aregeneratedbythebusinessbutnomorethansevenvehicleroundtripsperdaymust firstregisterwiththeCityofNorthamptonBuildingCommissioner.Thenatureofthe business,hoursofoperation,andtherequestedvehicletripsgeneratedbythehome businessfromclients,employees,residentialscaledeliveriesmustbeidentifiedin registration..Forthepurposesofthissection,tripsdonotincludethosetripsmadeby theresidentownerofthebusiness.Tripsanticipatedtobegeneratedinexcessofweekly averageof25and/ordailymaximumof7bythebusinessmayonlybeapprovedwitha homebusinessspecialpermitfromtheZoningBoardofAppeals.Unlessapprovedthrough aspecialpermit,hoursofoperationmustbewithin7a.m.and8p.m. 5. Nomorethanonesignofonesquarefootinareamaybedisplayedadvertisingthehome occupation,providedthat: a. Itisattachedtothestructurenexttoorontheentrywayforsaidhome occupation;and b. Itisnotilluminated. 6. Nogoods,exceptforthosecreatedinthehomeorthosesoldbyinternet,telephoneor electronictransactionsmaybesoldfromthepremises. 7. Residentscreatingoriginalproductsinthehomemayhaveopenstudiofunctionswhere itemsmaybesoldupto2timesperyearwithouttriggeringaspecialpermitforhome occupation. 8. Nooutdoorstorageofmaterials,merchandise,orequipmentforhomebusinessis allowed; 9. Ifsaidhomeoccupationtakesplaceinanaccessorystructurethensaidstructuremust conformtothesetbackrequirementsforaccessorystructuresinthatdistrict,unlessa FindingbytheZoningBoardofAppealsinaccordancewith3509.3ismade.
ProposedHomeOccupationsLanguage
Page1
10. Itshallproducenonoise,obnoxiousodors,vibrations,glare,fumesorelectrical interferencewhichwouldbedetectabletonormalsensoryperceptionbeyondthelotline. 11. Theportionofanystructureutilizedforahomeoccupationshallconformtoallapplicable Fire,Building,Electrical,PlumbingandHealthCodes. SECTION10.12(SPECIALPERMITSECTION) Allhomebusinessgeneratingmorethan25averageweeklyvehicleroundtripsand/or7perday,hours ofoperationoutsideof7a.m.to8p.m.ormorethan2openstudiosperyearoroutdoorstorageof materials(asdefinedin3502.1)requireaspecialpermitissuedbytheZoningBoardofAppealsand shallcomplywiththefollowing: A. Allprovisionsinsection2.1 B. GoodsmayonlybeofferedforsalefromthepremisesiftheZoningBoardofAppealsexpressly permitsitintheissuedspecialpermit. C. ThehoursofoperationshallbeexpresslystatedinthespecialpermitissuedbytheZoningBoard ofAppeals. D. Thehoursandfrequencyofdeliveries,numberofclientsseen,numberofemployeeson premise,productsand/ormaterialsonsiteshallbeexpresslystatedinthespecialpermitissued bytheZoningBoardofAppeals. E. Limitedoutdoorstorageofmaterialsmaybeallowedsolongasthestorageisnotvisiblefrom thestreetorbyadjoiningpropertyownersanddoesnothaveanegativeimpactonthe neighborhood. F. Allspecialpermitsforhomebusinessmustberenewedonce,immediatelyfollowingthefirst yearofoperation.PermitmayberenewedinperpetuityuponapplicationtotheBuilding Commissionerifnothinghaschangedintheprojectsinceitsfirstspecialpermitapplication. G. Allspecialpermitsforhomeoccupationsarenontransferableandarespecificallyissuedtoa specificapplicantforaspecifichomebusiness.
ProposedHomeOccupationsLanguage
Page2
FrameworkforRevisedZoningAddressingFowlintheCityofNorthampton Thekeepingoffowlispermittedinallzonesasanaccessoryusetoanyprincipaluse,subjecttothe standardsofthissection. 1.Thekeepingoftwelveorfeweradultfemalechickens,oruptothreeducks,ispermittedbyrightona lot.Additionalchicksorducklingsarenotsubjecttothislimit. 2.TheBoardofHealthmaycreatestandardsforthecareoffowl.Fowlownersmustregisterwiththe citysHealthDepartment,sothatthecitycantakeappropriateactionintheeventofadiseaseoutbreak. Uponregistration,ownersmustsignthattheyhavereadtheguidelineshandedoutbytheHealth Department. 3.Ownersmustmaintainfowlontheirproperty,exceptifitisonthepremisesofanotherpersonwith hisorherpermission. 4.Coopandrunareasshallmeetthefollowingrequirements: Beregularlymaintainedtocontroldustandodor Notconstituteanuisanceorsafetyhazard Bebuiltand/orsitedsothatwaterdrainsawayfromthecoop 5.CoopsmustmeetthestandardsfordetachedaccessorystructuresinSection350Attachment2:Table ofDimensionalandDensityRegulations. 6.Nocoopmaybesitedcloserthan20toanexistingresidentialstructureoccupiedbysomeoneother thanthefowlownerorcustodian. 7.Allstormwaterrunofffromthecoop,runandcompostareasshallbecontainedonsite. Note:TheZoningRevisionsCommitteedeterminedthatslaughteringprovisionsshouldnotbeincluded inthezoning,butthatsuchprovisionsshouldbecontainedwithinBoardofHealthregulations.The ZoningRevisionsCommitteerecommendsthattheBoardofHealthallowonsitecullingofdiseased birds,roosters,andlowproducinghens.Onsiteslaughteringofbirdsformeatshouldbeprohibited. ThisapproachisinaccordancewithrecommendationsmadebytheAgriculturalCommission. NewZoningLanguageProvidedbytheOfficeofPlanningandDevelopment 3505.3B.Thekeepingofhouseholdpets,forpersonaluseispermittedasanaccessoryuseforanimals commonlyconsideredhouseholdpets,including: 1. dogs 2. cats 3. fish FrameworkforRevisedZoningAddressingFowlintheCityofNorthampton Page1
4. birds(parrots,parakeets,doves,pigeons,etc.) 5. sixorfewerrabbits 6. twelveorfeweradultfemalechickensoruptothreeducks.Additionalchicksandducklingsare notsubjecttothislimit.Allofthefollowingstandardsapply: a. Fowlmustbemaintainedonsubjectpremises; b. Coopandrunareasshallberegularlymaintainedtocontroldustandodorandnotconstitutea nuisanceorsafetyhazard; c. Coopsshallbelocatedatleast4frompropertyboundariesandnocoopmaybesitedcloser than20toanexistingresidentialstructureonanabuttingparcel; d. Allstormwaterrunofffromthecoop,runandcompostareasshallbecontainedonsite; PossibleRegulationsand/orGuidelinesforDepartment/BoardofHealthConsideration 1.Chickensmustbeprovidedadequatelivingspace,asfollows: Atleast6squarefeetofexternalenclosedandcoveredcoopareaperchicken Atleast12squarefeetofexternalpenareaperchicken 2.Allcoopsshallmeetthefollowingrequirements: Bepredatorproof Providewateratalltimes Provideadequateprotectionfromcoldandrain/moisture,aswellasadequateventilation 3.Duringdaylighthours,theadultfowlshallhaveaccesstothefowlcoopand,weatherpermitting,shall haveaccesstoanoutdoorenclosureonthesubjectproperty,adequatelyfencedtocontainthefowland topreventaccesstothefowlbydogsandotherpredators. 4.OtherProvisions Fowlfeedmustbestoredinapestproofcontainer. Nofowlmanuremaybeputintohouseholdtrash.Allwastemustbecomposted.(Couldbe includedintheGuidelines.) Onsiteslaughteringofmeatbirdsisprohibited.Thecullingofdiseasedbirds,roostersandlow producinghensisallowed.
FrameworkforRevisedZoningAddressingFowlintheCityofNorthampton
Page2
March 30, 2011
Dear Members of the Zoning Revision Commission,
Grow Food Northampton wishes to express its support for the revised ordinance on the keeping of fowl in Northampton. We have participated in and witnessed the extensive public input that has gone into the drafting of the ordinance and are supportive of its effort to make backyard chicken owning more accessible and viable for Northampton residents, while offering guidelines that maintain public health and positive community relations. Sincerely,
Lilly Lombard Executive Director
UrbanAgricultureSummary&Recommendations NorthamptonresidentshaveaskedtheZoningRevisionscommitteetoaddresssustainabilityissues relatedtourbanagriculture.Specifically,residentsaskedthecommitteetoaddressthenumbersof livestock,chickensinparticular,thatcanbekeptonresidentialproperties. WhatisUrbanAgriculture? Urbanagricultureincludesgrowing,processinganddistributingfoodproductsthroughintensiveplant cultivationandanimalhusbandryinandaroundcities.Itincludesfarmingatthecitysedge,in communitygardens,onresidentiallots,andonvacantandunderutilizedlots.Adiversearrayof activitiescompriseurbanagriculture,frombackyardvegetablegardeningtofishfarms,domesticfarm animals,municipalcompostfacilities,schoolyardgreenhouses,restaurantsupportedsaladgardens, backyardorchards,rooftopgardens,behives,andwindowboxgardens.Withalittlecreativityand effort,thepotentialforfoodproductionincitiesisgreat.Commonlycitedbenefitsofurbanagriculture include:foodthattravelsashorterdistancefromfarmtoplate,creationofgreenspaces,revitalized brownfieldsites,preservationofcultivableland,coolerbuildings,andimprovedbiodiversity.Atthe sametime,anumberofsocialbenefitshavebeenclaimed,including:vibrantpublicspaces,community building,participatorydecisionmaking,enhancedsenseofplace,foodsecurity,socialinclusion, improvedhealthandnutrition,bringingpeoplebackintocontactwithhowtheirfoodisproduced,etc. OrganizationslikeNuestrasRaicesinHolyokeuseurbanagriculturetopromoteeconomicdevelopment andselfsufficiency,tobuildcommunity,andtoimprovehealthandnutrition. WhatUrbanAgricultureIssuesRelatetoSustainabilityinNorthampton? TheZoningCommitteewasaskedtoaddressurbanlivestock.Whilewehavefocusedthebulkofour workonthisrelativelynarrowarea,urbanagricultureisamuchlargerissuethatisintimatelyrelatedto sustainabilityandmeritsfurtherstudyandaction.AnumberofcitiesthroughouttheU.S.have addressedagriculturewithintheircomprehensiveplans,andmanycitiesarerevisingexistingurban agriculturepoliciesorformulatingnewones.Somesignificanturbanagricultureissuesthatrelateto landuseandzoningaresummarizedbelow: CommunityGardens:ThereisonlyonecommunitygardenareainNorthampton,andthereisalarge demandforthesegardenplots,whichhasresultedinawaitinglistforgardenspace.Inaddition,the communitygardensarelocatedtothewestofdowntown,beyondtheSmithCollegeCampus,leaving otherneighborhoodsunderserved.Onechallengeincreatingadditionalcommunitygardenswillbeto identifyand,ifnecessary,secureownershipofappropriateproperties.Futurecommunitygardens shouldbelocatedtoserveNorthamptonshighestdensityurbanneighborhoods. CommercialFarms:ThecityalreadyhasanAgriculturalCommission.Weneedtodeterminewhat additionalactionscanbetakentoencourageandsupportcommercialfarming.Thisshouldbeincluded inanycomprehensiveplanningeffortthataddressesagricultureandthefoodsystem. UrbanAgricultureSummary&Recommendations Page1
SupplementaryIncome:Thecityshouldsupportpoliciesthatallowresidentstomakesupplementary incomefromtheirfarmingpursuits,andthiswillinturnpromotegreatersmallscaleagricultural production.Tothegreatestextentpossible,peopleshouldbeabletoselltheirgardenvegetables,eggs, etc.fromfrontyards,ondowntownsidewalksandstreets,andatfarmersmarkets.Weshouldlearn fromothercitiesaswellforexample,inGreenfield,thereisamarketwithabarterarea. FertilizerandPesticideApplication:Whilethisisnotstrictlyanurbanfarmingissue,itiscloselyrelated. Pesticideapplicationbyresidentsmayaffectfarmerorganiccertification.Conversely,pesticide applicationbyfarmersmayimpactresidents.Finally,overuseofcommercialfertilizersandpesticidesin homegardensresultsinwaterpollution. UrbanLivestock:Keepinganimalsisanimportanttoolforincreasingfoodproductionandfoodsecurity. ManyNorthamptonresidentsalreadykeepchickens,andanumberofresidentshaveexpressedadesire forthecurrentlimitofthreeducksorchickenstobeincreased.Futureeffortsmayaddressother livestock,suchasminiaturegoats,whichcanprovidemilk,amongotherbenefits.Issuesthatneedtobe consideredwithregardtourbanlivestockincludenuisance(noise,odor),density(spacerequirements forlivestock,proximitytoneighboringresidentialstructures),andwaste/landscapemanagement(to preventwaterpollution). Recommendations&OutcomestoDate 1. TheCityshouldinitiateaprocesstodevelopanAgriculture&FoodPolicysectiontobe appendedtotheSustainableNorthamptonComprehensivePlan. 2. TheNorthamptonAgriculturalCommissionshouldconsiderexpandingitsworktoincludeurban agriculture.Alternatively,thecitymightestablishanUrbanAgricultureCommittee. 3. TheZRCispleasedtoseenewcommunitygardensbeingcreatedattheBeanFarm.To encouragemoreofthesetypesofprojectstoserveallresidentsandneighborhoods,thecity shouldcreateaCommunityGardensCommittee(ortheUrbanAgricultureCommittee mentionedabove)thatwillworktoidentifyappropriatelocationsandestablishmore communitygardensthroughoutthecity. 4. TheCityshouldconsideradoptionofanordinancethatlimitsapplicationofmanufactured fertilizers.ExamplesofsuchordinancesarecommonintheU.S.
UrbanAgricultureSummary&Recommendations
Page2
DimensionalandDesignStandardsProposalforNorthamptonsUrbanResidentialZoningDistricts ZoningRevisionsCommittee Goal:Facilitatehigherdensityinexistingurbandistricts(infill)whileminimizingnegativeimpactsofinfill onexistingproperties. Problem:Thecityscurrentzoningrequirementspreventunitsfrombeingaddedtoourtraditional urbanneighborhoods,andwhenhomesareconvertedtoaccommodatefewerunits,theyoftencan neverbeconvertedbacktotheirearlierhighernumberofunits.Theimplicationsofthisarethatthecity isslowlylosinghousingunitsovertime,homeownerslacktheflexibilitytomeetthechangingneedsof householdsovertime(e.g.changesinhouseholdsizeandneeds),andthecitycannotmeetthegoalsof theSustainableNorthamptonComprehensivePlan(2008),whichcallsforincreasedresidentialdensities intraditionalneighborhoods. Analysis:Areviewofzoninginthecitysurbanresidentialdistrictsrevealedveryhighratesofnon conformingproperties.Nonconformingreferstoapropertywhoseexistinguseorstructuresarenot permittedbythezoningfortheproperty.Usuallythesecharacteristicswereinplacebeforethecurrent zoningwasenacted.Theuseorstructureisthengrandfathered,orpermittedtocontinue.Theanalysis conductedbytheZoningRevisionsCommitteerevealedthefollowingratesofnonconformancebased onminimumlotsizerequirementsinoururbanneighborhoods: URCZoningDistrict 63%of13familyhomesdonotconform 83%of4familyhomesdonotconform URBZoningDistrict 32%of1familyhomesdonotconform 62%of2familyhomesdonotconform 82%of3familyhomesdonotconform URAZoningDistrcict 35%of1familyhomesdonotconform 100%of2familyandmultiplefamilyhomesdonotconform(theyarenotallowed) Thisanalysislookedonlyatconformancewithlotsizerequirements.Ananalysisofpropertiesthatalso meetminimumsetback,frontageandotherrequirementswouldyieldevenhigherratesofnon conformance.TheZRCwasunabletodothisfurtheranalysisbecauseitwouldbeverytimeconsuming. However,spotchecksofrandompropertiesshowsthatthereisquitesignificantnonconformanceof setbacks,frontageandotherrequirements.Thiscorrelateswithanecdotalevidencegatheredinforums.
DimensionalandDesignStandardsProposalforNorthamptonsUrbanResidentialZoningDistricts
Page1
