Loading...
ZRC 2009 Agenda and Minutes Planning Board May 6, 2009 Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Agenda 1. Public comment 2. Discussion with Chris Mason, Northampton energy officer, about green community initiatives 3. Discuss our goals and priorities: - How and when to involve the community - How the goals of the Sustainability Plan can be translated into zoning in a more general sense - How the zoning change list in the Sustainability Plan relates to both the Sustainability Plan and the priorities for zoning revision overall. 4. Update from Dillon Sussman on the web site 5. Discuss the scope of meeting minutes 6. Review the prioritized list of zoning changes from the Sustainability Plan Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting May 20, 2009 7:00p.m. 1st Floor, Memorial Hall, Northampton* Agenda 1. Public comment 2. Continue discussion of the web site 3. Follow up on any open issues for the Green Building initiatives 4. Review the prioritized list of zoning changes from the Planning Board 5. Discuss possible inclusion/integration of Notre Dame Report Envisioning Sustainable Northampton *The meeting will be held in Memorial Hall in the old Council On Aging space. Memorial Hall is between Pulaski Park and the Unitarian Society Building on Main Street in Northampton. To get to the space, enter the building from the side door facing the Unitarian Society building. Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting June 3, 2009 7:00 PM City Council Chambers 220 Main St AGENDA 1. Public comment 2. Finalize discussion of possible zoning changes 3. Discuss types of infill (develop open space vs modifying existing structures) 4. Discuss a public meeting for June. This would be our first invitation to the general public for comment and feedback. 5. Discuss preferences for setting up subcommittees for in depth research on zoning items. Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Date: June 17, 2009 Agenda Time: 7:00 P.M. Place: Hearing Room 18, City Hall 210 Main St Agenda 1. Public comment 2. Notre Dame concepts- Joel Russell 3. Watershed Protection mapping change 4. Driveway grading 5. Subcommittee assignments 6. Subcommittee process 7. Summer Meeting Schedule Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting July 15, 2009 Agenda City Council Chambers, Municipal Building 220 Main St 7:00 PM Public Comment Period- open Zoning Ordinance Review- Joel Russell Discussion of Committee Assignments & Priorities- All: Urban Agriculture Housing Options Cluster Rewrite Energy Design Transportation Other Items- Minutes Planning Board Agenda Zoning Revisions Committee public input session about Urban Agriculture. September 14, 2009 Members of the Zoning Revisions Committee will be meeting with the public to discuss modifications and changes to current regulations around chickens and livestock. The meeting with be held in Hearing Room 18 on the second floor of City Hall. Our agenda is very brief but likely require further discussion and another meeting. 1. First and foremost, backyard chickens. We would like to discuss increasing the number of allowable birds and explore ways to modify regulations around chickens in urban settings. 2. If the chicken issues can be adequately resolved, we would like to begin discussion around other livestock. Goats have specifically been mentioned. Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Sept 16, 2009 Agenda Bridge Street School Cafeteria 7:00 PM 1. Public comment 2. Brief Reports from subcommittees a. Urban ag b. Cluster rewrite c. Energy d. Housing 3. Meeting locations and schedule 4. Discussion of design and zoning revision process issues Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting October 7, 2009 Agenda Bridge Street School Cafeteria 7:00 PM 1. Public comment 2. Analysis of current Northampton Zoning Ordinance a. Overview and walk-through (Joel) b. Map and zoning district issues (Dillon) c. Barriers to infill (Danielle) d. Rural and design issues (Joel) e. Translating sustainability goals into zoning (Joel) 3. Next steps Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting October 28, 2009 Agenda City Council Chambers 7:00 PM 1. Public comment 2. Announcements a. November 12 meeting with Planning Board on design issues b. Future meetings and staffing 3. Subcommittee check-in 4. Analysis of current Northampton Zoning Ordinance a. Finish presentation on barriers to infill (Danielle) b. Finish overview (Joel) c. Translating sustainability goals into zoning (Joel) 5. Task list a. Public input forum b. Subcommittee reports c. Final product and timeline Planning Board ZRC Agenda Wednesday, November 4, 2009 Bridge Street School Cafeteria 7:00 PM 1. Public comment 2. Subcommittee reports 3. Planning for a public input session in January; set date, create agenda and outreach process 4. Discussion of what ZRC’s “production process” and timeline will be 5. Discussion of geographic demonstration/study areas Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting November 18, 2009 Agenda Room 11, City Hall (Wayne Feiden's office) 5:30 – 7:30 PM 5:30 PM 1. Public comment 2. Subcommittee Reports a. Energy b. Urban Agriculture c. Cluster d. Housing 3. Review of Planning Board Design Meeting 6:00 PM 4. King Street Presentation by Wayne Feiden 6:30 PM 5. Future Work Plan Discussion: Setting Goals and a Timeline Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Dec 2, 2009 Agenda Room 11, City Hall 5:30 - 7:30 PM 1. Public comment 2. Announcements 3. Meeting Schedule for January - March 4. Subcommittee check-in (1/2 hour) 5. Reach consensus on process and time frames going forward 6. Task list for follow-up Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting December 16, 2009 Room 11, City Hall (Office of Planning and Development) 5:30 PM 1. Public comment 2. Subcommittee check-in 3. Planning for February 10, 2010 public forum a. goals b. format c. agenda d. division of labor e. task list Planning Board ZONING REVISIONS COMMITTEE Minutes of April 1, 2009 Meeting 7 PM, Human Resources Conference Room, Memorial Hall 240 Main St, Northampton Members Present • Dennis Bidwell • Steve Gilson • Danielle Kahn • Adin Maynard • Peter McLean • Jim Nash Joel Russell Dillon Sussman Tom Weiner Office of Planning and Development Staff Carolyn Misch • Wayne Feiden 7:10 PM Stephen Gilson opened meeting. Public Comment: Owen Freeman Daniels discussed his recommendations for Zoning Revisions Committee priorities. Wayne Feiden presented a Powerpoint on the legal and institutional structure for zoning and specific aspects of Northampton zoning. The board had extensive discussion during the presentation. Stephen Gilson suggested that the next meeting could focus heavily on reviewing the Planning Board’s priorities for zoning revisions, green communities issues, and zoning changes that may be introduced soon to effectively reduce staffing demands during the permitting process. Stephen announced that the committee would meet next on May 6th. The Committee decided to cancel the 4-15 meeting. The next meeting will be May 6 in the OLD Council on Aging Space in Memorial Hall. Meetings for May and June will be held in the old COA space unless Council Chambers schedule changes. The committee adjourned at 9:10 PM. Planning Board ZONING REVISIONS COMMITTEE Minutes of June 3, 2009 7 PM, City Council Chambers 210 Main St, Northampton Members Present Dennis Bidwell • Steve Gilson • Danielle Kahn • Adin Maynard • Peter McLean • Jim Nash Joel Russell • Dillon Sussman • Tom Weiner Office of Planning and Development Staff • Carolyn Misch Wayne Feiden 7 PM--Stephen Gilson opened the meeting with public comment. Lilly Lombard, Munroe St, Northampton asked about adding priority to the workplan for zoning amendment related to small farm animals within core neighborhoods, particularly looking at increasing the number of fowl allowed. The committee discussed the revised work plan, made modifications and additions and discussed possible distribution of subcommittee work for the prioritized items. Possible subcommittee groupings (to be further discussed at June 17 mtg) were determined as follows: Agriculture: Adin, Danielle, Jim Housing Options: Peter, Dillon, Steve, Tom Cluster Rewrite: Peter, Steve, Dennis Energy: Adin, Dennis, Tom Design: Left open to determine if this should be a whole committee project or a subcommittee. The Committee discussed agenda items for the June 17 meeting and the summer meeting schedule. Jim volunteered to draft an introductory letter welcoming citizens to the ZRC website and email address. 