TOWN HALL 4 Boltwood Avenue ‘Amberst, MA 01002-2351 MEMORANDUM TO: Rob Crowner, Chair of Zoning Subcommittee FROM: Christine Brestrup, Interim Planning Director SUBJECT: Proposed Zoning Amendment ~ B-L District Dimensions and Footnote “b DATE: February 26, 2016 Over the past few weeks I've spoken with colleagues here in Town Hall and others about the proposed zoning amendments. One of the proposed amendments that has been a source of concern for many of the people with whom I've spoken is the proposed change to the B-L District Dimensions and Footnote “b” Many people think that this amendment needs a significant amount of work before being ready to go to Town Meeting and that it should be held back and put forth again in the fall. Here are the comments that I’ve received about the B-L Dimensions and Footnote b, along with some comments of my own. B-L District Dimensions and Footnote b Not Ready ~ Members of the business community, who initially promoted the change, seem to be realizing that the proposed change may not be ready to go to spring Town Meeting for a variety of reasons, ‘They understand that the proposed change is unlikely to have the support of 2/3 of the members of Town Meeting and they may prefer to come in with a stronger proposal and develop support for next time around. ‘When the Planning Board agreed to sponsor this zoning amendment, the Board and staff had not had a chance to fully analyze the impact of the proposed change on the B-L district and potentially on surrounding neighborhoods. Itis clear from the chart provided for the February 17" Planning Board meeting that th change would allow a significant increase in density of dwelling units in the Bet. dist, The calculations contained in this chart had not been prepared until recently, The ‘numbers of allowed units came as a surprise to many. ae . Thane case an 4.000 ss lot) the density could go from 0 to 8 dwelling units for a mixed ‘i a - = nt mits for an apartment building (Special Permit needed for apartment. In another ‘case @ 40,000 SF lot) the density could go from 6 to 24 dwelling units fora mixed-use building to 36 units for an apartment building (Special Permit needed for apartment bldg.) * _Inyet another case (a 100,000 SF lot) the density could go from 21 to 62 dwelling units for a mixed use building and to 93 units for an apartment building (Special Permit needed for apartment bldg.). Defining the Downtown - People are confused about the definition of “downtown.” What is the downtown? Does it include only the B-G? Does it include the B-L adjacent to the B-G? Does it include some inner R-G areas adjacent to the B-G and B-L? To date, density in the “downtown” has meant increasing the density in the B-G zoning district. The Planning Board supports this policy, but it has been hard for many residents to accept. Asking residents to accept more density in the B-L while they are still coping with and adapting to increased development in the downtown will only raise their level of concem. Further review of the Master Plan goals and discussion with the public about our collective vision for the “downtown” may be helpful before proposing increased density in the B-L. Specific density issues — The chart shows an assumed 1,000 square foot apartment, for purposes of doing the calculations. The 1,000 square feet was chosen because it is an easy number to multiply and large enough to account for service areas such as hallways, elevators and stairs. In fact, apartments in the downtown may be considerably smaller. Apartment sizes of 700 square feet seem to be typical for 1-bedroom apartments. So the density shown on the chart is conservative and could easily go higher. The chart could be revised to show different scenarios of apartment sizes and therefore different densities of dwelling units. Parking — Parking remains an issue. The B-L zoning districts adjacent to the B-G are all included in the Municipal Parking District. Therefore no on-site parking would be required for the dwelling units added to the B-L district. Many people already think that the MPD is not working for the B-G district. A Downtown Parking Working Group has been established to try to get a handle on parking issues in the downtown. ‘The recommendations of the Downtown Parking Report will be analyzed by the Working Group and some/many of the recommendations will be considered and recommended for action, such as considering new data, revising the winter parking ban, sharing parking among various uses on different parcels, changing parking standards in the downtown area and exploring the idea of building a new parking garage. If density is substantially increased in the B-L zoning district without first dealing with parking issues it could exacerbate the perceived parking problem and raise people’s concerns about development. This is another reason to wait before proceeding with changes to the B-L dimensional requirements.As you know, the B-L zoning district can be divided into 3 or 5 separate areas: Downtown Edges/Transition Zones o North of Triangle © West of Kendrick Park © Along South Prospect Street Dickinson Street University Drive Questions & Concerns: Should these areas be considered and established as separate districts? Should selected B-L areas be zoned differently, through an overlay district or a change in designation (perhaps B-N2), allowing them to be treated differently in terms of dimensional requirements for residential uses? Should there be an incremental increase in density in the B-L district, rather than a blanket removal of any requirement for minimum lot area and additional lot area? Should the B-L be more similar to the B-N or B-VC or R-G in terms of lot area requirements per dwelling unit? Should there be upper limits on density of dwelling units in some of the B-L district areas? Should there be design guidelines specific to the B-L districts adjacent to the B-G, rather than mere recourse to the Design Review Board Principles and Standards, to account for and respond to the character of existing buildings in the B-L? Should there be distinct parking standards for residential uses in the B-L zoning district? These are some of the questions and concerns that have come up in my discussions with colleagues and others about the B-L and Footnote “b”. Td be interested to hear your thoughts.