Onthewhole,theZoningRevisionsCommitteefoundthatthenonconformingstatusofapropertydoes notsignificantlyimpactresidentialpropertyowners(otherthancreatinganxiety).However,thereare somecasesinwhichthenonconformingstatusofaresidentialpropertycanbeanuisanceor significantlylimituseoftheproperty.Forexample,manyhomeownersinoururbanresidentialzoning districtscannotusetheirgaragestocreateanaccessoryapartmentbecausetheirgaragesdonotmeet thesetbacksforresidentialstructures(theydoconformforthemostparttotherequiredsetbacksfor garages).Thisisbecausedetachedgaragesareallowedtobeclosertothesetbackthanresidential structuresinalldistricts.Inaddition,thissituationcontradictsthegoalsofSustainableNorthampton, whichencouragesgreaterdensityinexistingintownneighborhoodsandreduceddevelopmentoutof town. Perhapsmostimportantly,however,thehighratesofnonconformingpropertiesinourresidential districtsserveasanindicator:Thisindicatesthatourcurrentzoningdoesnotmatch(andinfactisvery, verydifferentfrom)ourexistingurbanneighborhoods.Asaresult,wehavegreaturbanneighborhoods thatcanneverbebuiltagain.Asunitsarelostandcannotbereplacedovertime,thecharacterofour traditionalurbanneighborhoodsischanging.Inaddition,intherareoccasionwhennewmultibuilding developmentsarebuiltwithinexistingneighborhoods,zoningencouragestheircharactertobeoutof contextwiththesurroundingneighborhoods. SomekeypointsfromtheZoningRevisionsCommitteeanalysisare: Theexistingdimensionalstandards,especiallytherequirementsthatgovernthenumberof unitspersquarefootoflotsize,andfrontagerequirementsgreatlylimitthecreationofnew unitsinurbandistricts. Whenstructuresareconvertedtoalowernumberofunits,itcanbeimpossibletoconvertthem backtoahighernumberofunits.Thesestandardsarecontributingtothelossofunitsand populationinurbandistricts. Manyexistingaccessorystructuresdonotconformtoresidentialsetbackrequirements.This limitstheirconversiontoaccessoryapartments. Thesetbackrequirementsdonotmatchourcurrentneighborhoods,sonewstructuresare unlikelytobesitedinawaythatmatchesorisincharacterwiththeotherhomesonthe block. Thecurrentzoningforcesthecitytoloseunitsovertime,whichisindirectcontradictiontothe cityscomprehensiveplan,whichcallsforconcentratingdevelopmentintraditional neighborhoods. PublicFeedback:TheZoningRevisionsCommitteeheldthreegeneralpublicforumsthataddressedthe issueofinfill.Thefirst,heldatNorthamptonSeniorHighSchool,wasattendedby100to150people. Thesecond,heldattheFlorenceCivicCenter,wasattendedbyapproximately40people.Thethird,held attheBridgeStreetSchoolinNorthampton,wasattendedbyapproximately30people.Thosein attendanceexpressedgeneralsupportforinfillaslongasitdoesnotaffecttheexistingcharacterofour neighborhoods.Majorconcernsthatwerevoicedincludetraffic,parking,intrusionsintoviewsorsolar accessandlossofgreenspace.
Page2
Residentsaremostlikelytobesympatheticto: Owneroccupantswhowanttoaddunits Conversionsthatrevertastructuretoitshistoricnumberofunits Additionalunitsthathelpmaintainaffordabilityforowners,aswellasrenterstoalesserdegree Residentsexpressedconcernaboutinfillprojectsthat: Areoutofscalewiththeneighborhoodintermsofheight,bulk,ornumberofunits Addnewhousesonexistingstreets(especiallythroughsubdivisionoflots) Createmultifamilyhousingonpredominantlysinglefamilystreets Affectlandthatneighborsfeelasenseofownershipover,suchasprivatelyownedwoodsor fieldsthathavebeenusedinformallybyneighborhoodresidents Resultinthedemolitionoflovedstructures Consolidatelotsforlargerprojects Residentsalsoexpressedconcernsabout: Zoningthatisdifficulttounderstand,unpredictable,orunequallyapplied Effectsonpropertyvalues(eitherincreasesORdecreasesinpropertyvalue) Withregardtodesign,residentsexpressedconcernsaboutprojectstheblockviewsorsunlight,andthat areoutofscalewiththeneighborhood.However,residentsdonotseemtowanttooverregulate designbycreatingveryspecificarchitecturalstandardsoracomplexdesignreviewprocess.Ingeneral, residentsexpressedapreferenceforstandardsthataddresssitedesigncharacteristics(howabuildingis situatedonalot,forexample)ratherthanarchitecturalcharacteristics(thestyleandcharacteristicsof thebuildingitself,otherthanitsheightandbulk). InterpretationofPublicFeedback: Basedonthepublicfeedbackreceived,thetypesofinfillthataremoreacceptabletoresidentsare: Accessoryunitswithinhousesandaccessorystructures(owneroccupied)lot Additionalunitswithinexistingstructureswithnoexternalchangestothebuildingorlot Additionalunitswithinexistingstructureswithminorchangestothebuildingorlot Fillinggapsinastreetwithnewbuildingsthatmatchthescaleoftheneighborhood Lessacceptabletypesofinfillinclude: Additionalunitswithinexistingstructureswithmajorchangestothebuildingorlot(large additions,largeparkinglots,majordemolitionandrebuilding) Fillinggapsinastreetwithnewbuildingsthatarelargerthanthebuildingintheexisting neighborhood Largenewprojects(newneighborhoods,multiunittownhomes,etc.)
Page3
Therewassupportforadaptivereuseofexistingnonresidentialstructures(e.g.churches,schools, factorybuildings,municipalbuildings,barns,etc.),aswellasinnovativehousing,suchascottage housing.However,therewasnotadetaileddiscussionaboutdesignofthesetypesofdevelopments. ProposedImprovements: Thisdocumentproposesthefollowingapproachtoimprovingthezoningregulationstoallowformore infillinawaythataddressesthefeedbackreceivedatthepublicforums: 1. Revisethecitysaccessoryapartmentregulationstomakeiteasiertohaveaccessoryapartments onowneroccupiedproperties Anaccessoryapartment,alsoknownasaninlawapartmentisanextraunitthatcanbebuilton anowneroccupiedproperty.Underthecurrentzoning,anaccessoryapartmentisonlyallowedby rightifincorporatedwithinasinglefamilydwelling.Accessoryapartmentsareallowedbyspecial permitinadetachedaccessorystructureonthelotIFthestructureconformstocurrentzoning requirements.Thefollowingchangestothecurrentregulationsarerecommended,inorderto encouragemaintenanceandreuseofhistoricstructuresandtoallowforsmallscaleresidentialinfill: Fordetachedaccessorystructuresbuiltpriorto1975(includinggaragesandcarriagehouses), allowaccessoryunitconversionsinexistingstructuresthatareclosertopropertyboundaries thanhomes.Forexample,thiswouldallowgaragesthatwerebuiltatornearthelotlinetobe convertedtoaccessoryunits. Forallotherexistingandnewdetachedresidentialaccessorydwellingunits,allowsuch structurestobelocatedwithin10ofthefrontandrearpropertylinebyright.InURC,allowthis tobereducedtoaminimumof4bySpecialPermit.AspartoftheSpecialPermit,thePlanning Boardshouldconsiderimpacttoneighbors.ThePlanningBoardmayrequirethathealthy specimentreesbepreservedor,alternatively,replaced. Allowconversionofadetachedaccessorystructureintoanaccessoryapartmentbyrightrather thanrequiringaspecialpermit. Allowtheentrancetoanaccessoryapartmenttobelocatedinthefrontofthebuilding(in additiontothesideorrear)inURA,URBandURC. 2. AmendthecitysPlannedDevelopmentregulationstoallowforinnovativehousingandadaptive reuseofobsoletestructuresbySpecialPermit DevelopzoningprovisionstoallowforCottageorPocketHousing.Forexample,some possibilitiesforCottageHomeszoningcouldinclude: o Allowingmorethanoneprincipalstructureonalot o Limitingcottagehomeunitsto800squarefeetorless o Allowingsinglefamilyorduplexstructures o Allowingsharedopenspaceandparking
Page4
Additionalstandardscanbedevelopedusingexamplesofinnovativehousingbylawsfromother communities. AdaptiveReuse o Allowconversionofanonresidentialbuildingtoaresidentialuse o Requirementsforsuchconversionscanbedeveloped 3. Amendthedimensionaltablesinthecitysurbanresidentialzoningdistrictstopreservethecitys traditionalurbanneighborhoodsandtopromotesmallscaleinfill,asdiscussedindetailinthe sectionsbelow.Thisproposalincludeszoningchangesthatpromotetraditionalurban neighborhooddesignandflexibleconversionofhomesinthefollowingranges: 14FamilyHomesinURC 13FamilyHomesinURB 12FamilyHomesinURA Approach:Forthesmallscaleinfilltypeslistedabove,thisproposalremovesthelinkbetweenthe numberofunitsandlotsize,allowingflexibleconversionofhomesintheseranges(e.g.homesin URBcouldmoreeasilyconvertedupto3familyordownto1familyovertimeasneeded).This proposalalsosetsminimumlotsizeandfrontagerequirementstominimizesplittingoflots.Finally, thisproposalfollowsamoreformbasedapproachinwhichsetbackandotherdimensional requirementsaresettopromoteatraditionalurbanformanddonotvarybynumberofunits(e.g. thefrontsetbackandfrontagerequiredforaonefamilyhomeandathreefamilyhomeisthesame.) NextSteps:Inordertomoveforwardwiththeserecommendations,additionalanalysisandtestingis requiredasanextstep. 4. Establishgeneraldesignstandardsthatapplyonlytolargerprojects Intheurbanresidentialdistricts,applydesignstandardswithAdministrativeSitePlanReviewto allnewconstructionoradditionsthatexpandthefootprintofastructurebyover700square feet. Basedonpublicfeedbackandcommitteediscussions,designstandardsshouldbegeneral (versusdetailedandspecific)andshouldaddressbuildingmassingandrelationshiptothestreet andneighboringproperties(versusestablishingdetailedarchitecturalstandards). DesignStandardstoinclude: o Newstructures(includingadditions)shouldnotinterferewithsolaraccessof neighboringbuildingstructures.Solaraccessprovisionsshouldbedevelopedandtested. o ForprojectsrequiringaSpecialPermitwithSitePlanReview,theprincipalresidential structureonalotmusthaveafrontdoorthatfacesthestreet,andapathwayfromthe frontdoortothestreet.Possibleexceptions: Theapplicantdemonstratesthatthiswouldbeimpracticalbasedonunique considerationsrelatingtothelotorbuildingstructure;or
Page5
ThedevelopmentisCottageHousingorotherInnovativeHousingproject approvedbyPlanningBoardSpecialPermitunderthePlannedUnit Developmentregulations. o Developtreepreservationandreplacementstandardsforinfillprojects. o Developstandardsforfrontyardshadetreesforprojectsinwhichthefrontyardwillbe affected(Note:frontyardshadetreesmaybeexemptedfromsolaraccessstandards). o Anapplicantmayapplyforrelieffromthebyrightstandardsinthedimensionaltables subjecttoSitePlanReviewbythePlanningBoard. o AspartofaSpecialPermitwithSitePlanReview,anapplicantmustdemonstratefit withneighborhoodregardingsetbacksandbuildingmassing. o Developmoredetaileddesignstandardsfortownhomesandlargerdevelopments. Other(notpartofdesignstandards,butrelatedtodesign) o AmendthecitysSpecialPermitprocessforrequestinganalternativefrontsetback basedondimensionalaveraging.Thenewdimensionalaveragingapproachshouldbe: AllowedbyAdministrativeSitePlanReview(SpecialPermitnotrequired,but AdministrativeSitePlanReviewdecisioncouldbeappealedbyapplicant, resultinginaSpecialPermitPlanningBoardSitePlanReview). Basedonthefrontsetbacksontheblockinwhichthehomeislocated.The requestedfrontsetbackshouldbewithin5feetoftheaveragefrontsetback distanceofallhomesonthesamesideofthestreet(theblockface)onwhich thehomeislocated.InconsultationwiththePlanningDepartment,anapplicant mayamendthegroupofneighboringhomestobeincludedintheaveraging calculation(e.g.toleaveouthomesthatarenotcompatiblewiththe neighborhood,or,ifappropriate,toselectasmallergroupofhomesneartothe subjectpropertyinsteadofusingtheentireblockface). o TheZRCencouragesthecitytorenewitscommitmenttostreettreesandto reinvigorateitsstreettreeplanningandplantingefforts. 5. DevelopaDesignGuidebookwithmoredetailed(nonbinding)designguidelinesthat: Explainbasicarchitecturalandsitedesignconcepts IllustratetherangeofhousingtypesandappropriatebuildingdesignsinNorthampton ProvideexamplesoftherangeoftraditionalandmodernNorthamptonbuildingstylesand materials Summarizegreenbuildingprinciples Helpapplicantsevaluatewhethertheirprojectfitswithintheexistingneighborhood Discussdifferentneighborhoodsoruseabroadapproach Therearemanyexamplesfromothertowns.Onepossiblestartingplacearetheresidential designguidelinesforSpringfield.AnotherexcellentdesignguidebookistheHeartofKnoxville InfillHousingDesignGuidelines. FundingfortheguidebookmaybeavailablethroughCPAunderhistoricpreservation.
Page6
6. ProvideGuidanceandMakeImprovementsthatMakeZoningEasiertoUnderstand SeeAdditionalRecommendationsRegardingNonconformingPropertiesandMakingZoningEasierto Understandattheendofthisdocument.
Page7
AmendingtheDimensionalTables URC Problem:Thecurrentzoningdiscouragesinfillinurbandistricts(particularlyURC),whiletheSustainable NorthamptonComprehensivePlanencouragesgreaterdensityintheseneighborhoods. Analysis&Discussion:URCistheresidentialzonenearesttodowntownNorthampton.URCisvery diverse,andithasthesmallestresidentiallotsandgreatestresidentialdensities.Thesearesomeof Northamptonsoldestneighborhoodsandthisdistricthasaveryhighproportionofpropertiesthatdo notconformtothecurrentzoning(63%of13familyhomes,83%of4familyhomes).Duetoalready smalllotssizesanditshighlybuiltoutnature,thisdistricthasthefewestopportunitiesfornewlotsor newstructures.However,thereareopportunitiesforaddingunitswithinexistingstructuresincluding primarystructuresandaccessorybuildings,likegaragesandallowingthenumberofunitsina structureoronapropertytochangeovertimeasdemographics(householdsizeandneeds)change. Attheforums,weheardthatsomeresidentswanttoaddunitstoexistingstructuresorconverthomes backtoanearlierstatethathadmoreunits.Therewasgeneralsupportforconversionswithinexisting structuresandaccessorybuildingslikegarages. Comparedtootherdistricts,agreaterproportionofresidentslivewithinwalkingdistanceoftheirjobs Forexample,ananalysisoftheMarketStreetneighborhoodsfoundthat26%ofresidentswalktowork (U.S.Census2000).Anecdotalevidencefromtheforumssuggeststhatthereareresidents,particularly studentsofnearbycolleges,wholiveinthisareawhodonotowncars.However,althoughresidentsof thiszonearelesscardependent(andmayownfewercarsperhousehold),parkingisacontinuing concernforresidents,especiallyasstreetparkingisatapremiumintheseneighborhoods.Parkingisa particularconcernforresidentswholiveclosetodowntown.Thereisawidespreadperceptionthat workersandvisitorstodowntownchoosetoparkinresidentialneighborhoods. ProposedShortTermSolution:Revisethedimensionalstandardstoallowforinfillwithinexistinglots, butpreventsplittingofsmalllotsintoevensmallerlots,whichwouldresultinmorenewconstruction andasenseoflessopenspaceintheseneighborhoods.Standardstopromotesmallscaleinfillfor14 familyhomes. Inordertopromotetraditionalneighborhooddesign,14familysmallscaleinfill,andprevent splittingofalreadysmalllots,setminimumfrontageandlotsizesasfollows: o Frontage:65feet(itmaybeworthexploringreducingthisdownto50feet) o Depth:45feetinordertoallowforfrontageandlotsizereductions o LotSize:3,200squarefeet(70%percentofexistingpropertieshavelotsizesof3,750 andabove.(Outcome:6,400sfwouldberequiredtosubdivideapropertyintotwo 3,200squarefootlots.Bothlotswouldneedtherequiredfrontageinorderto subdivide.) Inordertoallowsmallscaleinfilldevelopmentinexistingstructuresandonexistinglots, removethelinkbetweenthenumberofunitsandlotsizefor14familyhomes.Toallow
Page8
developmentincharacterwithexistingneighborhoods,changethedimensionalstandardsto matchthetraditionalneighborhoodsmoreclosely.Finally,simplifytherequirementsfor14 familyhomelots.1 o Replacecurrentstandardswiththefollowingperformancerequirements: FrontSetback:DimensionalaveragingbyAdministrativeSitePlanReview(see above). SideSetback:10footminimum Rearsetback:20footminimum Parking:Sameoffstreetrequirementsascurrentregulationsfornow(seeLong TermRecommendationsbelow) OpenSpace:Sameascurrentregulations ComparisonofCurrentRequirementstoProposedRequirementsfor14FamilyHomeLots2 Summary(14FamilyStructures)(ByRightStandardsComparison) CurrentRegulations ResultsofProposedChange Min.LotSize 6,00024,000sq.ft. 3,200sq.ft. Min.Frontage 75feet 65feet Min.Depth 80250feet 45feet FrontSetback 20feetmin. DimensionalAveragingby AdministrativeSPR3 Min.SideSetback 515feet 10feet Min.RearSetback 2030feet 20feet Max.BuildingHeight 4055feet Same4 Min.OffstreetParking 1spaceper500squarefeetfor Same eachunitupto2maximumper unit,1spaceperaccessory apartment Min.OpenSpace 30%40% 30%