9 PM adjourn. Planning Board MINUTES FOR JULY 15, 2009 ZONING REVISIONS COMMITTEE Attending: Carolyn Misch, Danielle Kahn, Joel Russell, Adin Maynard, Dillon Sussman, Peter McLean, Jim Nash, Stephen Gilson, Dennis Bidwell, Tom Weiner 1. Public Comment – Elissa Alford spoke to urge the committee to consider zoning regulations to permit ownership of small goats in Northampton 2. Joel Russell offered to conduct a review of the current Zoning Ordinance in order to determine what is contained therein and to present his findings to us at a meeting in Sept. Dillon will lend support to this effort 3. Sub-committees were discussed and formed. The purposes of these sub-committees are to review current zoning, research other communities, bring ideas forth to discuss with whole committee and eventually with public. Can meet with interested others as well – developers, Chamber of Commerce, etc… Committees are: Cluster Rewrite - Joel and Stephen Urban Agriculture – Danielle, Adin and Jim Housing Options – Peter, Dillon, Tom Energy – Dennis and Adin The Design/Performance work will be undertaken by a committee of the whole and will commence at the August 19th meeting when Carolyn will: * review zoning on King and Conz/Pleasant Sts. * Discuss resulting development and lack/thereof * Lead into design discussion Future Meeting schedule: 1st and 3rd Wednesdays in fall Wednesday, Aug. 19th – Carolyn presentation and Design/Perfomance discussion Wednesday, Sept. 2nd – Joel presentation on current zoning Wednesday, Sept. 16th – possibly David Narkiewicz on transportation issues/ideas Wednesday, Oct. 7th Wednesday, Oct. 21st Wednesday, Nov. 4th Wednesday, Nov. 18th Wednesday, Dec. 2nd Meeting ended with sub-committees scheduling meetings. Planning Board MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 2, 2009 ZONING REVISION COMMITTEE Attending: Joel, Wayne, Jim, Stephen, Tom, Danielle, Adin, Peter, Stephen 1. Public Comment – None 2. Presentation on Infill Development by Joel Showed examples using photos taken by Aaron Helfand in Saratoga NY, Storrs CT, West Hartford CT, Mashpee MA, and Holyoke MA. Comments from public and zoning committee members: • Good to consider street trees, planters, greenery • Why is the Hospital Hill Development having trouble, compared to examples shown? • Most of projects in presentation were developer driven, not city driven • Many examples Joel showed are fairly retail driven • Discussion continued 3. Subcommittee Reports a. Urban Agriculture – Jim and Danielle Urban Agriculture Public Meeting on Chickens and Other Livestock: Scheduled for 9/14, 7 p.m. Hearing Room 18. Issues to be addressed in increasing residential livestock allowances: Noise, stink, water pollution. We have had discussions with USDA about water pollution issues. Solutions include: density limits based on type of livestock/waste generated, vegetated buffers, nutrient management. Other considerations: permitting, enforcement. Larger urban agriculture issues that could be addressed in future: Community gardens (siting/zoning), commercial farms (how to support), supplementary income (allowing sale of residentially produced agricultural products), fertilizer and pesticide application (water pollution) Future meeting to be held with farmers in the Meadows area. b. Cluster Rewrite - Joel and Stephen Cluster ordinance in need of significant revisions. Will be meeting with landowners, developers, residents, and civic associations to collect input. Cluster developments are the predominant model for subdivision development in Northampton. Considerations: make sure protected land has real resource value; reconsider (perhaps reduce) overall development density allowed to increase land preservation (i.e. Shutesbury’s regulations now allow only one unit per 5 acres); consider subtracting out wetlands, etc. from base acreage (used to calculate number of units that can be developed); increase flexibility for developers as well as protections for environment Strategy: focus on larger parcels outside the city, since that is where most cluster development is being done; maximize land preservation; tighten clusters; make ordinance more design driven and less driven by arbitrary dimensional requirements (i.e. lot size, frontage), make ordinance easier to understand c. Energy – Adin and Dennis Northampton is meeting Green Communities Act requirements and will be adopting the stretch code. Other committees/staff are working on this. Older houses are a big issue, since they mostly will not be affected by the new stretch code. Possible zoning strategy: incentivize energy efficient retrofits with density bonuses. Energy subcommittee needs to meet with Housing subcommittee to discuss this. Question: What about new construction, can we incentivize greater energy efficiency with density bonuses here too? Yes, can look at that too. Looking into possibility of tax based finance system for energy efficiency improvements. City loans money to homeowner (funding could be a grant, bond, etc.), and homeowner pays back loan through additional property tax assessment. Loan tied to the house not the individual. Works like a “betterment assessment” (often used for infrastructure improvements) d. Housing - Peter, Dillon, Tom Subcommittee has been fact finding. Combed through sustainability plan to understand issues and how they relate to zoning. Issues: affordable/inclusionary zoning, parking, density, mixed use Will be meeting with Housing Partnership Wayne: Housing needs assessment to be completed for the city in December; city is exploring with PVPC different zoning models for inclusionary housing; report will be presented to the Planning Board and ZRC members on October 22. Could housing subcomittee play a role in integrating various development constraints (i.e. affordable housing, conservation, etc.) and work of the subcommittees? 4. Election of Chair and Vice Chair To serve until end of two year committee term. Chair: Adin nominates Dylan. Tom nominates Joel (accepts) Joel is elected chair Vice Chair: Jim nominates Dennis Adin nominates Danielle (accepts) Danielle is elected vice chair 5. Future Meetings Discussion of schedule options. 1. Keep Wednesday and find alternate downtown location, i.e. Bridge Street School; 2 Change meetings to another day Decision to stick with Wednesday and find another location. Joel to discuss with Carolyn. Next Meeting: September 16th Joel/Dillon Review of Zoning Ordinance postponed to October Next steps for Design/Performance to be addressed next meeting. Joel to bring material to help structure discussion of design conversation Next meeting will also include subcommittee reports Planning Board MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 MEETING OF THE ZONING REVISION COMMITTEE Attending: Joel Russell, Tom Weiner, Danielle Kahn, Peter McLean, Jim Nash, Steve Gilson, Dillon Sussman, Dennis Bidwell Absent: Adin Maynard 1. Public Comment. Jerry Budgar, President of Ward 3 Neighborhood Association, asked the Committee to consider two recommendations. The first was that the City adopt a formal policy of notifying affected property owners when zoning changes are proposed. The second was to recommend preparation of an easy-to-understand guide to the City’s zoning code. The Committee’s discussion of the first recommendation included the potential cost of implementing such a notification process, especially for proposed zoning changes that would affect the entire City. Ben Spencer sought clarification of City policy on notification of abutters in the case of a special permit application. He was told that City policy is to notify abutters within 300’ of the affected property. 2. Report from the Urban Agriculture Subcommittee. Jim Nash and Danielle Kahn reported on a meeting the previous Monday to solicit input on possible zoning changes pertaining to chickens and other animals. They later submitted a full report, which is attached to these minutes. 3. Report from the Cluster Rewrite Subcommittee. Steve Gilson reported that he and Joel had had several meetings, where most people believed that the cluster development discussion should be divided between rural clusters and infill clusters. They submitted a full report, which is attached to these minutes. 4. Report from the Energy Subcommittee. Dennis Bidwell reported that attempts were still underway to arrange a meeting with Carolyn Misch, Chris Mason and Tony Patillo to discuss coordination of the work of the Energy and Sustainability Commission, the Building Department, and the Energy Subcommittee (Dennis and Adin) of the Zoning Revisions Committee. He also reported that it would make sense to confer with the Housing Subcommittee on the matter of possible density bonuses and expedited approvals for existing residential structures that undertake deep energy retrofits. There is potential to address the goal of increased residential density in core areas while at the same time making a dent in the problem of energy efficiency issues in existing residential structures. He also reported continuing interest in looking at the possibilities for a deep energy finance program in Northampton. 5. Report from the Housing Subcommittee. Dillon Sussman described a meeting planned for October 22 of the Planning Board and the Housing Subcommittee of the ZRC, and discussed the live/work space issue. He and Tom and Peter later submitted a full report, which is attached to these minutes. 