ZRC King Street Comments Dodson
Carolyn Misch
From:Joel Russell [joelrusl@gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday, July 01, 2010 4:53 PM
To:Joel Russell
Cc:jim nash; Carolyn Misch; (tweiner909@comcast.net); Adin Maynard
(adin@mycozyhome.org); Danielle Kahn (djkahn2004@yahoo.com); Dennis Bidwell
(dbidwell@bidwelladvisors.com); Dillon Sussman (dillonsussman@gmail.com); Peter
McLean (pmclean@lefh.net); Stephen Gilson (smgilson@comcast.net)
Subject:Comments on King Street zoning report
Dear ZRC members,
I received the following comments from Harry Dodson, FASLA, a colleague who is a nationally-known and
highly respected landscape architect based in Ashfield, MA. His partner in his landscape architecture firm,
Peter Flinker, lives in Northampton, and was one of our nominees to the Bean Farm Task Force. Harry has
done the design for a number of strip development retrofits around the region and the US, including the one on
the outskirts of Edgartown on Martha's Vineyard. He agreed to review the report and give me his comments. I
think we need to find a number of well-respected experts who know King Street and are willing to give us their
ideas. We have benefited greatly from hearing from Rick Klein's views as well. I welcome any other
knowledgeable experts who are willing to provide advice.
Have a great 4th of July and forget about zoning!
Joel
Here are Harry Dodson's comments:
Overall I think it's a decent proposal with a strong business and landowner perspective. It is a blend
of the ambitious urbanization direction of the current zoning with a more conventional "beautified"
commercial strip approach to northern King Street. Its strategy for King Street may be the most
realistic blend of Smart Growth closer to downtown and an Ed McMahon style cleaned and greened
strip north of the bike trail. There are also hints of openness to form based codes and other
techniques to allow the traditional downtown to extend northwards along King Street toward the bike
path. There are also a number of problems, gaps and omissions (see below).
Pros:
Realistic - may allow a better urbanisation of southern King Street in exchange for improved business
as usual north of the bike trail. I'm not averse to three zones but would back off on liberalization of
northern King Street regs.
Business people seem open/aware of new planning ideas and want to compromise. I think they go
a little too far at times giving in to commercial strip business as usual. Big chains always gripe about
doing anything differently but they will if required (just look at any urban area filled with very civilized
McDonalds, supermarkets and Macys (they started in Manhattan after all). A city needs to stand
firm to pressure from these groups and a tendency to blame the zoning for all the problems.
1
Good greening recommendations though they go too far north of bike trail. Better to reduce width
there and keep maximum setbacks instead. Good idea to trade open space percentage
requirements for buffers.
Mentions parking crunch south of bike trail. Ideas for remedy? Long term I think a parking garage
or two is necessary. Short term the kind of strategies we developed for Edgartown would work:
consolidation of curb cuts, shared parking for multiple businesses, new shared surface lots,
enhanced pedestrian links, new building locations that encourage walkability and attractive
pedestrian shopping environments. On street parking could be an option - at least south of bike trail
- if Dan Burden style road diet is implemented.
Modify parking requirements is a very good idea. How about payments into parking fund as a trade
off for relaxing requirements that would go into a fund to do something about parking crunch
(garage? Lot? Walkability amenities?)
I like taller building allowances. I would keep recommendation/requirement for mix of uses.
Encouraging business diversity is a good proposal - this is what Northampton is all about.
Uniqueness. Putting this uniqueness on humdrum commercial strip doesn't make sense.
Conventional - even big box - stores can coexist with small mom and pops and boutiques if the
physical setting and planning is done the right way.
A focus on aesthetics is good, though "clean and green" with an underlying commercial strip layout
doesn't solve fundamental problems with this landuse.
I like general trend toward mixed use but would be more explicit with Form Based Codes as well as
maintaining some incentives/regs to this effect.
Cons:
Biggest Flaw: No mention of a "road diet" for King Street itself. This is vital. Nothing would
improve the character and economy of King Street more than transforming a run-of-the-mill, ugly,
dsysfunctional strip highway into a state-of-the-art, attractive, smoothly functioning shopping
boulevard. This would be tremendous foundation for future business prosperity and a fitting
entrance to one of America's most beautiful, creative and livable small cities. Turning a 4 lane ugly
and dangerous traffic race course into a civilized 3 lane road with planted medians and roundabouts
is the way to go. Maybe our friend Dan Burden could come do a workshop/galloping site walk. Fixing
traffic race track on King Street is the key to eventually creating a civilized, attractive, walkable street
from downtown to at least Route 91 entrance ramp. Dealing with King Street itself was probably not
in their scope but it is the key and should be addressed. If agreement on a comprehensive road diet
could be the trade off for allowing some of the more objectionable aspects of this zoning proposal to
pass, it would be worth it.
I think the clean and green strip north of the bike path creates an excessively wide green swath. No
mention of continuing to underground utilities and tighten sign standards.
Are current sign regs OK? Not based on what I see. Tighter sign regs should be trade off for
zoning changes that favor developers/owners.
2
No lighting standards that I saw. All lights should be shielded to avoid light pollution glare.
Intensities and color of lights should also be controlled if they aren't already in current regs.
Too much loosening of regulations, relying on owner discretion.
I would not get rid of the maximum front setbacks unless there is a hardship situation. There is no
reason this won't work. It's unfair to blame slow growth on King Street on zoning. It's due to the
economy, excessively high sales prices for properties (Hill and Dale Mall) and lack of owner/developer
willingness to try new approaches. Developers and chain stores will always want to do things the
same old commercial strip way unless they're forced to.
A beautified commercial strip with a green belt is still a commercial strip (with a pretty face) with
continuation of traffic problems, car dependence and unfriendly pedestrian environment (even
though it's green).
No mention of pedestrian sidewalks/amenities north of bike trail. A wide green buffer actually can
inhibit pedestrians by making them feel out in the open with no pedestrian scale or shelter.
Especially if maximum building setbacks are tossed out.
Form based codes are included in the appendix but not highlighted in the main report. This should
be done and would provide greater weight to the very good argument that confusing, overly complex
use zoning should be scrapped.
Didn't see tree planting requirements - maybe they're in the details and I missed them. Should be
strong: big trees planted closer together with good soil and decent growing area. High tech new
substructure in denser urban areas to ensure survival.
Need creative urban stormwater standards that ensure Seattle style stormwater detention that
benefits trees/vegetation. Planted swales instead of raised berms with curbs for road/parking
medians. Rain gardens, etc. All planted areas should double as stormwater filters with great
benefits to water quality and to plant health (dryness is number one urban plant killer). Again,
maybe it's in the details and I missed it.
Conclusion: I would encourage the good elements and trade concessions on some of the less
desirable components for some meaningful missing elements: road diet, form based code, dynamic
vegetation/stormwater strategy, real walkability
Harry L. Dodson FASLA
Dodson Associates, Ltd.
463 Main Street
Post Office Box 160
Ashfield, MA 01330
hdodson@dodsonassociates.com (email)
www.dodsonassociates.com (web)
(413) 628-4496 x 11 (office)
(413) 237-7621 (cel)
(413) 628-3216 (fax)
3