1 2
Redefinewhatiscurrentlycalledmultifamilyinthecurrentzoningtobe5unitsormore Doesnotincludecomparisontoclusterdevelopmentprovisions,astheselargelydonotapplyinURCduetolarge minimumparcelsizerequiredforaPUDundercurrentregulations 3 An8footmin.to12footmax.rangewaspreviouslyconsidered 4 Thismaybeanareatoconsiderfurthersimplificationorreductionofdimensionalrequirements DimensionalandDesignStandardsProposalforNorthamptonsUrbanResidentialZoningDistricts
Page9
HowProposedChangesAboveApplytoSingleFamilyStructures(ByRightStandardsComparison) CurrentRegulations ResultsofProposedChange Min.LotSize 6,000sq.ft. 3,200sq.ft. Min.Frontage 75feet 65feet Min.Depth 80feet 45feet FrontSetback 20feetmin. DimensionalAveragingby AdministrativeSPR Min.SideSetback 15feet 10feet Min.RearSetback 20feet Same Max.BuildingHeight 40feet Same Min.OffstreetParking 1spaceper500squarefeetfor Same eachunitupto2maximumper unit,1spaceperaccessory apartment Min.OpenSpace 30% Same HowProposedChangesAboveApplytoTwoFamilyStructures(ByRightStandardsComparison) CurrentRegulations ResultsofProposedChange Min.LotSize 12,000sq.ft. 3,200sq.ft. Min.Frontage 75feet 65feet Min.Depth 80feet 45feet FrontSetback 20feetmin. DimensionalAveragingby AdministrativeSPR Min.SideSetback 15feet 10feet Min.RearSetback 20feet Same Max.BuildingHeight 40feet Same Min.OffstreetParking 1spaceper500squarefeetfor Same eachunitupto2maximumper unit,1spaceperaccessory apartment Min.OpenSpace 30% Same
Page10
HowProposedChangesAboveApplytoThreeFamilyStructures(excludestownhomes) (ByRightStandardsComparison) CurrentRegulations ResultsofProposedChange Min.LotSize 18,000sq.ft. 3,200sq.ft. Min.Frontage 100feet 65feet Min.Depth 100feet 45feet FrontSetback 1020feetmin. DimensionalAveragingby AdministrativeSPR Min.SideSetback 15feet 10feet Min.RearSetback 2030feet 20feet Max.BuildingHeight 4055feet Same Min.OffstreetParking 1spaceper500squarefeetfor Same eachunitupto2maximumper unit,1spaceperaccessory apartment Min.OpenSpace 40% 30% HowProposedChangesAboveApplytoFourFamilyHomes(excludestownhomes) (ByRightStandardsComparison) CurrentRegulations ResultsofProposedChange Min.LotSize 24,000sq.ft. 3,200sq.ft. Min.Frontage 100200feet 65feet Min.Depth 100250feet 45feet FrontSetback 20feetmin. DimensionalAveragingby AdministrativeSPR Min.SideSetback 15feet 10feet Min.RearSetback 2030feet 20feet Max.BuildingHeight 4055feet Same Min.OffstreetParking 1spaceper500squarefeetfor Same eachunitupto2maximumper unit,1spaceperaccessory apartment Min.OpenSpace 40% 30% LongTermRecommendations Implementparkingpermits,thenreduceparkingrequirementsto1offstreetparkingspaceper unit,withprovisionsforsnowemergencyparking NOTE:TheserecommendationsdoNOTcoverprojectswithmorethan4units.Zoningshouldtreat largerprojectsdifferentlythan14familyprojects.
Page11
AmendingtheDimensionalTables URB Problem:Thecurrentzoningdiscouragesinfillinurbandistricts,whiletheSustainableNorthampton ComprehensivePlanencouragesgreaterdensityintheseneighborhoods. Analysis&Discussion:URBdiffersfromURCinthatlotsizesaregenerallylargerandtherearegenerally greatersidesetbacksbetweenstructures.Residentsgenerallysupporttheadditionofunitstoexisting structuresandaccessorystructures,buthaveexpressedconcernsaboutnewlargestructuresbeing built.Ingeneral,theexistingconditionsinURBaremorediversethantheyareinURC.Some neighborhoodsareurbanincharacter(OrchardStreet)whileothershavesignificantlylargerlotsand predominantlysinglefamilyhomes(LincolnAve).InURB,inordertoallowonlyforinfillthatisin keepingwiththecurrentneighborhoodcharacter,subdivisionoflotsresultinginnewprimarystructures beingbuiltbetweenexistingstructuresshouldbeminimized(allowedonlyonthelargestlotswherenew infillwouldbeinkeepingwithexistingneighborhoodcharacter). Residentshavealsoexpressedconcernsaboutparking.Ingeneral,thereismorestreetparkingavailable inURBthaninURC.However,someURBstreetsdofaceonstreetparkingshortages. InfillinURBismorelikelytobenoticeabletoitsresidentsthaninfillinURC.URCalreadyhasanurban character.URBneighborhoodsaregenerallylessurban.AlthoughURBneighborhoodsmighthavemore capacitytoabsorbdensitythanURCneighborhoods(openspace,onstreetparking,etc.),theeffectsof infillhavemorepotentialtosignificantlyaltertheexistingcharacterofaneighborhood. ProposedShortTermSolution: Revisethedimensionalstandardstoallowforinfillwithinexistinglots,butpreventsplittingofsmalllots intoevensmallerlots,whichwouldresultinmorenewconstructionandasenseoflessopenspacein theseneighborhoods.Standardstopromotesmallscaleinfillfor13familyhomes. Inordertominimizesplittingoflots,setminimumfrontageandlotsizesasfollows: o Frontage:65feet o Depth:75feet o LotSize:5,000squarefeet(50%percentofexisting2familypropertieshavelotsizesof 4,400andabove.10,00sq.ft.wouldberequiredtosubdivideaproperty,) Inordertoallowsmallscaleinfilldevelopmentinexistingstructuresandonexistinglots, removethelinkbetweenthenumberofunitsandlotsizefor13familyhomes.Toallow developmentincharacterwithexistingneighborhoods,changethedimensionalstandardsto matchthetraditionalneighborhoodsmoreclosely.Finally,simplifytherequirementsfor13 familyhomelots.5 o Replacecurrentstandardswiththefollowingperformancerequirements: FrontSetback:DimensionalAveragingbyAdministrativeSPR
5
Redefinewhatiscurrentlycalledmultifamilyinthecurrentzoningtobe5unitsormore
Page12
SideSetback:15feetmin. Rearsetback:20feetmin. Parking:Sameoffstreetrequirementsascurrentregulations OpenSpace:30% ComparisonofCurrentRequirementstoProposedRequirementsfor13FamilyHomeLots6 Summary(13FamilyStructures)(ByRightStandardsComparison) CurrentRegulations ResultsofProposedChange Min.LotSize 8,000sq.ft28,000sq.ft. 5,000sq.ft. Min.Frontage 75120feet 65feet Min.Depth 80150feet 75feet FrontSetback 2030feetmin. DimensionalAveragingby AdministrativeSPR7 Min.SideSetback 1530feet 15feet Min.RearSetback 2030feet 20feet Min.BuildingHeight 3540feet Same Min.OffstreetParking 1spaceper500squarefeetfor Same eachunitupto2maximumper unit,1spaceperaccessory apartment Min.OpenSpace 4050% 30% HowProposedChangesAboveApplytoSingleFamilyStructures(ByRightStandardsComparison) CurrentRegulations ResultsofProposedChange Min.LotSize 8,000sq.ft. 5,000sq.ft. Min.Frontage 75feet 65feet Min.Depth 80feet 75feet FrontSetback 20feetmin. DimensionalAveragingby AdministrativeSPR Min.SideSetback 15feet Same Min.RearSetback 20feet Same Max.BuildingHeight 35feet Same Min.OffstreetParking 1spaceper500squarefeetfor Same eachunitupto2maximumper unit,1spaceperaccessory apartment OpenSpace 50% 30%
6 7
Doesnotincludecomparisontoclusterdevelopmentprovisions ItwasdeterminedthatestablishingarangeismostdifficultinURBduetothewiderangeofURBneighborhood characteristics.Arangeofapproximately8feetto12feet,20feetormorewaspreviouslyconsidered.
Page13
HowProposedChangesAboveApplytoTwoFamilyStructures(ByRightStandardsComparison) CurrentRegulations ResultsofProposedChange Min.LotSize 12,000sq.ft. 5,000sq.ft. Min.Frontage 80feet 65feet Min.Depth 100feet 75feet FrontSetback 20feetmin. DimensionalAveragingby AdministrativeSPR Min.SideSetback 15feet Same Min.RearSetback 20feet Same Max.BuildingHeight 35feet Same Parking 1spaceper500squarefeetfor Same eachunitupto2maximumper unit,1spaceperaccessory apartment Min.OpenSpace 50% 30% HowProposedChangesAboveApplytoThreeFamilyStructures(ByRightStandardsComparison) CurrentRegulations ResultsofProposedChange Min.LotSize 21,000sq.ft. 5,000sq.ft. Min.Frontage 120feet 65feet Min.Depth 150feet 75feet FrontSetback 30feetmin. DimensionalAveragingby AdministrativeSPR Min.SideSetback 30feet 15feet Min.RearSetback 30feet 20feet Max.BuildingHeight 40feet Same Min.OffstreetParking 1spaceper500squarefeetfor Same eachunitupto2maximumper unit,1spaceperaccessory apartment Min.OpenSpace 40% 30% NOTE:ProposedChangesApplyto13familypropertiesonlyanddonotproposeanyzoningchanges to4+unitproperties. LongTermRecommendations Considerparkingpermitsandparkingrequirementreductions,withprovisionsforsnow emergencyparking.
Page14
AmendingtheDimensionalTables URA Problem:Thecurrentzoningdiscouragesinfillinurbandistricts,whiletheSustainableNorthampton ComprehensivePlanencouragesgreaterdensityintheseneighborhoods. Analysis&Discussion:URAistheleastdenseofthethreeurbanresidentialdistricts.Thedistricthas approximately700singlefamilyproperties,approximately502familyproperties,andahandfulof3to 8familyproperties.Thecityshouldencouragesmallerlotsinthisdistrictandallowtwofamilydwellings byright.Inadditiontotheshorttermproposalbelow,inthelongterm,thecitymightconsiderallowing threefamilydwellingsbyspecialpermit.Further,futurerezoningsforcommercialdistricts(e.g. neighborhoodcommercialservices)shouldconsiderproximitytoURAneighborhoodsinparticular,as wellasunderservedURBandURCneighborhoods. ProposedShortTermSolution: Inordertoencouragesmallersinglefamilylotsandtraditionalneighborhooddesign: Changeminimumlotsizerequirementsforsinglefamilyhomesto10,000squarefeet(~1/4 acre),76%percentofexisting1familypropertieshavelotsizesof10,000sq.ft.andabove. 20,000sq.ft.(~1/2acre)wouldberequiredtosubdivideaproperty,) Changeminimumopenspacerequirementsforsinglefamilyhomesto30%(reducedfrom60%) SetfrontsetbacksbyDimensionalAveragingbySPR Keepexistingsetbacksforattachedgaragesthesameinordertopromotegarageslocated fartherbackthanprincipalstructure Reduceminimumopenspaceto30% Inordertopromotesmallscaleandneighborhoodappropriateinfill,allowfortwofamilyhomes: UsecurrentURBrequirementof6,000sq.ft.perunit,or12,000sq.ft.fora2familyhome Otherwise,samerequirementsasforsinglefamilyhomes
Page15
ComparisonofCurrentRequirementstoProposedRequirementsfor12FamilyHomeLots Summary(12FamilyStructures)(ByRightStandardsComparison) CurrentRegulations(singlefamily ResultsofProposedChange only,twofamilypropertiesnot allowed) Min.LotSize 12,000sq.ft. 10,000sq.ft.(singlefamily)to 12,000sq.ft.(twofamily) Min.Frontage 75feet Same Min.Depth 100feet 80feet FrontSetback 20min. DimensionalAveragingby AdministrativeSPR8 Min.SideSetback 15feet Same Min.RearSetback 20feet Same Max.BuildingHeight 35feet Same Min.OffstreetParking 1spaceper500squarefeetfor Same eachunitupto2maximumper unit,1spaceperaccessory apartment Min.OpenSpace 60% 30% HowProposedChangesAboveApplyto1FamilyStructures(ByRightStandardsComparison) CurrentRegulations ResultsofProposedChange Min.LotSize 12,000sq.ft. 10,000sq.ft. Min.Frontage 75feet Same Min.Depth 100feet 80feet FrontSetback 20feetmin. DimensionalAveragingby AdministrativeSPR Min.SideSetback 10feet Same Min.RearSetback 20feet Same Max.BuildingHeight 35feet Same Min.OffstreetParking 1spaceper500squarefeetfor Same eachunitupto2maximumper unit,1spaceperaccessory apartment Min.OpenSpace 60% 30%
Arangeof1525feetwasdiscussedbeforedimensionalaveragingwassettledon
Page16
HowProposedChangesAboveApplytoTwoFamilyStructures(ByRightStandardsComparison) CurrentRegulations ResultsofProposedChange NotCurrentlyAllowed,Current SingleFamilyRegulationsShown Min.LotSize 12,000sq.ft. 12,000sq.ft.foratwofamily home(6,000sq.ft.perunit) Min.Frontage 75feet 75feet Min.Depth 100feet 80feet FrontSetback 20feetmin. DimensionalAveragingby AdministrativeSPR Min.SideSetback 10feet Same Min.RearSetback 20feet Same Max.BuildingHeight 35feet Same Min.OffStreetParking 1spaceper500squarefeetfor Same eachunitupto2maximumper unit,1spaceperaccessory apartment Min.OpenSpace 60% 30%
Page17
AdditionalRecommendationsRegarding NonconformingPropertiesandMakingZoningEasiertoUnderstand Goal:Reduceinconvenienceandhardshipassociatedwithowninganonconformingproperty. Problem:Thecityhashighratesofnonconformingproperties.Thiscancreateadditionalrequirements, aswellasanxietyamongpropertyowners. Recommendation:TheOfficeofPlanningandDevelopmentpublishesadocumentthatsummarizes WhatNonConformanceMeanstoYou. Goal:Makethezoningeasiertounderstand. Problem:Thezoningcodeisquitecomplexanddifficulttounderstand. Implications: Residentsworrythatzoningisnotbeingappliedequallyinallsituations. Residentsfeelliketheycannotpredictwhattoexpectonneighboringproperties. Someresidentsmaynotpursueprojectsbecausetheythinkthezoningdoesnotallowthe project,wheninfactthezoninghasexceptionsthatwouldallowit. Someresidentsneedtohireexpertstointerpretzoning. Recommendations: Publishahandbookonhowtousethezoningcode.Thehandbookshouldlayoutstepbystep processesfordetermininghowzoningappliestocommonprojects. PublishasummaryofalladministrativerulesusedbytheOfficeofPlanningandDevelopment, thePlanningBoard,orothersonthecityswebsite. Usegraphicstoexplainzoningwheneverpossible. Improvethedefinitionssectionofthezoningcode.Alldefinitionsshouldbeinthedefinition sectionnotinthebodyofthecode. Improvetheuseanddimensionaltables Eithercombinethedimensionalandusetables,or Reorganizethetablessothattheirstructuresareparallel Longterm:Restructureandrewritetheentirezoningcode
Page18
To: Re:
Parking and Transportation Committee Infill Parking Plan
Over the last two years the Zoning Revisions Committee conducted several public forums to solicit public input on ways to best meet the goals of the Sustainable Northampton Plan. We are reporting to you that in these discussions participants consistently expressed concern around increased traffic and parking pressures as we implement the infill goals of Sustainable Northampton Plan. While traffic is beyond our purview, parking is not. Our current zoning features Parking Requirements for new development. We find that this relationship between parking and development in our zoning often hinders increased vibrancy and density. Currently, property owners are required to apply arcane parking formulas that do not recognize the multiple ways a project is minimizing parking by being in an urban setting. There is an assumption in our Parking Requirements that everyone is bringing a car. However, in a tightly knit setting with a mix of residential, office and neighborhood commercial uses, more customers will come by foot or bicycle, reducing the need for high commercial parking requirements. At the same time, Urban Residential developers are required to provide parking for residential units intended for people who frequently walk, bike, and may not even own a car. When residences are located in tightly knit, traditional urban neighborhoods that are located in walking distance of goods, services, jobs, and transit, households are able to keep fewer cars. A wonderful example of this in Northampton is in the neighborhoods around Market Street In these neighborhoods, U.S. Census data report that an astounding 26% of residents walk to work. In this neighborhood, 22% of households reported having NO vehicles and 52% of households reported having one vehicle 74% of these households have 0 to 1 vehicles! We find the citys parking formulas to be ineffective and we have recommended the Parking Requirements in our zoning be relaxed or lifted. At the same time, we do feel that many of the concerns expressed around parking and density are valid and that the city needs more appropriate and targeted strategies than zoning ordinances to address parking pressures. Therefore, we are recommending to your committee the development of an Infill Parking Plan. We anticipate that as the vibrancy of our downtown and village centers flourish, the need for parking strategies will increase. Some ideas we discussed included on-street residential parking permits, as well as allowing parking in front yard open space during snow emergencies. Having a plan to address parking issues as they arise will go a long way towards easing citizens concerns surrounding the implementation of the Sustainable Northampton Plan. Respectfully Submitted The Zoning Revisions Committee