6. Future ZRC meetings. The group agreed to keep ZRC meetings on the 1st and 3rd Wednesday of the month, at 7 pm. Due to lack of meeting space on those nights in the City Hall complex, meetings will continue to be at Bridge Street School. (Note: Subsequent to this meeting, it was learned that City Council chambers will be available for the ZRC’s Oct. 28 meeting.) The October 7 meeting of the ZRC will be at 7 pm at Bridge Street School. 7. Restructuring the Subcommittees? Joel raised the possibility of restructuring the ZRC’s subcommittees. Pros and cons of the existing subcommittee structure were discussed. The group also discussed whether the ZRC should act as a committee-of- the-whole to use a particular area of the City as a laboratory for bringing together the ideas generated by all of the subcommittees. The Conz Street neighborhood was cited as one possibility. No consensus was reached on this matter. 8. Design discussion. The Committee turned its attention to a memo distributed by Joel about the meaning of “design” for purposes of the work of the ZRC. A lengthy discussion followed about City-wide land use patterns vs. streetscale and corridor scale neighborhood design issues vs. the architecture of specific buildings. There was also discussion about whether to use the guiding principles of the Sustainable Northampton plan as a jumping off point in going forward, or whether fresh attempts should be made to define sustainability before proceeding with zoning revision work. There was also continuing discussion of selecting an area of the City to serve as a “laboratory” for integrating areas. Or, would we need to develop as many as six different model areas, recognizing the six different types of land use area identified in the SN report? No consensus was reached on these matters. 9. Plans for the Oct. 7 meeting. Joel and Danielle will review for the Committee the City’s existing zoning ordinance at the Oct. 7 meeting. Committee members are encouraged to bring their copies of the ordinance to that meeting. Time will also be set aside on Oct. 7 to continue the discussion of the Committee’s next steps. Wayne will be asked to present to the whole Committee his proposal that the Conz St. corridor/neighborhood be considered as a laboratory for integrating the various ideas coming from the subcommittees. Future meetings. The ZRC will meet jointly with the Planning Board on October 22 at 7 pm. The October 28 meeting of the ZRC will include further discussion of the laboratory idea. 10. Audience comments. Ben Spencer expressed frustration that attendance at ZRC meetings was not greater. He also suggested that visuals like the maps used at tonight’s meeting be displayed vertically, so that audience members would not have to walk 5 or 6 feet to view them displayed horizontally. The meeting was adjourned at roughly 9 pm. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Bidwell Urban Agriculture Subcommittee Status Update September 16, 2009 Submitted by Jim Nash and Danielle Kahn The Urban Agriculture Subcommittee held a public meeting on Monday, September 17th. A number of citizens and representatives of groups such as the Pioneer Valley Backyard Chickens Association and the Western Massachusetts Goat Alliance attended. Overall, the meeting enjoyed a good turn out. Most of the attendees came to support increasing the number of allowable hens on residential properties. There was much discussion about the requirements for raising livestock in an urban setting, as well as discussion about how to minimize nuisances and environmental impacts. There seemed to be an informal consensus that 6 is an arbitrary number, and that we should consider allowing larger numbers. Future steps: Focusing for the time being on chickens, consolidate all the information collected to date, research additional zoning examples in cities similar in size to Northampton, convene a second public meeting to help make decisions on what the new allowances and requirements will be. Cluster Subcommittee Report for September 16, 2009 Submitted by Steve Gilson and Joel Russell Joel and I had several meetings in the last two weeks to discuss the current zoning ordinances. The people interviewed agreed that splitting cluster development into two areas, rural and infill, made sense. Much of the discussion centered on infill projects, and differentiating infill between new construction and renovations to existing structures. For example, there was a general consensus that the zoning is too restrictive when creating infill renovations because of: • Parking requirements • Restrictions on converting single to multi-family houses • Lot size requirements for multi-family houses • Frontage requirements for multi-family houses For cluster development, there was also agreement that the existing zoning is too complicated for determining the buildable area for open-space calculations, percent of area to be protected, and density. There was general agreement that cluster development was the best approach to developing in the more rural parts of the town, but there was a sense that it was not working as well as it could. Some options discussed with rural cluster were: • Changing the density requirements in SR/RR to reduce the allowed density in clusters • Increasing the ANR frontage required in SR/RR and reducing the required frontage for clusters • Restricting ridge-top development in clusters or any other development • Increasing the minimum lot sizes of single family ANR lots in RR/SR • Simplifying the cluster regulations, especially with respect to which land can be included as open space • Little incentive to developers to building different types of clusters (Steve: it’s not clear to me what this means) What’s next We will continue our meetings to gather feedback. At some point we may want to hold a community forum on cluster and other issues relating to open space in the outlying areas. Infill cluster issues may tie in more with housing and design. ZRC Housing Subcommittee Status Update September 16, 2009 Submitted by Dillon Sussman, Peter McLean and Tom Weiner 1. We met with Wayne and got a good introduction to housing and zoning in the city. 2. The city is currently engaged in two projects to assess housing needs. These projects will give us a clearer picture of what housing needs really are in the city. (now: OPD knows what we have, but not what we need). a. Housing needs assessment by outside consultant b. PVPC-Asked to collect models from around country. PVPC will report to Planning Board on October 22. Hoping that City Council and Zoning Revisions committee will also attend. Next Step: meet with Peg Keller re Housing Needs Assessment Next Step: Attend Oct 22 meeting 3. Housing occupies a majority of the zoning document so changes to it are a different scale of project than the other subcommittees' work. We're having some difficulty wrapping our heads around the complexity, but its a good opportunity to learn the zoning, etc. 4. We’ve reviewed the Housing section of Sustainable Northampton in detail. We’ve synthesized broad goals from Sustainable Northampton that we agree should be basis of change to Zoning re housing: • minimize development in outlying areas of city • concentrate development in traditional (pre 1950?) neighborhoods, especially within 1/2 mile of basic services and commercial areas (retail, schools, workplaces, etc) • provide a range of housing. Unit types (single family, 2 family, 3 family, multifamily, townhouse, cottages). Unit sizes (sq ft, # of bedrooms). Ownership, rental, condo, SRO. Range of affordability (Affordable=80% of median income. Typical homes are at 150% of median income in Northampton. So we also need to be creating conditions for homes between 80-150% of median income. Wayne calls this "workforce housing.") • Facilitate walkable mixed-use neighborhoods. Mixed use=mixed housing, retail, workplace, services. 