Northampton's Urban Residential Zoning Districts:

Some Initial Ideas for a ZRC Dimensional and Design Standards Proposal

Some key points from the Zoning Revisions Committee analysis :

• The existing dimensional standards, especially the requirements that govern the number

of units per square foot of lot size, and frontage requirements greatly limit the creation

of new units in urban districts.

• When structures are converted to a lower number of units, it can be impossible to

convert them back to a higher number of units. These standards are contributing to the

loss of units and population in urban districts.

• Many accessory structures do not conform to residential setback requirements. This

limits their conversion to accessory apartments.

• The setback requirements do not match our current neighborhoods, so new structures

are unlikely to be sited in a way that matches-or is in character with--the other homes

on the block.

• The current zoning forces the city to lose units over time, which is in direct contradiction

to the city's comprehensive plan, which calls for concentrating development in

traditional neighborhoods.

Public Feedback and Discussion: The community expressed general support for infill as long as

it does not affect the existing character of our neighborhoods. Major concerns that were voiced

include traffic, parking, intrusions into views or solar access and loss of "green space".

Residents are most likely to be sympathetic to:

• Small infill

• Owner-occupants who want to add units

• Conversions that revert a structure to its historic number of units

• Additional units that help maintaining affordability for owners, as well as renters to a

lesser degree

Residents expressed concern about infill projects that:

• Are out of scale with the neighborhood in terms of height, bulk, or number of units

• Add new houses on existing streets (especially through subdivision of lots)

• Create multi-family housing on predominantly single-family streets

• Affect land that neighbors feel a "sense of ownership" over, such as privately owned

wood or field lots that have been used informally by neighborhood residents

• Result in the demolition of "loved" structures

• Consolidate lots for larger projects

1

Residents also expressed concerns about:

• Zoning that is difficult to understand, unpredictable or unequally applied

• Effects on property values (increases or decreases in property value)

Design-Related Feedback

• Concern about projects the block views or sunlight, and that are out of scale with the

neighborhood.

• However, residents do not seem to want to over-regulate design by creating very

specific architectural standards or a complex design review process.

• In general, residents expressed a preference for standards that address site design

characteristics (how a building is situated on a lot, for example) rather than

architectural characteristics (the style and characteristics of the building itself, other

than its height and bulk).

Summary of Possible Considerations for Short-Term Improvements (next few months)

1. Revise the city's accessory apartment regulations to make it easier to have accessory

apartments on owner-occupied properties

Key Pts:

• Allow accessory units in garages that are closer to property boundaries than homes. For

example, this would allow garages that were built at or near the lot line to be converted

to accessory units.

• Allow conversion of a detached accessory structure into an accessory apartment by­

right rather than requiring a special permit.

• Allow accessory units in all owner-occupied buildings (not just single-family homes). For

example, this would allow owner-occupier residents of two-family or multi-family

homes to add an accessory unit.

• Allow the entrance to an accessory apartment to be located in the front of the building

(in addition to the side or rear)

2. Amend the city's Planned Development regulations to allow for innovative housing and

adaptive reuse of obsolete structures by Special Permit. Allow larger projects (pocket

neighborhood, cottage housing, adaptive reuse, urban-style townhouses, subdivision

projects) by SP with Site Plan Reivew.

3. Amend the dimensional tables in the city's urban residential zoning districts to allow for

small infill projects by right.

2

Key Pts for Short-Term Changes

• Use performance based approach for small projects: eliminate lot size per unit and

adjust setback and open space requirements.

o Keep current parking requirements

o . Replace % open space with contiguous square feet of open space per unit

o Set setbacks to better match neighborhoods, with relief by Site Plan Review

• However, continue to use minimum lot size and frontage requirements, keeping

these numbers somewhat high to minimize splitting of lots that could lead to houses

between houses.

• In URC, allow 1-4 family projects by right (and change the stds for these, as noted in

first bullet pt. above)

• In URB, allow 1-4 or 1-3 projects by right. SP for 4-family? (" ")

• In URA, allow 1-2 family projects by right. SP for 3-family? (" ")

4. Establish general design standards with Site Plan Review that apply only to larger

projects, projects allowed only by special permit (like innovative dvpts and adaptive reuse

above) and projects asking for special permit relief from dimensional stds

• Design standards by site plan for any project over 500 square feet?

• Standards to cover setbacks, parking, street presence and solar access. Solar access

provisions are used to control building massing and distance from neighbors.

Possible Medium and Long-Term Recommendations

1. · Develop a Design Guidebook with more detailed (non-binding) design guidelines

2. Make map changes I redistricting (medium term- next task of ZRC?}

3. Step by step guide for assessing zoning for typical projects (by OPD}

4. Consider parking permits and parking requirement reductions, with provisions for snow

emergency parking. Esp. In URC

5. Add recommendations to make zoning easier to understand. E.g. by reorganizing

tables

3