Proposed language for infill special permit in Northampton Zoning (revised draft, June 6, 2010redlined 12-10) Section 350-10.16 Infill Special Permit Interim Zoning A. Purpose The purpose of this Section is to provide a means to allow carefully planned infill development, consistent with the Citys Sustainable Northampton Comprehensive Plan, to be built within existing developed areas of Northampton closest to Downtown and Florence and Leeds Centers. This Section is adopted as an interim zoning provision while dimensional and use regulations for the City are being reviewed and comprehensively revised. This Section is intended to provide a means for expeditious implementation of infill development on a case-by-case basis, consistent with existing neighborhood character and the design standards in this section. B. Applicability 1. The provisions of this section shall apply in the URA, URB, and URC zoning districts. 2. This Section 350-10.16 shall remain in effect for two years from the date of its adoption, unless extended longer or terminated earlier by amendment of this ordinance. Any special permit application filed under this section and found to be a complete application by the Office of Planning and Development before the expiration of the effective period of this Section shall be allowed to continue through the approval process, notwithstanding the termination of this provision. Any special permit duly granted under this section shall run with the land and have permanent effect once exercised in accordance with the zoning and MGL 40 A. C. Types of Infill Development Permitted The Planning Board may grant a special permit allowing for the modification of otherwise applicable dimensional regulations, consistent with the purposes of this Section, the Sustainable Northampton Plan, and the standards in Subsection E below to permit the following: 1. Reduction in applicable minimum frontage, setbacks, lot depth, and lot area requirements, unit configuration.
Proposedlanguageforinfillspecialpermit
Page1
CONCEPT DRAFT
2. Additional dwelling units, detached cottage units, or accessory dwelling units on a lot, through new construction and/or conversion of existing structures. 3. Reduction in the open space requirement to 40% within the URA district and 30% within the URB district, regardless of the use of the lot. 4. Increase in maximum height of no more than one story or 10 feet. D. Parking. This section may not be used to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirements. E. Design Standards and Approval Criteria 1. A special permit granted under this section shall comply with all of the special permit standards contained in Section 350-10.1. (Modify to address vague standards in 10.1like protection of views, light, air) 2. In order to receive a special permit, an applicant shall submit and the Planning Board shall approve a site plan at a sufficient level of detail to allow the Planning Board to determine whether or not the proposal complies with these design standards. 3. Infill development shall maintain the prevailing pattern of front setbacks that exist on the block on which such development occurs, except that no new attached or detached garage may be built unless it is at least 20 feet behind the front faade of the principal building. 4. Infill development shall be designed to maintain the privacy of adjoining properties by screening new and enlarged structures with existing or new vegetative screening and/or with wooden fencing. No healthy trees with a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 16 inches or more shall be removed within 12 feet of a side or rear property line. Light emitted by external light fixtures or by vehicle headlights in off-street parking areas shall not shine into adjoining properties. 5. Infill development shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood in which it is located in terms of scale, massing, building orientation, garage location (if any), and architectural character and detail. Principal buildings shall align along a street to create a sense of enclosure of the street in a manner similar to that found on the same block faceand adjoining blocks. The Planning Board may adopt design guidelines to serve as criteria in administering this section. Neighborhood associations are encouraged to recommend neighborhood-specific design guidelines to be considered for adoption by the Planning Board for individual neighborhoods or blocks.
ProposedlanguageforinfillspecialpermitPage2
CONCEPT DRAFT
6. The Planning Board may consider historic uses of a property. If a proposed infill development would reinstate a condition that historically existed on the property, this shall be considered favorably in the Planning Boards deliberations. 7. This section may not be used to increase the number of dwelling units on a lot by more than five. F. Procedure. 1. Before filing an application for an infill special permit, the applicant shall notify and make a good faith effort to meet with owners of adjoining properties to discuss plans for the proposed infill development. 2. The Office of Planning and Development shall provide a list of supporting materials required for submission of an infill special permit application to assist an applicant in preparing an application. 3. The special permit, filing, fee, hearing etc process for infill development shall otherwise be the same as required for any other special permit, except that site plan approval shall be integrated with the special permit. 4. The Planning Board shall attach appropriate conditions to any approval relating to architectural and landscape design, lighting, parking location, and improvements to the facades of existing buildings, to ensure that the infill development will enhance the character of the neighborhood. 5. The City Council shall, by resolution, set an appropriate application fee or fee scale for infill special permit applications.
ProposedlanguageforinfillspecialpermitPage3
CONCEPT DRAFT
Summaries of Public Input From Forums
SYNTHESIS OF COMMENTS FROM ZONING REVISION FORUM Report of the Zoning Revisions Committee, April 2, 2010
The following is a synthesis of the comments and input received at the Zoning Revisions Committee public forum held on March 17, 2010 at Northampton High School. It is not a verbatim transcript of notes from the meeting, but rather an attempt to extract the main themes to help guide the ZRC as it moves forward in recommending changes to the Northampton Zoning Ordinance. Many other sources of input will also be considered in developing these recommendations, including meetings with various neighborhood groups and stakeholders, the experience from other communities, and the extensive public input that was a part of the Sustainable Northampton process. The ZRC is distributing this document widely in the community to indicate what we heard at the forum and to invite further comments both from those who came and those who were unable to attend. Since the main subject addressed at the forum was infill development, most of the points below are focused on the subject of infill. If you did not attend the forum and would like to see the introductory presentation, which explains infill and other zoning concepts, you can view the presentation online at http://www.northamptonma.gov/planbd/zrc/docs/ - just scroll down to Zoning
and Sustainability (Public Forum Presentation).
There was general support for the use of infill development to make the City more sustainable and to encourage economic development, provided that certain safeguards are in place. The zoning should encourage rather than prevent infill that meets the criteria that follow (points 1 through 6). 1. Infill development should be in scale and character with its surroundings. a. Within residential neighborhoods, buildings should be compatible in scale and architectural character to existing buildings; their relationship to the street should be similar; conversions of large houses, addition of units to existing buildings (encouraging 2 and 3-family dwellings), and conversions of garages and other accessory buildings are preferable to large-scale new construction projects. b. Larger scale infill should occur on already developed or vacant but previously developed sites on heavily traveled streets, such as Downtown, King Street, Pleasant, and Conz; existing buildings should be reused as much as possible throughout the City. Larger-scale infill should consist of mixed-use walkable areas as much as possible. c. Green spaces and trees should be retained as much as possible; open space uses and landscaping should be part of infill, including neighborhood recreation, large and small parks, wildlife corridors, stormwater retention, and local food production, including urban agriculture, CSAs, and community gardens. d. Infill should fill gaps in the street and be in scale with its surroundings (neither too large nor too small).
SynthesisofCommentsfromZoningRevisionForum,2010
Page1
e. Some felt that infill should contain a mix of housing types and accommodate different income groups. Not all agreed on this. f. Infill should not disproportionately affect any one area of the City. g. Infill should not adversely affect historic and landmark structures. 2. Mixed-use development should be encouraged to make neighborhoods more walkable, provided that it is in scale with the neighborhood and does not generate too much traffic. a. Mixed uses should be allowed not only in commercial districts but also in rural areas, co-housing developments, and residential areas, provided that it is in scale and compatible with surrounding uses. b. Infill development should put residences within walking distances of stores, offices, jobs, parks, bikepaths, and other green spaces. Infill can and should support related goals of supporting local businesses and making streets safer by encouraging pedestrian activity and eyes on the street. c. Greater density, in scale with neighborhoods, is needed to support local businesses and neighborhood schools, to make housing more affordable, and to make public transit cost-effective. 3. Design is important! a. There should be better design controls over new development. b. Traditional relationships between the building and street should be required c. Design should consider not only the streetscape, but also views from the side and rear of properties. d. We should avoid ugly, cookie-cutter designs that do not fit the community. e. Parking lots should not be prominent parts of the streetscape if possible (the issue of commercial viability led to a lack of consensus on how far this should go). f. Attention should be paid to lighting and safety. 4. Infill should be energy efficient and take advantage of solar and other renewable energy opportunities; green roofs, water-efficient development should be encouraged. 5. Infill should help make housing more affordable by allowing greater density (within the character of existing neighborhoods) and by encouraging more residents to rent out part of their homes, providing affordable units for renters and an income stream for owners, especially the elderly. 6. We need to remember to set aside land for industrial uses and the jobs and tax base that come with them. 7. Cluster development in the more rural parts of the City should be done in a way that protects open space resources, especially farmland, and that fosters a sense of neighborhood and community. The layout of the co-housing communities in Florence is a good model for how this can be done.
Page2
8. Complementary infrastructure strategies: In order for infill to work, a number of nonzoning measures must also be instituted. While not part of zoning revision, these overarching planning strategies and actions are important because they affect the sustainability of the city overall and of infill development in particular. (Some of these strategies dont work without greater density, but greater density wont work without these measures a chicken and egg problem.) These measures include: a. Better public transit (more routes, more frequent service) b. Redesigning streets to reduce speeds and encourage pedestrians and bikes: narrower lanes, street trees, planting strips, bike lanes, pedestrian crossings, onstreet parking, etc. c. Better bicycle infrastructure including bike parking and more bike lanes on major streets d. More parks and public open space e. Sidewalks: more, better-maintained, and wider f. Better and safer intersections g. Better parking solutions in areas of mixed uses, including parking lots, on-street parking, garages, and improved management of parking h. Better stormwater management, especially where infill adds impervious surfaces i. Stronger neighborhood organizations to advocate for and plan these measures, provide input on planning and zoning issues, and build community spirit
Page3
ZRC Infill Forums Summary Florence Civic Center February 15th Bridge Street School February 16th On February 15th & 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 Dimension 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. 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, its 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.
ZRCInfillForumsSummary,February2011
Page1
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.
Page2
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 abutters 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
Page3
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 Northamptons 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. ZRCInfillForumsSummary,February2011 Page4
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. 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.
Page5
Forum Presentations
March 2010
Rezoning Northampton for a Sustainable Future