5. We’ve reviewed the Zoning for topics that were in the "workplan" given to us by planning board. Below is an outline of our findings. a. Live/work Space Presumably this means "mixed residential/work space", implies artist space, which Sustainable Northampton mentions repeatedly. Should we expand consideration of “Live/work” to look at mixed-use more broadly? Curent Zoning has four categories of mixed-use • Mixed residential/work (aka Live/work? See definition) Not allowed in Residential Zones, except URC Not allowed in PV, M, GU, BP, SC Allowed if Planning Board approval in URC (above first floor) and HB Allowed in CB, GB, NG, and SI • Mixed residential/retail commercial (see 350 Attachment 1:2) Not allowed in Residential Zones, except URC Not Allowed in Medical (M), Industrial (GI, SI), Business Park (BP), Conservancy (SC) Allowed if Planning Board approval in URC (allowed on all floors but limited to professional and business offices, except--banking, real eastate and insurance offices or retail, personal and consumer service establishments, medical doctors, dentists or chiropractors. Allowed in Business except PV. Can be mixed within building and unit. Can be on any floor except in NB where it must be above first floor • Home office (see 350-10.12) allowed in Residential zones, Business (except PV), SI, BP, SC Not allowed in PV, M GI • Home occupation (see 350-10.12) Not allowed in PV, M, GI, SC Allowed with ZBA special permit in Residential Zones, HB, SI, BP Allowed in CB, GB, NB Thoughts: • Info about mixed-use is scattered throughout Zoning document. Some info is in definitions, some in special permits, some in table of uses. It’s difficult to find it all. • There are political challenges with expanding mixed/use aka live/work. Work can bring traffic, noise, fumes, etc. • Site plan review can/should demonstrate that there will not be adverse effects on neighbors due to noise, fumes, etc (through sound proofing, air filtration, etc). So possibly can eliminate concerns about onsite problems with live/work space. • Traffic/Parking issues are more difficult to prevent. Parking is the main driver behind current limitations to mixed-use. There is especially concern about businesses that frequently have clients visit their office (e.g. doctors, laywers, therapists) Next Steps: • Investigate organizing Zoning so that all information about mixed-use to one section of the zoning code. Explicitly state the goals/purpose • Dig deeper into conflicts between desire to create walkable mixed-use city and desire for separation of uses. • Identify areas of city that may be most appropriate for live/work space • Look at special permit requirements for mixed-use in more detail. b. TDR currently limited to transfers from FFR to PV was created as a one-off and has limited applicability Wayne is dubious of expansion- sending areas are easy, receiving are more difficult Next Steps: Need to look into other situations where TDR might be useful. For example might consider expanding from RR to URB & URC. Or within zones to facilitate densification? c. Inclusionary Housing 3 most effective zoning actions thus far according to Wayne • waivers in subdivision developments for developer to provide affordable housing • accessory apartments • 2-family homes – creates market rate affordable units, but more 2 family to 1 family happening Wayne says there is currently no clear policy approach for affordable housing. Right now, its easy to do affordable housing, but its not mandated to do it. Do we want to make it mandatory? Eg. If we want development on King St. – should we require inclusionary housing. Or if on Ryan Rd., should there be inclusionary housing if there must be development… How important is credit to us under 40B Next steps: ??? d. range of housing/ aka infill big topic, we haven't tackled this yet. e. Other Housing related topics from Wayne Consider starting with changes to Conz Street to look at a potential mixed use more directly. Consider moving district boundary lines where appropriate Consider tweaking dimensional standards to facilitate infill, etc. (especially frontage requirements) Next steps: • Discuss focusing on an area with ZRC committee • Investigate moving district boundaries/areas. • Identify areas where where Zoning don’t seem to make sense (Conz, lower King; Route 9 from Pomeroy Terrace to Hawley St). • Focused investigation of current dimensional standards. Planning Board MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 7, 2009 MEETING OF THE ZONING REVISISON COMMITTEE Attending: Joel Russell, Tom Weiner, Danielle Kahn, Steve Gilson, Dillon Sussman, Dennis Bidwell, Peter McLean, staff representative Wayne Feiden. Absent: Adin Maynard, Jim Nash 1. There were no public comments. 2. Discussion of Northampton’s current Zoning Ordinance. Joel, Dillon and Danielle presented an overview or Northampton’s zoning ordinance in three parts. Joel discussed the ordinance itself as a document and how to navigate through it when seeking information. Dillon presented a series of maps of Northampton illustrating various aspects of Northampton’s zoning. Dillon contrasted those maps with the future land use map which reflects the goals of the sustainability plan from Sustainable Northampton. Danielle looked at issues surrounding infill and barriers to pursuing infill when working with current zoning ordinance. Part 1. Joel used the attached document titled Elements of Zoning as an outline for his presentation. Joel prefaced his presentation by posing the questions, where could the ordinance be more easily understandable and usable and secondly where could the ordinance be more supportive of sustainability? It was noted that the copies of the zoning ordinance that committee members were given are not current. Wayne said the planning department is no longer attempting to keep paper copies as the current ordinance is available on line at the city’s website. Part 2 Dillon presented a series of zoning maps of Northampton illustrating the fifteen zoning districts and their locations. Current zoning boundaries as shown on the maps, and explained by the ordinance’s text and tables, regulate the land use allowed in each district. As land use is currently defined for each district, mixed land use is discouraged. One way Dillon illustrated this was by drawing boundaries around each business district reaching a ¼ mile. The ¼ mile represented a reasonable walking distance. Areas not within the ¼ mile boundary were not within a ¼ mile walk to basic services like convenience stores, restaurants, grocery stores. A significant portion of the land currently zoned residential did not fall within the ¼ mile boundaries. Having zoning that does not allow for, or at least make it easier for businesses to exist within a ¼ mile of residential areas runs contrary to the objectives of the sustainability plan. Dillon also applied the ¼ mile walking boundaries to the future land use map from Sustainable Northampton. This illustrated that much more of the residentially zoned areas were within the ¼ mile boundaries, but there was still a significant portion of residential land that was not. Dillon also used two maps to illustrate how zoning districts would have to change from their current designation to be consistent with the future land use map. Part 3 Danielle used her own home as a potential candidate to create an apartment, generating another living space and thereby promoting infill. Danielle lives in a two family home on Day Avenue that has a spacious attic which could potentially be converted into an apartment. Danielle illustrated that working through the zoning regulations to figure out what the requirements are to create an apartment, and whether it was possible in her situation was a confusing and difficult process. Danielle also concluded that an apartment could not be added to her home, even with what she thought would be a relatively simple renovation and in a location where infill would meet the objectives of the sustainability plan. Danielle also gave an example of an existing business building for sale in a residential area. The current zoning did not allow the business to be expanded, nor could living space be added to the building. This was another illustration of a barrier to infill. Danielle did not get through her material and will complete her presentation at the next meeting. 3. Discussion Following the presentation there was a short discussion. Joel posed the question, how did having the presentations on the existing ordinance impact our thoughts about our charge and where we want to go? Steve noted he likes committee process and feels it is and effective way of gathering information and connecting with others. Tom noted that the housing committee continues to have trouble finding a focus as housing touches so much of the sustainability plan and the zoning regulations. The idea of focusing on a particular part of the city as a kind of laboratory for zoning changes was talked about. Wayne was asked about his recommendation to the housing committee of focusing on the Conz Street area. He said that the area already represents diverse land use and that the area is potentially accepting of suggestions for changes. The discussion was ended due to running out of time. It was agreed that the discussion would continue at the next meeting following the completion of Danielle’s presentation. The Joint meeting with the Planning Board on the 22nd of October is cancelled as the PVPC study is not yet prepared for presentation. Next meeting is October 28th, 2009 at City Council chambers. The meeting was adjourned shortly after 9pm. Respectfully submitted, Peter McLean Appendix 1 Elements of Zoning (keyed to Sections of the Northampton Zoning Ordinance) 1. Zoning is permitted under state law (Home Rule Amendment), as limited by specific state statutes, especially Chapter 40A (“Zoning Act”) 2. Zoning