Zoning Revisions Committee (ZRC) Who We Are
A volunteer committee, appointed by the Planning Board Formed to help implement Sustainable Northampton Sustainable Northampton (the citys comprehensive master plan adopted in 2008) Selected to represent a variety of viewpoints, expertise and neighborhoods.
What is Zoning?
Zoning is a local ordinance that regulates development and land use Zoning establishes the community's development pattern. It controls:
Lot dimensions and where buildings can be built on a lot (dimensional regulations) What land can be used for (use regulations) How development applications are reviewed Parking requirements, signs, lighting, landscaping, etc. fences
What is Zoning?
Zoning ordinances have a map AND text
The map divides the city into zones The text says what is allowed in these zones
street trees open space requirement
Zoning sets parameters for how land can be used, but it doesnt MAKE development happen. Development will not occur unless there is a market for it. Good development still requires responsible landowners, enlightened developers and financiers, and skilled architects and builders
use
building height
number of units
lot size
lighting
signs landscaping parking
Public Forum #1 Presentation
March 2010

Our Charge: Get Sustainability into Zoning
This meeting is part of a long-term planning process

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Northampton begins work on Sustainable Northampton Plan
Sustainable Northampton Plan adopted
ZRC Formed
ZRCs 1st Public Forum
ZRC suggests changes
Zoning revisions help make city more sustainable
Review current zoning & recommend revisions
Be a technical resource for the Planning Board