is intended to be a way to implement a community’s vision of its future, as expressed in its Master Plan/Comprehensive Plan; Zoning is law; Plan is not 3. Zoning consists of a map and text; text gives significance to the map; map locates what is in the text 4. Zoning Map establishes districts and overlay districts (§350-3) 5. Text describes what is permitted in the districts, generally covering: • Uses, by district, as well as regulations for specific uses (§350-5, 10, and Attachment 1) • Dimensional standards (lot size, frontage, setbacks, coverage/open space, height) (6 and Attachment 2) • Development and performance standards (parking, lighting, signage, landscaping, access, etc.) (7, 8, 11, 12) • Rules for various special districts, land management activities, development forms, and specific uses (10,13, 14,15,16, 17) • Rules for non-conforming uses, structures, and lots (9) • Definitions are very important (2) 6. Text establishes approval procedures, including: • Building/zoning permits for by-right uses (Bldg Commissioner) (4) • Site Plan review of by-right uses (Planning Board) (11) • Special Permit with site plan review (PB, ZBA, or City Council) (10, 11) • Variances - exceedingly rare (ZBA) (4) • Appeals (ZBA) (4) • “Findings” (ZBA – Zoning Admin) (9) • Rezoning – zoning amendments (City Council with report by PB)(1.4) 7. Zoning is sometimes confused with: • Building Code (Building Commissioner) • Subdivision Control Law and Subdivision Regs (Planning Board) • Wetlands Protection Act (Conservation Commission) • Historic Districts (Elm Street) • Other ordinances (Central Business Architecture District, BID) 8. “Conventional zoning” has been criticized for (among other things): • excessive separation of uses, leading to unsustainable development forms that require automobile dependence and make transit inefficient • Dimensional standards that do not embody, and may preclude, good design Appendix 2 Download a .pdf file of the presentations given by Dillon Sussman and Danielle Kahn by clicking on the link below. ZRC presentation 10/7/2009--Barriers to Urban Infill ZRC presentation 10/7/2009--Northampton Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting October 28, 2009 Minutes City Council Chambers 7:00 PM 1. Public comment Adam Cohen of the North Street Association noted that the mayoral candidates have been talking about infill design guidelines. Design guidelines will help residents feel more secure about infill development. 2. Announcements, scheduling, and staffing issues a. November 12 meeting with Planning Board on design issues will be at 8:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. The various groups involved in design (i.e. West Street Design Forum, Northampton Design Forum, ZRC) will all come together to talk. b. Future meetings will be between 5:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. on the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of every month through December. Time and/or place may change in January. 3. Analysis of current Northampton Zoning Ordinance (continued from previous meeting) Completed presentation on barriers to infill (Danielle). Questions and group discussion followed: Today, can we develop the traditional neighborhoods that we already have? No Are our current urban neighborhoods at higher densities than what the zoning code currently allows? Yes, many of our neighborhoods are already at 12 or more units per acre. Discussion about history of how Northampton ended up with lower density zoning regulations than the zoning that exists in our best existing neighborhoods. Wayne noted that the Site Plan Approval process allows parking requirements to be reduced by up to 20%, and that parking requirements can be reduced by much more through the Special Permit process. 4. Subcommittee check-in Cluster: The cluster rewrite committee has had a number of meetings with stakeholders and civic associations. They also spoke with the Berkshire Design Group. Energy: The energy committee is scheduling a meeting with the city Energy Coordinator, Chris. They are thinking about how to address energy issues through zoning. Wayne suggested that they address small scale renewable energy generation. Urban Agriculture: The urban agriculture committee is going to schedule another public meeting to ask for help designing an ordinance to allow more chickens to be kept by residents. The meeting will hopefully be held in a space with internet access. There was some discussion about whether the committee would address other livestock in addition to chickens. The committee decided not to move forward with other livestock because at the public meeting, there was only one goat advocate present, and she does not live in / want to raise a goat in Northampton. Housing: The housing committee is developing a work plan. The city’s Housing Partnership is working on a housing needs assessment, which will include a component on zoning. 5. Analysis of Northampton Zoning Ordinance (continued). Completed overview of zoning (Joel). Discussion followed: The committee discussed design, including examples of bad design. Parking: We may want to set maximum rather than minimum parking standards. Parking issues include the number of spaces as well as location and design of parking areas. The committee discussed possible use of parking permits in the residential neighborhoods close to downtown. Perhaps the committee we should consider non-zoning solutions too. Design and parking are the two big issues that cause residents to oppose infill. One place parking works well is by Northampton Coffee. People park to get coffee during the day, and when the shop closes, people park to go to the bar at night. 6. Translating sustainability goals into zoning (Joel) - Discussion of ten possible sustainability objectives for zoning revisions (see handout): How many people currently live within ½ mile of downtown? 40% of population is within ½ mile of downtown, and another 10-15% of the population is within ½ mile of downtown Florence. Adam Cohen: It is important to ensure that there is green space in neighborhoods. 7. Discussion of final product Would something like these ten objectives help us shape a final product? What should be the form of our final product? Should we submit a single report to the Planning Board with high priority action items? (Note: The discussion points below have been grouped by subject, not by the order in which they came up) Approach: Holistic or Piecemeal? Should we continue to address zoning changes as they come up (in a piecemeal manner) or, because all of the issues are so interconnected, should we develop a more holistic approach? Perhaps we should we address groups of related issues together? Wayne: There does need to be an overall vision / framework so the recommendations make sense. Organizing Framework: Zoning Objectives vs. Focus Area-Based Approach Summary: The committee is considering two different ways of approaching its work. It could review the entire zoning ordinance through the lens of a group of summary sustainability objectives; AND/OR, it could use Conz and other specific areas as design laboratories to consider zoning changes. Questions that were brought up: • Is using these new objectives as our organizing framework just moving from one level of abstraction to another? • Does the place-based approach conflict with the objectives-based approach? • If we are going to use the place/design-based approach, should we consider what would be sustainable building blocks for different types of neighborhoods? i.e. residential areas, mixed-use neighborhood centers, etc. • With the design-based approach, could we address gradation / transition from commercial centers to the neighborhoods? Final Product: Recommendations or Implemented Zoning Changes? There was discussion about whether the product should be a report with recommendations or, alternatively, implementation of recommended zoning changes. In addition, there was discussion about whether a report would take the form of a single document given to the Planning Board at one time or multiple documents given to the Planning Board as they are completed. One suggested approach: Subcommittees could divide up the objectives and address each one, recommending zoning changes for each. We do not want to dump a huge number of recommendations on the Planning Board. Also, if a recommendations package is too big, it will be harder to pass. The Planning Board is concerned that suggested zoning changes will be rejected during the public process, even when it appears at first that the public is in agreement. The Planning Board was hoping that the Zoning Revisions Committee would take recommendations through the entire approval process, step by step. Role of Committee Members / Division of Labor There was a discussion about the role of different committee members. We could have technical experts do some of the analysis. 