Provide a wide range of opportunities for public input to the zoning revision process
The ZRCs Process

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
The ZRCs Process

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
ZRC Formed
ZRC Formed
Analysis and Information Gathering

Learned about the Sustainable Northampton Plan and Zoning Ordinance Conducted an analysis comparing the Sustainable Northampton Plan with the current Zoning Ordinance Explored Subtopics: Energy, Urban Agriculture, Cluster Development, Housing Began discussions with key stakeholders and focus groups Developed a process for including public input
1st Public Forum (Were here!)

Tonights goals are: Share what weve learned about zoning and sustainability Gather general input about how zoning could be made more sustainable Gather in-depth input about infill (where, how much, what should it look like?)
March 2010
The ZRCs Process

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
The ZRCs Process

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
ZRC Formed
ZRC Formed
ZRC Makes Recommendations

Formulate specific recommendations
Implementation
Planning Department and ZRC write zoning
for zoning revisions Continue discussions with key stakeholders and focus groups Conduct additional public forums Refine recommendations Present recommendations to Planning Board and get feedback
changes and submit to Planning Board Planning Board reviews changes and holds public hearings with the City Council Ordinance Committee Planning board votes on proposed changes City Council votes on proposed changes Process continues!
Sustainable Northampton Plan Relevant Guiding Principles

Sustainability
If you keep on doing it, you can keep on doing it
Translating Sustainability Goals into Zoning Goals

Task: Boil Future Land Use Map and 45 pages of goals, objectives and strategies from the Sustainable Northampton Plan into a short set of summary goals that are relevant to zoning.
(Environment, Economy, Equity)
Sustainable Land Use

Minimize human effects on natural systems; build the kind of places we want to live in
Concentrate development and allow for a wide range of housing types and work spaces in walkable, mixed-use neighborhood, village and commercial centers Minimize development in areas that lack infrastructure or have significant environmental, open space or agricultural resources i l i l l Promote environmental performance, including energy and resource efficiency Make the zoning code more user-friendly and processes more transparent Promote design that fits into neighborhoods so that new development makes the city a better place.
Sustainable Land Use in Northampton

Concentrate development in existing neighborhoods Minimize sprawl/protect open space Promote appropriate economic development Preserve community character Encourage walkability and transit
March 2010
Sustainable Northamptons Future Land Use Map
Where should future development happen?

Sustainable Northampton says that development should be concentrated in traditional neighborhoods and mixed-use commercial centers (colored on map).
Is this possible under current zoning? And does current zoning meet sustainability goals?
Traditional Neighborhoods Mixed-use Commercial Centers
Testing Sustainability of Current Zoning

Example - Mixed-use
Goal:
Concentrate development and allow for a wide range of housing types and work spaces in walkable, mixed-use neighborhood, village and commercial centers

Example - Walkability
Goal:
Concentrate development and allow for a wide range of housing types and work spaces in walkable, mixed-use neighborhood, village and commercial centers
Within 1/4 mile of basic services
Analysis:
Only a small portion of the City is zoned for mixed-use neighborhoods Use regulations are confusing and limiting The lack of mixed-use zoning undermines goals of walkability
Analysis:
Zoning for most of Northampton does not create walkable neighborhoods
Takeaway: Allow mixed-uses in more zones Rewrite zoning text and tables to facilitate mixed use Concentrate on regulating form more than than use
Takeaway: Expand areas zoned for mixed use Encourage infill so that more residents will be within walking distance of downtown or neighborhood centers.
March 2010

Example - Minimize sprawl
Goal:
Minimize development in areas that lack infrastructure or have significant environmental, open space or agricultural resources

Example Design
Goal:
Promote design that fits into neighborhoods so that new development makes the city a better place.
Analysis: A l i
Rural areas are zoned for lowdensity suburban sprawl
Analysis:
Lack of design standards to guide development Dimensional standards in zoning do not match historic neighborhoods Current zoning does not create attracted streetscapes and public spaces
Takeaway: Cluster regulations need to more flexible, with clearer definition of the open space that should be protected Continue to acquire open space (not part of zoning) Reduce density of outlying development
Takeaway: Design standards are needed Zoning should focus on shaping urban space Site plan and architecture should be reviewed together

A Typical 3-Family Home Example: 17 Trumbull Road
Zoned URC Lot Size: 4,835 square feet Today, would need 18,000 SF (~1/2 acre) to build this home Few of the citys 3-family homes conform to lot size requirements

Is an existing 2-family home in a traditional urban neighborhood of the city legal under the current zoning? Example: 20-22 Elizabeth, Ward 3
Zoned URB Lot Size: 5,183 Square Feet Today, would need 12,000 SF to build this home
House 030.jpg
House 030.jpg
In fact, today, you could not create a buildable lot of this size (6,000 SF required).
In fact, today, you could not create a buildable lot of this size (8,000 SF required).
March 2010
Zoning Out Traditional Neighborhoods

Example: Walnut Street
Traditional Urban Neighborhood - Sidewalks - Street Trees - Small Setbacks - Walkable Entire Street Zoned URC - 6 000 sf min lot size per unit 6,000 min.

Example: Walnut Street Lots that Do Not Conform to their Zoning (by lot size)
84%
Address
LotSize(SF) #Units Lot/Unit Conforming
1 WalnutSt 5 WalnutSt 9 WalnutSt 11 WalnutSt 13 WalnutSt 16 WalnutSt 17 WalnutSt 19 WalnutSt 20 WalnutSt 24 WalnutSt 25 Walnut St WalnutSt 29 WalnutSt 32 WalnutSt 33 WalnutSt 33 WalnutSt 35 WalnutSt 38 WalnutSt 41 WalnutSt 42 WalnutSt 45 WalnutSt 46 WalnutSt 46 WalnutSt 48 WalnutSt 49 WalnutSt 50 WalnutSt 55 WalnutSt 56 WalnutSt 60 WalnutSt
2,483 2,701 3,311 3,441 6,490 12,981 6,229 7,536 7,405 11,500 6,011 4,792 14,810 4,312 4,704 4,617 6,273 4,487 9,278 4,400 6,403 5,881 3,311 4,879 6,403 4,661 4,269 6,970
5 2 2 4 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 2 4 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 2
497 1350 1655 860 3245 6490 2076 3768 3703 5750 6011 N/A 14810 4312 N/A 2309 3136 2243 2320 4400 3202 2940 3311 2439 6403 2330 1423 3485
N N N N N Y N N N N Y N/A Y N N/A N N N N N N N N N Y N N N
84% could not be built on these lots today!

Example: Walnut Street Lots that Could Not be Built Today (by lot size)
Median Lot Area per Unit on Street: 3,169 SF. Compare to requirement of 6,000 SF / Unit This Analysis Accounted ONLY for Lot Size! Consider: - 100 min. frontage
Why Does This Matter?

Traditional urban neighborhoods that are within walking distance of goods and services create a compact, energy efficient development pattern that enhances quality of life and supports sustainability goals Current zoning mandates development that is out of character with our best neighborhoods
Lot sizes, frontages, parking requirements, etc. dont match historic precedents
- 20 min. front setback - 40% min. open space
The i Th citys urban neighborhoods are losing housing units b i hb h d l i h i i

When an existing non-conforming multifamily house is converted to a single family, it can never go back Adding new buildings in developed areas (infill) is discouraged by the zoning code
In all likelihood, there is not a single fully conforming building on this street. This story is the same throughout the traditional neighborhoods of our city!!!
Lots that do not conform to their zoning are a hassle to land owners
Land owners often cant put additions on their houses or build garages Land owners often cant change the use of a non-conforming lot Land owners need to go through complicated procedures to be granted exceptions
If created today, 48% of these lots would not even be buildable
March 2010
Summary of Zoning Analysis

Comparing the Sustainable Northampton Plan (Zoning Goals) to the Current Zoning Ordinance
In most respects, the zoning does not reflect sustainability goals Many of our best neighborhoods could not be built under current zoning Emphasis on use-based regulation limits flexibility and mixed-use Parking requirements discourage infill development and force sprawl Rural areas are zoned for suburban sprawl Infill is discouraged in many ways Design standards to guide development are lacking, especially for infill The current zoning is very difficult to understand!
Why Infill?
Infill is new construction or redevelopment that 'fills in' empty lots or adds units or uses in areas that are already developed. Infill is an important tool for concentrating development in walkable neighborhoods, rather than sprawling into undeveloped areas. Infill is the historic pattern of development in Northampton
Parking Lots
Current Development Pattern=Sprawl
Florence
Downtown
Leeds
Elm St. Neighborhoods
Baystate
South St.
March 2010
What Future Do We Want? What is More Sustainable?
Infill and Sustainability

Infill rose to the surface as a critical issue for sustainability Infill and the Three Es
Environment
Infill reduces the need for new infrastructure Infill can be more energy efficient and lower carbon emissions I fill is less damaging to natural systems than Infill i l d i l h greenfield d fi ld development l
Economy
Infill can increase the number of shoppers walking to local businesses Infill can create more commercial real estate (which leads to more jobs) Infill makes public transit more viable
Equity
Infill can create more housing and work spaces where people want to live and work Infill can provide a wide range of housing types that meet peoples needs
Flavors of Infill
New development on brown/grayfields Building taller/adding stories Adding units within existing buildings Converting outbuildings to new units Filling gaps in existing streets Building a larger number of small units on a lot that would currently only allow a single large structure Allowing multiple uses within single structures (multipurpose spaces)
Infill and Design

To meet the goals of Sustainable Northampton, traditional neighborhoods, village, and mixed-use commercial centers will need to accommodate additional units (infill). Infill must be designed in a way that respects its surroundings and creates a "sense of place."
How can we do infill in a way that makes the city a better place? Look at the following examples of infill . What do you like? What do you dislike? What specific elements of these projects work well?
House 030.jpg
Scale? Materials? Proportions? Relationship to street? Relationship to existing buildings? Detailing (cornices, doorways, roofline)?
Color? Green space? Plants/Trees? Parking? Yards?
March 2010
Infill Examples
Infill Examples
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK
Infill Examples
Infill Examples
BLUE BACK SQUARE, WEST HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
March 2010
Infill Examples
Infill Examples
BLUE BACK SQUARE, WEST HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
MASHPEE COMMONS, MASHPEE, MASSACHUSETTS
Infill Examples
Infill Examples
MASHPEE COMMONS, MASHPEE, MASSACHUSETTS
CHURCHILL NEIGHBORHOOD, HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS
10
March 2010
Infill Examples
Infill Examples
CHURCHILL NEIGHBORHOOD, HOLYOKE, MASSACHUSETTS
POCKET NEIGHBORHOOD
Infill Examples Historic-Style Architecture
Infill Examples Modern Architecture
PHOENIX HILL, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY
DUTRA BROWN BUILDING, SAN DIEGO
11
March 2010
Infill Examples Contemporary Architecture
Infill Examples In Northampton Adaptive Reuse
PROSPECT, COLORADO
MAIN STREET & SOUTH STREET
Infill Examples in Northampton - Additions
Infill Examples in Northampton - Conversions
BRIDGE STREET & POMEROY TERRACE
CARRIAGE HOUSE CONVERSION, BUTLER PLACE
12
March 2010
Infill Examples in Northampton
Infill Examples in Northampton
STATE STREET FLY BY NIGHT
STRONG AVENUE
Where Should Future Infill Happen in Northampton?
Where Should Future Infill Happen in Northampton?