8. Public Process / Public Meeting If we send a list of recommended zoning changes to the Planning Board, we also need to provide enough information for the Planning Board and public to have an informed discussion. But, we also need to have a public discussion as part of our process. Do we want to have a public forum before January? Do we have enough information to present what we have so far to the public? How can we engage the public in our process? The committee decided to hold a public forum after January. Perhaps a citywide public forum on infill? Planning Board Notes ZRC Meetings - Nov. 4th, 2009 - [began by Danielle]: Public Comment: none Subcommittee Reports Ag Committee: Nothing new to report Cluster: Met with various civic groups to get feedback on cluster regulations. Heard a lot of concern for / desire for neighborhood input on design. Next steps - Draft ordinance or more public input? Discussion about process. Committee has had success with structured questions (and not having a preconceived agenda) vs. completely open unstructured format. Discussion about design charettes in the neighborhoods. 7:10pm [Adin start notes] ...Review for Cluster sub committee outreach with Baystate; A potential model for future outreach efforts. - open ended questions are better received than bringing an agenda. - reach out to communities - model for larger community outreach. - in general, they were hesitant and skeptical - input was full of concerns...many people present had agendas Energy... sub committee review: -Adjust or eliminate current Density requirements in residential zones to encourage higher population in city core -Reduce Lot size requirements in Residential A, B, and C to encourage higher density -Recommend a Performance Standard relating to optimization of solar orientation during sub division site plan review process -Recommend the adoption of ‘as of right’ siting for renewable energy generation to be in compliance with Green Communities requirements. -Stretch Code (BBRS code): No specific recommendation. -PACE (property assessment) Financing: Unclear what specific recommendation is suitable Discuss what our finished product is to present. - Brainstorm ideas: - Dillon- Issue a brief to planning board. Take issues and present solutions, and specify recommendations. (then how do we get to it) Process is major- have recommendation been vetted by the public. - Brief, no recommendations, Brief, with recommendations, Brief, with written ordinances. All: 1 issue at a time, or full package. - if possible, ordnance (amendments to existing)- many are very complex, like ‘cluster’ and ‘density’ (zoning is so connected that simple changes can affect other sections.) - Jim: Include a model for involving public into process as one of recommendations. Organizational model- who was involved. - Steve: Sequentially or one big package? - steps, we can learn in the process- learn best practices. - order- whichever issue is ready first Final product: An analysis, recommendations, and (when practical) ordinance amendments (specific language). Final process: Pick issues, as they are ready to hand forward. Case by case, or package- how do we present the final product, in what order,? - up to Sub-committee to decide what to move forward. Not a ‘brief’- (“brief” reminds Tom of underwear) What is Process for Outreach: - So far sub-committees have had different approaches to outreach, process, how to move forward - how to bring people into public process that is balanced and exciting? - change language: Traditional Neighborhoods, instead of Density or Infill. - first meeting should be central to biggest mission. - Dillon ‘spaced out’ - process in meeting: 1. set the stage, show graphically what would be allowed under existing meeting. 2. small groups - charette where a variety of issues are addressed, break it up by neighborhood. - Jim: small workshops that are interactive- - Dani: a series of workshops: Infill should have its own. - Steve: how to address non-resident for business community, chamber of commerce. Joel: What is effective way to engage Smith College? - -Dano at Smith has interest in Energy issues- adin to contact. Public meeting feb 4th.? - ‘Public representative’ committee members will organize What geographical areas to focus on demonstrating? How to balance. - Benefits of Conz/Pleasant- little abutter issues, PBoard showing interest - King, opportunities for infill are great- developers open. Picking specific neighborhoods/ streets is difficult.... **King St. - Whats wrong with King St. zoning?. -design, economics. - request Wayne to present on 18th What is purpose of visiting specific areas? - Joel: select issue of importance; developers are interested, zoning is flawed - or.. choose different neighborhoods to represent variety of issues. Why King, how to balance important areas? - for next agenda, what is potential for King St., and should it be included. Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Minutes Wednesday, November 18, 2009 Present: Danielle Kahn, Tom Weiner, Peter McClean, Jim Nash, Dennis Bidwell, Dillon Sussman, Steve Gilson, Adin Maynard. Absent: Joel Russell. OPB Staff: Wayne Feiden Members of the Public: Lachlan Zeigler, Jeff Dan, Joel Spiro, Mark Tanner, Suzanne Beck, Ken Jodrie, Randy Lisle Sub Committee Reports Energy: The Energy sub-committee will be meeting next week with Chris Mason and will have more to report at our next meeting. Urban Agriculture: The Urban Agriculture sub-committee will be meeting on Saturday November 21st with advocates for increasing the allowed number of backyard chickens. Discussion will focus on creating a draft ordinance. Clusters: The Cluster Development sub-committee (Steve and Joel) met with Wayne with the outcome being Joel will to draft a re-write of the Cluster ordinance. Housing: The Housing sub-committee (Peter and Tom) will be participating in a housing needs assessment sponsored by the Northampton Housing Partnership. NHP is looking for public input. Reflections on the Joint Planning Board Meeting held 11/12/09 Peter expressed that Joel represented us well summarizing our efforts to this point. Dennis noted that all the groups emphasized that design was critical to their discussions. Tom expressed that he was struck the magnitude of our responsibilities to rewrite the current zoning. He found it quite daunting beyond our expertise. Tom proposed that we advise the Planning Board that we anticipate recommending professional help to re-write the current zoning. ZRC unanimously approved Tom’s suggestion. Peter reported that after attending a Parking and Transportation meeting, which featured a discussion around a variance, that with our current zoning the culture is to expect exceptions. Wayne responded to this observation saying we have antiquated zoning in Massachusetts and that this leads to such complications. King Street Discussion Wayne Feiden began the discussion with a historic overview of King Street Zoning. King Street has always been a target for enhancing the cities tax base. The current ordinance does not restrict use but it is strict on dimensions, parking, and green space. There are two aspects to the current regulations • Big box requirements variations in building appearance and building size is capped at 90,000 ft2 • The current regulation provides incentives for constructing buildings closer to the street, with more allowances for paved space for structures that meet this requirement The current Highway Business Zone on King Street runs from North Street by Dunkin Donuts to the Food Coop on North King. Central Business runs from downtown to North Street. A theme of the current zoning is to enhance the public realm, the sidewalk and street. One strategy to meet this goal is to reduce the number of curb cuts. King Street was last rebuilt in 1989. Wayne rhetorically asked, “has the current zoning on King Street really restrict development? Some say it did.” Short term strategies could be to create value and maybe compromise on residential goals, yet with the idea of retaining a long term strategy is to develop residential down the road. The message from National retailers exploring options on King Street is they are not interested in having residential tenants above their retail space. Another strategy may be to Expand central business down King. Wayne noted that CVS, Honda, and Toyota, all recent developments, are improvements on their predecessors. He views Walgreen’s and the added bike path as a plus. Wayne expressed reservations around the big box limitations because while it blocked the enormous Walmarts, it does not stop 20,000 square foot retailers like bookstores. Such retailers are more likely to compete with existing downtown businesses. Wayne spoke about the sidetracked plan for the old Honda dealership. The developers had tenants for the first floor, but struggled with getting tenants for the second floor. There are also rumors of hazardous waste on the site. Also, a lawsuit