Carriage Houses?
Parking Lots?
Garages?
Empty Lots?
Existing Structures?
King Street
13
March 2010
What Should Infill Look Like in Northampton? King Street
SARATOGA SPRINGS
NORTHAMPTON
VISIONING NORTHAMPTON
14
March 2010
What Should Infill Look Like? Garage Conversions
What Should Infill Look Like? Invisible Infill

Converting existing 2-family homes into 3-family homes
BEFORE: 2-UNITS
AFTER: 3-UNITS
House 030.jpg
If this lot were created today, it would not even buildable under current zoning.
www.lisadepiano.org
The End!
Tonights Discussion
Sustainable Northamptons Map Changes

New Green Space
What are your hopes and concerns for your neighborhoodfor the city? What are the ingredients of effective infill that has occurred in your neighborhood? Other parts of Northampton? What characterizes infill that has not been well done? Where are the best opportunities for future infill in the City? Are there some in your neighborhood? What kinds of infill would be appropriate? Considering your vision of a sustainable Northampton, what are the key zoning issues in both your neighborhood and the City as a whole?
- Infill development - King St. revitalization; Conz and Pleasant Streets - Walkability and transit - Attracting business and jobs - Agriculture; urban, suburban and rural - Energy use and conservation - Design and urban form - Affordable Housing - Open space preservation
Development More Restricted Development Less Restricted New Commercial New Business, Industrial or Live-work
15
February 2011
The Zoning Revisions Committee (ZRC)

Who We Are
A volunteer committee, appointed by the Planning Board Formed to help implement Sustainable Northampton Sustainable Northampton (the citys comprehensive master plan adopted in 2008) Selected to represent a variety of viewpoints, expertise and neighborhoods
Infill is a Key Issue

Infill Rose to the Surface as a Critical Issue for Sustainability Infill is new construction or redevelopment that 'fills in' empty lots or adds units or uses in areas that are already developed Infill is an important tool for concentrating development in walkable neighborhoods, rather than sprawling into undeveloped areas Infill is the historic pattern of development in Northampton

Parking Lots
February 2011
Flavors of Infill Adding Units Within Existing Homes
Flavors of Infill Converting Outbuildings to New Units
BEFORE: 2-UNITS
AFTER: 3-UNITS
House 030.jpg
ATTIC CONVERSION = INVISIBLE INFILL
CARRIAGE HOUSE CONVERSION, BUTLER PLACE
Flavors of Infill Converting Garages to New Units
Flavors of Infill Building Additions
BEFORE
AFTER
BRIDGE STREET & POMEROY TERRACE
February 2011
Flavors of Infill Filling Gaps in the Street
Infill and Sustainability
Environment
Reduces the need for new infrastructure, and reduces driving Can be more energy efficient and lower carbon emissions Is less damaging to natural systems than greenfield development
Economy
Increases walking to businesses, supporting more commercial real estate and local jobs Makes public transit more viable
Equity
?
How should this gap in Walnut Street be filled?
Provides a wide range of housing types and work spaces that meet peoples needs
To Meet the Goals of Sustainable Northampton:

Traditional neighborhoods, village, and mixed-use commercial centers will need to accommodate additional units (infill) But, it must be designed in a way that respects its surroundings and creates a "sense of place"
Forum #1: What We Learned

General support for infill and mixed-use development in commercial and residential districts, especially in existing neighborhoods within walking distance to businesses and green spaces, because infill
Makes the city more sustainable Encourages economic development Provides affordable units for renters and income for owners Makes neighborhoods more walkable
Forum #2: Why Were Here

After Forum #1:
We considered how to create more flexible regulations that
- Allow for a greater mix of uses - Allow some new residential units and new options like cottage housing - Ensure that this happens in a way that is compatible with our neighborhoods
We Need Community Feedback On:

Support for infill as long as it is compatible with neighborhoods, including:
Scale Design Traffic
- Topic #1: Home Business

Proposed approach to regulate home occupations in a simple, flexible way that ensures that business uses will be compatible with residential neighborhoods
- Topic #2: Dimensional Standards for Infill

Possible approaches to allowing for a greater variety of residential developments
- Topic #3: Residential Design Standards
Design standards we should have for residential development, and what types of projects they should apply to
February 2011
Simplify Home Business Permitting

What We Heard About Mixed-Uses (Forum #1)
- Should be allowed in commercial and residential areas - Provided that it is in scale and compatible with surrounding uses

Overview of Current Regulations
A home occupation does not require Special Permit only if: No clients or customers are seen on site There is no sign for the business There are no sales of goods from the premises You dont meet or work with other people in your house
What We Did
- Worked on zoning to allow more uses in commercial districts - Now working on more mixed-use in residential neighborhoods mixed use The key step is revising Home Occupation provisions. Were proposing replacing them with what we call Home Business.
If home business activity doesnt fit this narrow definition, then a Special Permit is required to allow a small sign, sale of goods from the home, or one other person to work with you

Goal
Allow many types of home business by right, but minimize impacts on neighborhood Allow current illegal home businesses to operate legally

Proposed Home Businesses Changes Allowed Without Special Permit
No more than 5 automobile round trips per day can be generated by the business A one square foot sign, attached to building and not lighted, is allowed Home made goods can be sold from the premises Up to two open studios to sell home made goods permitted per year
Strategies
Regulate auto traffic instead of clients and customers seen Dont distinguish between types of visits (by client, employee, delivery person, contractor, etc.)
Special Permit Required If the Home Business

Generates more than 5 automobile round trips per day Holds more than 2 open studio functions per year Stores materials outdoors (as long as not visible from street or adjacent properties)
February 2011

Benefits for Sustainability
Supports
Infill and uses existing structures for multiple purposes Entrepreneurship, and lowers barriers to small business Equity - applies to all kinds of work equally (professional services, home made goods, etc.)
Simplify Home Business Permitting We Need Your Feedback

Does it make sense to relax the home business standards? Do you prefer an approach that regulates, based on:
A. the effects of the business on the neighborhood (e.g. number of trips generated by the business)? OR B. use and lot characteristics? (e.g. parking requirements)
Reduces
Traffic and use of nonrenewable resources Note: A recent report states that telecommuting opportunities have increased 400% in the last three years Cost of doing business in Northampton Regulations - fewer special permits required
Simplify Home Business Permitting We Need Your Feedback

Does 5 automobile round trips per day seem reasonable? Should we allow any outdoor storage? What didn't we think of? Does the proposed zoning meet the goals of the Sustainability Plan?
Dimensional Standards in Urban Residential Zones

What Are Dimensional Standards?
Regulations that govern development, e.g. location of buildings on a lot Standards are different for each zone and use examples include minimum Lot sizes Setbacks, or distance between a building and the property line Frontage, or length of property line along the street Percentage open space
What We Heard at Public Forum #1:

General support for infill development within walking distance of stores, offices, jobs, parks, bike paths, etc. Preference for small projects over big ones (i.e. filling gaps in the street, adding units to existing houses and accessory buildings, converting large houses) Design is important (covered later) Traffic and infrastructure are concerns Infill should not disproportionately affect one area of the city
February 2011

What We Did:
Identified Dimensional Standards as key barrier to infill development in existing neighborhoods Studied current neighborhood dimensions in depth Researched innovative housing development types and zoning changes being p made in other cities to allow for more innovative developments Developed proposals for changing dimensional standards

Sustainability Benefits of Dimensional Standards Changes to Allow Infill Environment:
More people live in walking distance to goods and services = less driving
Economy:
More residents to support nearby businesses, both existing and new (and more businesses nearby will make neighborhoods even more walkable) Rental income for property owners More disposable income due to lower car expenses (more walking = less driving)
Equity:
More variety of in-town housing = more people can afford to live here

What percentage of homes in our urban neighborhoods do not conform* to current minimum lot size zoning regulations?** URC - 63% of 1-3 family homes do not conform - 83% of 4 family homes do not conform URB - 32% of 1 family homes do not conform - 62% of 2 family homes do not conform - 82% of 3 family homes do not conform URA - 35% of 1 family homes do not conform - 100% of 2 family and multiple-family homes do not conform (they are not allowed)
Why Does this Matter? - Zoning doesnt match our existing neighborhoods
- We have great urban neighborhoods that can never be built again! *Non-Conforming refers to a property that is used or structures that are built in a way that is not permitted by the zoning for
the property. The use is grandfathered, or permitted to continue, because the land was being used in such a fashion before the zoning law was passed. **This analysis looked only at conformance with lot size requirements. An analysis of properties that also meet minimum setback, frontage and other requirements would yield even higher rates of non-conformance
February 2011

Example: Walnut Street Properties that Do Not Conform to their Zoning (by lot size) Example: Elizabeth Street This 2-Family Home Could Not be Built Today
Innovative Infill Housing NOT Allowed
84%
Lot Size: 5,183 Square Feet Today, would need 12,000 SF to build this home Would need 8,000 SF to even build a single family home
COTTAGE & POCKET HOUSING
84% could not be built on these lots today!
Adaptive Reuse Infill Housing NOT Allowed

Summary: Problems with The Current Zoning
The current dimensional regulations are designed to DECREASE the density of existing neighborhoods, while the sustainability plan says to INCREASE density and that was confirmed in our last public meeting on infill Innovative housing types, especially where people have smaller homes with shared yards ( g cottage housing), are not allowed y (e.g. g g) Adaptive reuse of obsolete structures like old churches and schools for housing is not possible in our neighborhoods
Allowed Downtown, but.
Not allowed in Leeds ADAPTIVE REUSE OF OBSOLETE BUILDINGS
February 2011

Summary of Possible Approaches:
Fix the dimensional tables
Reduce lot size, frontage, setbacks, etc. to match our existing neighborhoods better and allow infill. Keeps the minimum lot size requirements
Existing Zoning: URB 2-family Minimum Lot: 12,000 SF
Develop performance-based standards

Replace the dimensional tables to regulate only setbacks, parking, open space (and design). Gets rid of the minimum lot size requirements Allows new units no matter what lot size exists, if you meet the performance standards
Create a special permit for infill

Using either approach above, ONLY allow new units on a case-bycase basis through Planning Board special permit - Could be used to test above methods
Example Zoning Change: URB 2-family Smaller frontage, setbacks and lot size Minimum Lot: 8,000 SF
Existing Zoning: URB 1-family Minimum Lot: 8,000 SF
Infill and Innovative Dvpts in Neighborhoods

Performance-Based Zoning Approach
This approach does not regulate number of units per lot area If you meet setback, parking and open space requirements, you can build your project
Example Zoning Change: URB 1-family Smaller frontage, setbacks and lot size Minimum Lot: 6,000 SF
Also provides an easy approach to allow for innovative developments like cottage housing without requiring a special permit.
February 2011

Considerations: Changing the Dimensional Standards to Allow Infill
Brings our traditional neighborhoods into greater conformance with our zoning regulations, and allows good neighborhoods to be reproduced Allows flexible reuse of existing buildings and properties in face of changing household sizes and needs More people in neighborhoods makes a community more vibrant and increases safety through more eyes on the street eyes street Residents of neighborhoods where you can walk to services and jobs drive less, but there are more total drivers New construction can be beautiful and add to the sense of place of the neighborhood, but sometimes neighbors dont like the way a particular project looks (design is discussed later) Reduces the need for expensive new infrastructure, but also increases use of existing infrastructure

Where We Need Your Feedback:
Should the dimensional standards be revised to bring the zoning closer to what exists in Northampton's existing neighborhoods? Which dimensional standards are most important to you? For example: how close houses are to each other how close houses are to the street how much street frontage houses have how big lots are where parking is located and how much there is Should new dimensional standards apply by right, or should they only be available by special permit? If changes to dimensional standards allow for more units to be added to existing neighborhoods, what are your concerns? How can we address these concerns to make one of our proposed methods or another strategy work for you?
Residential Design Standards

What are design standards?
Design standards are regulations that can govern how development should look Examples include how buildings should be sited and configured on a lot, how tall and how bulky the structure should be, and what architectural details should be present
Forum #1: What We Learned

Design is important! The zoning should encourage infill that.
Is in scale and architectural character with its surroundings Has a similar relationship to the street as neighboring structures Residents more likely to accept infill if there is assurance through design standards that it will fit in with their neighborhood
House 030.jpg
How do design standards work?

Development plans are reviewed based on whether they meet the design standards For example, all plans in the Central Business zoning district are reviewed for compliance with the citys Design Guidelines for the district
Sustainability Goal: Promote design that fits into
neighborhoods so that new development makes the city a better place.
February 2011

Possible Zoning Solutions:
Apply design standards to
All development in neighborhoods Developments over a certain size, e.g. projects that renovate or add more than 700 square feet Only to new buildings Only to infill that requires a special p y q p permit (only to new buildings, additions or units not currently allowed by right )
Examples of Residential Design Standards

Springfield, Massachusetts Residential Design Guidelines Site layout, materials, architectural detailing and other characteristics Knoxville, Tennessee Infill Housing Design Guidelines Site layout, parking, materials, building scale, porches, roof shapes, landscaping, etc.
Create standards that are

Detailed and specific e.g. require specific architectural details General and less specific, evaluating general fit with the neighborhood e.g. based on existing conditions on that block

List of Possible Items Covered by Design Standards: Splitting large lots into two narrower lots
Building and front faade height Setbacks Size and front setbacks for porches Location of front door and walkway to street Size and position of windows Location of garage or parking area Roof shape Location and height of additions Design of multi-unit buildings / townhomes Standards for modern architecture homes

Would you be comfortable with regulations about the design of projects in your neighborhood and on your property? What kinds of projects should design standards apply to? (e.g. all projects, projects of a certain size, only infill special permit projects, other ideas?) What aspects of design are important to you?
Site design (e.g. how close houses are to each other, how buildings relate to the street) Or building design (e.g. roof shape, window placement and size, porches, architecture)
How d t il d should the d i standards b ? H detailed h ld th design t d d be? Should design standards be proscriptive? In other words, the standards will detail what applicants can and can't do. OR Should it be left up to the applicant to make a case for how their project "fits" into the neighborhood? Applications would be reviewed by staff or a board who would have some discretion to make subjective decisions.
10
Fall 2010
Rezoning King Street for a Sustainable Future
The Zoning Revisions Committee (ZRC)

Who We Are
- A volunteer committee, appointed by the Planning Board - Formed to help implement Sustainable Northampton (th S t i bl N th t (the citys comprehensive master plan adopted in 2008) - Selected to represent a variety of viewpoints, expertise and neighborhoods.

King Street Process

The Zoning Revisions Committee received a new zoning proposal from the Chamber of Commerce We are seeking community input to help review the proposal and develop recommendations Tonights Goal
Get public input about changing the zoning on King Street with the Chamber Proposal as a starting point for discussion
After this forum, the ZRC will: Formulate recommendations for zoning changes
Continue discussions with key stakeholders and focus groups Conduct additional public forums Present recommendations to Planning Board Ultimately, City Council votes on zoning changes

King Street Forum Presentation
Fall 2010
How Zoning Shapes King St

Zoning sets parameters for how land can be used
Site design
`
Infrastructure vs. Zoning

Road infrastructure is typically in the public realm and is not controlled by zoning.
Building height
Building design Uses
Parking
Good streetscape requires investments from government Private developers can affect infrastructure on a site by site basis site-by-site Infrastructure improvements and zoning need to work together Public road infrastructure projects can include: - width of street
- number of lanes - on-stret bike lanes - medians - crosswalks - sidewalks - utility poles - tree belts (between street and sidewalk) - speed of traffic - amount of traffic
Zoning doesnt MAKE development happen.

Development will not occur unless there is a market for it.
Uses
Sustainability and King St.

Sustainability
If you keep on doing it, you can keep on doing it Environment, Economy, Equity
What is King Street Good for?

King St. is one of Northamptons best locations for:
- mixed-use infill development - goods and services within walking distance of dense residential neighborhoods
ZRC Goals for King St.

More types of businesses Bike and pedestrian friendly Buildings fit with local character Concentrate development on King St to reduce sprawl Businesses that strengthen the local economy Less unused parking, better stormwater mgmt Buildings built to last
- large footprint businesses - transportation connectivity (pedestrian, bike, auto, train, bus) - generating property taxes - providing an attractive gateway into the city
Fall 2010
Opportunities & Constraints

Opportunities
Residential neighborhoods wrap around southern and western King St. Cars, buses, pedestrians and cyclists travel King St. In the future, a multi-modal station with commuter rail may be sited on lower King St St.
Whats Wrong with (North) King St?

Streetscape is not pedestrian or bike-friendly Most buildings erode Northamptons sense of place Site design is inconsistent Large areas of unused parking Not achieving economic potential
Constraints
Railroad tracks, Industrial Park, and Barrett St. Marsh limit access to King St High land prices
Design Comparison - CVS
Design Comparison Sherwin-Williams Paints
Sidewalks 10 buffer with trees Shade, benches 55 setback Clear path to front door 20-25 streetfront building height
Sidewalks 14 setback No buffer Traverse parking lot to building 10 - 15 streetfront bldg height (image flipped horizontally for comparison to CVS)
Fall 2010
Design Comparison Honda
Design Comparison Athletic Club
Sidewalks 40 buffer with trees and landscaping 85 setback Clear path to front door 25 streetfront bldg height
Sidewalks Single tree belt 59 Setback No front entrance to building 25-30 building height Sidewalks Sidewalks belt (not shown) Single tree TreeSetback 59 belt 59 setback No front entrance to building No frontbuilding height 25-30 entrance to building 15 streetfront bldg height
Design Comparison - Toyota
Design Comparison Fire Station
(image flipped horizontally for comparison to CVS)
Sidewalks 10 buffer with trees, bench No shade 55 setback Clear path to front door 30-35 streetfront bldg height
Sidewalks Tree belt and buffer with trees Benches, deep shade 29 Setback No front entrance to building 25-40 streetfront bldg height
Fall 2010
ZRC Sustainability Goals for King St.

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 Northamptons economy Reduce excess parking and improve stormwater management Encourage buildings that are built to last Make zoning easier to understand and enforce
Emerging Consensus
The ZRC agrees that revised zoning should.
Reduce the number of uses requiring special permits
to encourage more types of businesses on King Street
Develop detailed landscaping requirements

to make King St greener, more uniform, and more pedestrian friendly
Establish multiple zoning districts to

respond to different characters along King Street begin phased transition to pedestrian/bike-oriented development
Entranceway Business (between CBD and Bike Path)

The ZRC agrees that this zone should be established Considerations:
Where should the zone begin (Trumbull, North, Finn)? Should design standards be implemented? pp p Would this zone also be appropriate between Damon Road and Barrett St?
Summer St. North St. St Bike Path Crossing
Highway Business Changes (Section Views)

Existing Zoning
Finn St. 2 story building no parking in front 55 max setback 1 row of parking in front
Chambers Proposed Zoning
Trumbull Rd. wider sidewalk green Buffer parking location and quantity varies building location & orientation varies
Infill Development (Framingham MA)
Fall 2010
Highway Business Changes

Possible Results (Economic Impacts)
Development on King St. may proceed faster than if zoning is not changed There may be increases in tax revenue

Possible Results (Streetscape Impacts)
Wider sidewalk, tree belt, landscape buffer New buildings may be built further from the sidewalk, may be oriented away from the street Potentially more parking in front of buildings
Considerations
Will a desirable mix of uses be achieved? Is there concern over national retail chain development? Long-term economic effects are difficult to predict
Stop & Shop is oriented at an angle, not towards (parallel to) the street

Considerations (Green Buffer & Path)
Will the green buffer provide an adequate pedestrian experience? How long will it take to be established? Will the multi-use trail be safe for bicyclists? What can we do to minimize conflicts between automobiles and bicyclists?
Bike sidepath along University Drive p g y (The Swift Bikeway Connector)

Considerations (Second Story)
Should the incentive for building multistory buildings be abandoned?
Former strip mall, Saratoga Springs, NY
Amherst, MA
0 setback
Uniform treeline along strip development Fairly mature trees 20-30 yrs old? Renton, VA Uniform treeline along strip development Fairly mature trees 15-20 yrs old? Poughkeepsie, NY Berm in front of parking Ellicott, NY
284 setback
Illustration of a multi-story building on King St.
Strong Ave, Northampton
Fall 2010

Considerations (Site Layout)
Should the goal of framing the street with tall buildings and small setbacks be abandoned? Does the distance between the sidewalk and buildings matter? From a car? From the sidewalk? g Does the orientation of buildings to the sidewalk matter?
55 setback

Considerations (Parking)
Does amount of parking between the sidewalk and buildings matter? Does the placement of parking matter (front?, side? rear?)
One row of parking
85 setback
284 setback Oriented at an angle
Two rows of parking
Many parking spots
Highway Business Changes (Design Standards)

Considerations (Design Standards)
Should we improve building and landscape design standards in this district? What should they be?
Hill & Dale as It Is
Staples
Wickford, RI (left) Wakefield RI (right)
Monro Muffler
Saranac Lake, NY (left) Dublin, Ohio (right)
Fall 2010
Hill & Dale as It Might Be Under Chamber Proposal (with Buffer)
Buffer + Smaller Setback + Design Standards
Smaller Landscaped Buffer & Setback
Very Small Setback + Taller Building
Fall 2010
What Should the future of King St. Zoning be?

Questions for Discussion
General
What is working on King St.? What do you want King St. to be in the future (e.g. walkable, more retail, car-oriented)? What is your biggest concern about King St.? Should the current zoning on King Street be changed? Why? Does the idea of zoning different sections of King Street differently make sense? Is a landscaped buffer between the sidewalk and buildings or parking desirable? Are building design standards important? Should more uses (e.g. medical offices, professional offices, banks) be allowed by right?
Specific
Where should the different zoning district break points be? (Trumbull, North, Finn, Stop and Shop, Barrett, Damon) Should the penalty for retail projects without a second story be eliminated? Is there concern over national retail chain development? Should the current zoning requirements about building and parking placement and orientation be changed?

Zoning Revisions Committee Final Report - July 7 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zoning Revisions Committee Final Report - July 7 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

April 29, 2011 Planning Board City of Northampton 210 Main Street, Room 11, City Hall Northampton,

There are significant organizational and readability issues

Zoning Revisions Process

Summary of Preliminary Northampton Zoning Analysis: Content

Preliminary Northampton Zoning Analysis: Organization and Readability

March 30, 2011

Dear Members of the Zoning Revision Commission,

Lilly Lombard Executive Director

6. ProvideGuidanceandMakeImprovementsthatMakeZoningEasiertoUnderstand SeeAdditionalRecommendationsRegardingNonconformingPropertiesandMakingZoningEasierto Understandattheendofthisdocument.

Doesnotincludecomparisontoclusterdevelopmentprovisions ItwasdeterminedthatestablishingarangeismostdifficultinURBduetothewiderangeofURBneighborhood characteristics.Arangeofapproximately8feetto12feet,20feetormorewaspreviouslyconsidered.

Parking and Transportation Committee Infill Parking Plan

Summaries of Public Input From Forums

Rezoning Northampton for a Sustainable Future

Rezoning Northampton for a Sustainable Future

street trees open space requirement

signs landscaping parking

Public Forum #1 Presentation

Rezoning Northampton for a Sustainable Future

This meeting is part of a long-term planning process

Northampton begins work on Sustainable Northampton Plan

Sustainable Northampton Plan adopted

ZRCs 1st Public Forum

ZRC suggests changes

Zoning revisions help make city more sustainable

Review current zoning & recommend revisions

Be a technical resource for the Planning Board

The ZRCs Process

The ZRCs Process

Northampton begins work on Sustainable Northampton Plan

Sustainable Northampton Plan adopted

ZRCs 1st Public Forum

ZRC suggests changes

Zoning revisions help make city more sustainable

Northampton begins work on Sustainable Northampton Plan

Sustainable Northampton Plan adopted

ZRCs 1st Public Forum

ZRC suggests changes

Zoning revisions help make city more sustainable

Analysis and Information Gathering

1st Public Forum (Were here!)

Public Forum #1 Presentation

The ZRCs Process

The ZRCs Process

Northampton begins work on Sustainable Northampton Plan

Sustainable Northampton Plan adopted

ZRCs 1st Public Forum

ZRC suggests changes

Zoning revisions help make city more sustainable

Northampton begins work on Sustainable Northampton Plan

Sustainable Northampton Plan adopted

ZRCs 1st Public Forum

ZRC suggests changes

Zoning revisions help make city more sustainable

ZRC Makes Recommendations

Sustainable Northampton Plan Relevant Guiding Principles

Translating Sustainability Goals into Zoning Goals

(Environment, Economy, Equity)

Sustainable Land Use

Sustainable Land Use in Northampton

Public Forum #1 Presentation

Sustainable Northamptons Future Land Use Map

Where should future development happen?

Traditional Neighborhoods Mixed-use Commercial Centers