brought by Florence Savings concerning the intersection had an effect on the project. At one point Home Depot looked at the Price Chopper and Kolhmorgen properties. Wayne noted that national retailers are interested in large properties, the result being that value on King increases with the size of the property. Discussion began with Joel Spiro suggesting a project that sets the standard for what we would like to see on King. He noted that there is no place for middle class retirees to live. King Street needs a five-story building. Joel advocated for “deciding what you want rather than rebuilding around the zoning you have.” Wayne interjected that there are parcels downtown where people could build roughly what Joel is talking about for less and yet developer don’t do it. He emphasized that King Street property is more expensive than most downtown property. Wayne also noted that the current inventory of available land that is ready to build, no permit needed, would take seven years to complete if we started building today. Wayne suggestions for King. • Allowing the height to go to 55 ft • Get rid of parking requirements. They are a sticking point for developers. • Create three different zones for King Dennis recommend that the chamber Economic Development committee work with ZRC to develop strategies for King Street. ZRC approved of this concept. Dennis said he would bring the idea up at that next E.D. meeting. Mark Tanner- Representing the property owner of the old Hill n Dale Mall said the setback requirements were the biggest obstacle for development for his clients. ZRC Process Discussion Danielle presented several work plans for tackling our goals and objectives, and then walked through the many steps to get to recommendations, analysis, and See the downloadable file below. ZRC Work Process Flowcharts (Draft) Planning Board MINUTES FOR ZRC – Dec.2, 2009 ATTENDING: Wayne, Danielle, Peter, Dillon, Adin, Dennis, Jim, Joel, Tom, John 1. Next meeting Dec. 16th, 5:30-7:30, Wayne’s office 2. Announcements: Jan. meetings will return to 7:00 start time – the 6th and 20th. Place to be announced. Housing Partnership meeting with Housing sub-committee at 5:30 at Thursday, Dec. 10th Joint meeting of watershed zoning and planning board ordinance committee – Council Chambers. 3. Wayne proposed “possible focus areas” for on-going ZRC work: Possible Focus Areas for Zoning Revisions Committee 1. Low hanging fruit with significant benefits for Sustainable Northampton a. Remove unnecessary dimensional requirements business districts (especially HB) b. Expand Central Business and Central Business Architecture significantly (possibly King Street, Pleasant Street, Market Street, Hawley Street, Conz Street, New South Street, Gothic Street, Service Center) c. Remove unnecessary special permit requirements in Central Business and Highway Business. d. Codification of West Street design standards from Smith College development agreement e. Change single Family house dimensions in URA, URB, URC 5,000 square feet minimum lot size and 50’ frontage. f. Create uniform and less stringent 10’ front and side setbacks for all uses in the residential districts. g. Maximum Heights increased in HB to 55. Eliminate other dimensional requirements in HB. (setbacks, frontage) h. Eliminate parking requirements in CB and HB. 2. Low hanging fruit with some benefits and little costs a. Chickens 3. Medium term a. Framework for form based code areas and approach b. Framework for design review areas and approach c. Significant other rezonings (URA, GB expansions, URB to URC, etc) d. Remove some density requirements for residential units in URA, URB, and URC, with goal of allowing density in keeping with neighborhood. (This would allow the removal of Dimensional Averaging which is a Band-Aid in place until this is done.) This might require some design standards. e. Expand commercial areas in Florence (Florence Pine Street NB to GB and expand to include Florence Community Center AND portions of Maple Street to GB) f. Revise cluster standards (total rewrite and include solar access) g. Other map changes 4. Long term a. Implement design standards or form based code b. Significant rewrite of zoning to be more graphic and user friendly (as part or separate from form-based code) Note: The Planning Board may continue to work on the punch list included in the appendix to Sustainable Northampton and will consult with the ZRC as they move forward. Joel comment on form-based code – thinking about issues of use and dimensions could be part of form-based code. There’s low-hanging fruit for a form-based code vs.”heavy duty” form based code for entire city. 5. Dillon proposes TIMELINE for our work. (See attachment at bottom of this page) Consensus for adopting Dillon’s timeline! 5. Next meeting will focus on ZRC’s 1ST PUBLIC MEETING. Tentative date Feb. 10th. Will discuss aspects at next meeting. 6. Dennis brought proposal about looking at King St. development. As follow-up to our King Street discussion at the last ZRC meeting, we talked about a King Street role at the Chamber’s Economic Development Committee meeting. Below is what we are proposing: The Economic Development Committee of the Greater Northampton Chamber of Commerce proposes to contribute to a much-needed public discussion of the future of King Street and its zoning by initiating the following: 1. We will compile and analyze all available feasibility studies that estimate future demand for residential and commercial development in Northampton, including King Street. 2. We will convene, hopefully in conjunction with the Zoning Revisions Committee, a meeting of King Street property owners and their representatives, City representatives, and knowledgeable realtors, to review the ownership of parcels available for development, and to review proposals that have been considered to date. 3. Also, hopefully in conjunction with the Zoning Revisions Committee, we will invite representatives of Berkshire Development to walk us through their analysis of the “Old Honda” site, offering their view of why the numbers ultimately didn’t work for them, and what role King Street zoning played in their decision to not proceed. 4. We will also investigate other possible approaches to the zoning of King Street, to be passed on for the consideration of the Zoning Revisions Committee. Dennis proposes session of Economic Development Committee of Chamber Tues., Dec. 15th at noon at Chamber of Commerce and will include by invitation: 3-4 members of economic development committee of Chamber of Commerce 3-4 members of ZRC who are interested and available several property owners realtor banker OPD members One possible task of this meeting would be to discuss whether, when and how to involve public. Committee endorses meeting. 7. Sub-committee reports: Energy – has ideas to recommend and wants to connect to other committees, i.e. housing, subdivisions, clusters. Carolyn wants to work with group to write up recommendations. Joel proposed bringing recommendations to next meeting and we’ll decide when to put on agenda. Agriculture – stake-holder meeting with urban chicken advocates. Presented summary of public process for getting ordinance passed and draft framework to help understand all of the issues – noise, setbacks, nuisance, waste, stormwater, number of chickens. Group will get together and look through framework on own and hash out details and Wayne and Carolyn would then try to write it up. Wrote follow-up e- mail asking the group to invite ZRC ag subcommittee to subsequent meeting and then give to Wayne and Carolyn. Also have recommendations related to agriculture that relate to sustainability plan and will bring to agricultural commission. Would necessitate adding agricultural recommendations to sustainability plan, which would then require zoning changes. Housing – will be meeting with HOUSING PARTNERSHIP on Dec. 7th. Cluster – will be written by Joel and will now include solar access. Also need to discuss whether and how to talk about cluster zoning change at public meeting in Feb. (Joel described current zoning and proposed changes in preparation for his writing of the new zoning, but will not proceed with writing until decisions are made about how to go forward) ZRC roles: same as above. ZRC in a series of meetings.OPD: Perform GIS analysis to identify areas of map that should change. Propose changes to public forumspublic outreach about proposed changes, conduct focus groups and Jim/Peter/Tom: coordinate Adin: assess environmental impacts of proposed changes and reach out to environmental Dennis: assess economic impacts of proposed changes and obtain feedback from business teve: interface with Planning BoardS necessary. Joel/Danielle/Dillon: analysis and evaluation of suggested changes. Propose alternatives when a series of ZRC meetings.OPD: Develop a list of changes to tables and parking requirements. Present suggested changes at To be determined O.P.D: advise ZRC Adin/Dennis/Jim/Peter/Tom: coordinate public outreach, space, food, publicity, etc. Steve: interface with planning board (and city government?) Joel/Danielle/Dillon: prepare presentations Housing: Dillon/Peter/Tom summarize findings, O.P.D. writes language?? Energy: Adin/Dennis summarize findings, O.P.D. writes language Cluster: Joel writes language rites languageAg: Jim/Danielle summarize findings, O.P.D. w Roles ZRC Proposed Work Timeline ZRC Timeline (proposed December 2, 2009) DateGoalTasksWho Dec. 2009-Feb. 2010Finish work of Ag, Cluster, Prepare recommendations for Planning Board Existing Energy and Housing subcommittees subcommittees Dec. 2009-Mar. 2010 Initiate public input process Plan and hold a public meeting. ZRC as a whole (concurrent with (Educate public, develop above)partnerships, obtain feedback)Possible topics  Educate public about issues driving rezoning process  Present our proposed process  Discuss infill, design  Obtain feedback about our process, rezoning needs & fears Mar. 2010Reflect input gathered in Write a newspaper article or similar that ZRC as a whole public forum back to publicsummarizes public forum and input received, lays out future process. April-July 2010Revise zoning text to meet Revise O.P.D. + sustainability objectives ZRC as a whole Dimensional Table reduce non-conformance,  Use Table allow development that  Parking requirements matches historic patterns),  Etc. encourage increased density in densely developed areas [Follow Danielle’s process called “Text Based Revisions] Aug-September 2010 Revise zoning map Revise zoning map to O.P.D. + ZRC as a whole conform with Future Land Use map  simplify zoning map (when possible)  better reflect existing neighborhoods [Follow Danielle’s process called “Zoning Map Revsions (Analytic Approach)”] O.P.D: advise and write language Steve to lead this effort? Roles to be determined. O.P.D.: advise and write language Steve to lead this effort? Roles to be determined. O.P.D: advise and technical resource and one other member.Form three new subcommittees. Each has with one tech expert, one public outreach person,  Jim/Peter/Tom; Adin/Dennis; Steve?)for (Joel/Danielle/Dillon; Make new subcommittees based on roles we were appointed  Continue with current subcommittees  Possible subcommittee structures Subcommittees to be determined. Roles DateGoalTasksWho April-September, 2010 Modify zoning for unique Work on major topics ZRC Subcommittees (concurrent with areas; develop design controls;  King St above)etc.  Conz St  Gateways  New mixed-use centers  Design Controls  Additional text changes  Additional map changes [Follow Danielle’s processes called “Zoning Map Revisions (Analytic and Design-Based Approach)”] October, 2010ZRC presents its first package Prepare written materials, diagrams, and ZRC subcommittees to Planning Board and public presentation. Written materials will include (revisions to tables parking analysis of existing and desired conditions, requirements, and map)potential conflicts, recommendations, suggested language/map changes Oct-December, 2010 Obtain public input about Host a series of public meetings ZRC subcommittees major topics, present findingsObtain public input about major topics. Present findings. January-March, 2011ZRC presents second package (same as first package) ZRC as a whole to Planning Board Prepare written materials, diagrams, and (Major topics)presentation. Written materials will include analysis of existing and desired conditions, potential conflicts, recommendations, suggested language/map changes April, 2011ZRC members decide ZRC disbands? whether they want to quit or ZRC members re-up? continue working.New members appointed to ZRC? ZRC continues work? ZRC helps OPD select a consultant to completely rewrite zoning? Planning Board Zoning Revisions Committee Meeting Minutes December 16, 2009 Present: Joel Russel, Dillon Sussman, Danielle Kahn, Jim Nash, Peter McLean, Carolyn Misch, Tom Weiner, Steve Gilson, Dennis Bidwell, Adin Maynard Next ZRC Meeting will be 1/6 at 7 at Wayne’s Office, Room 11 Report on the meeting of the King Street Rezoning Subcommittee of the Economic Development Committee or the Northampton Chamber of Commerce. Dennis Bidwell spearheaded this report to the committee. Dennis began by noting there were some concerns raised by a citizen that this Chamber of Commerce meeting was in violation of open meeting laws. While researching this matter Dennis was advised that had more than four ZRC members attended this meeting there was a possibility of a quorum occurring and this could have been an issue. However, only four ZRC members attended. Those ZRC Members attending this meeting were Jim Nash, Dillon Sussman, Dennis Bidwell, and Joel Russell. They were joined by OPD Staff Carolyn Misch and Wayne Feiden. The Chamber’s Economic Development Committee hosted the meeting with many members in attendance. Also in attendance were several property owners, developers, and lawyers familiar with the King Street Zoning. Wayne provided an overview of King Street Development. The three specific examples of King Street development were discussed • Jack Finn - A2Z adding second floor residential space • Frank Colaccino - the former Price Chopper property, • Berkshire Development’s attempt to develop the former Lia Honda site There was a palpable consensus that King Street zoning needed change to improve the streets economic viability. A three-zone approach was discussed and seemed to have the support of those in attendance. However, no formal vote or endorsement was made. Some ideas recommended for exploring to improve King Street Zoning. • Extending Central business to somewhere between North and Finn • Consider a second zone between North/Finn and Stop & Shop • Encourage a high traffic development zone at the north end of King, from Stop & Shop northward • Consider eliminating the second floor height requirement along King for Highway Business • Consider changing the limitations on parking in front of buildings for Highway Business Dennis and those who attended reported other themes from the meeting. • A desire for more predictable and reliable zoning, with less discretion in the Special Permit process. • Faced with a changing economy, retailers appear to be modifying their approach to development • Zoning that could encourage schools and health related businesses in Highway Business • Though people saw the need to change zoning, the appearance of buildings and streetscape was still very much a concern • There was a focus on the market and economic realities that had not been prevalent at our other discussions with citizens. • The next meeting of the group will be Monday January 11th at 10:30 AM at the Chamber of Commerce. Bean Farm Task Force. There is a proposal to pull together a committee to look at the Bean Farm. ZRC is being asked to recommend 2 representatives from which the BFTF will select one of the two. Resolution: Due to the urgent need to decide quickly, the ZRC recommends that the city purchase the Bean Farm property and would be willing to consider sending representatives once the property is purchased to assist with deciding on its use. Action: Joel will write a letter of support to purchase the Bean Farm property. ZRC Sub-Committee Reports Clusters-nothing to report Energy-Met with Lisa DePiano to discuss designing garages for accessory uses. Joel mentioned to be mindful of property setbacks. Urban Agriculture-northing to report Housing- Met with the Housing Partnership and they were very excited that we were looking at this issues ZRC Public Forum Discussion Joel presented the committee a possible agenda for the February public forum. Concerns and thoughts were shared. • Presenting material that was not concrete. • Our charge to get public input • Getting input first to get to the preconceived notions • Asking citizens to bring their concerns to the table • Educating citizens on zoning, pre-education to deepen discussions and on-going education about our progress • On-going education by video recording. • Focusing the forum on density and infill Joel who has been through this process many times spoke to the importance of bringing the discussion to the public earlier rather than later. Waiting increases the sense of things moving forward with out the public. Resolution: ZRC Consensus was to follow Joel’s Format #1 Specifics discussed for the event were... • Holding the event February 10th at 7 PM to 9 PM, hopefully at JFK • W3NA will provide food as a fundraiser for their neighborhood design efforts. • Press coverage and publicity-Jim & Peter Rough ideas for a theme and description of the event were discussed...Rezoning for a Sustainable Future…the ZRC committee invites you to Come talk about infill, sprawl, design, walkability, and housing. The committee agreed to attempt formalizing this via email. At the next meeting, January 6, the details for this event will be discussed further.