Loading...
1 24 2002 planning board minutesDanny, Ken, George, Andy, Val, Julie, Paul—Planning Board Michael, Fran—Ordinance Committee Wayne—Planning and Development Danny reopened the public hearing at 7:05 PM. Danny noted that at the last public hearing we completed presentation of ordinances numbered 1 through 7. He then read ordinance 8 (removal of abandoned large retail buildings). Feiden briefly described the reason for the ordinance. Danny asked for public comment on this ordinance. Councillor Rita Blieman spoke in favor of ordinance 8 as needed to minimize slums or blight that can occur from huge empty buildings. Councillor Bill Dwight also spoke in favor of ordinance, and stressed it gives the Planning Board discretion, but doesn’t require demolition automatically. Ed Etheredge spoke in opposition to ordinance 8 both because of arbitrariness and because the market dictates highest and best use. Fee for demolition will alter best uses. Danny presented proposed ordinance 9, maximum setback requirement in HB for retail over 10,000 of retail. He asked for comment on this ordinance. Gerry Randal, Valley Motor Sports, North King Street said that he has some green space, two lanes of parking and a traveled lane. If you want to allow this its not far enough back. Concerned that changes will make his and other properties non-conforming. Jami Albro Fisher, South Street, Mass Bike, spoke in favor of decreasing setbacks because it makes the street much more friendly to pedestrians and bicycles. Danny presented ordinance 10, prohibition on retail over 20,000 square feet. He asked for comment on this ordinance. Gerry Randal, Valley Motor Sports, very concerned and discouraged about these changes. He would not have come to Northampton with this types of zoning. Why would you want to discourage these kinds of businesses? Ed Etheredge opposes stopping these businesses. Jami Albro Fisher wants to know why grocery stores exempted. Councillor Bill Dwight said the reason for the ordinance was in response to earlier Planning Board comments that they didn’t want to make discretionary decisions and thought that if you want to limit large retail you should just create a cap. Councillor Frank Volkman said the cap also comes from a vision of how they would like to see King Street developed, in part codified in Vision 2020, and from a realization that King Street is not the ideal street and increasing support for neighborhoods with trees, multistory buildings up the street, traffic calming, and a gateway to the city. Rick Dean, Maplewood Shops resident who works at Beyond Words, said that at site plan for Stop & Shop many members of the public spoke for the Northampton Vision 2020 view of limiting big boxes. At the time the Planning Board said that the regulations allow large retail and if you want to limit it, the city needs new regulations. He said developing King Street to develop a better ambience would be good for small business and keep out mega-buildings. Ed Etheredge said that one of the principal goals of Vision 2020 was to allow the reuse of Caldors, which could not have happened if this ordinance passed. Danny opened the public hearing from general comment on all ten of the ordinances. Al Sax, HCAC, raised concerns on whether the zoning would make it harder for people with entry level skills, living in Northampton’s affordable housing, to work and shop in the community, and might develop a King Street that neither provides jobs or shopping for low income residents. The affordable housing component of the zoning would at best be a very small part of the solution for affordable housing and that housing must be looked at in a much broader context. Suzanne Beck, Chamber of Commerce, recommends that city suspend any actions on these proposals and instead do a comprehensive plan for King Street and the Highway Business District first. There are different characters to King Street that shouldn’t necessarily be treated the same with one set of ordinances. Financial and density incentives for buildings close to the street could actually push traffic closer to residential neighborhoods, where buildings serve as a buffer to the residential neighborhoods. Concerned that rather than implementing the vision of protecting local businesses, the city would be creating stronger competition to downtown by making King Street more like downtown. Most importantly, the ability of economic development and tax revenue on King Street would be threatened. Charles DeRose, North Farms Road, NSH-CAC member. At the Gazette, as co-publisher, has worked with retail merchants of all sizes. Speakers at retail forum stressed that communities that are pro-active are successful, and this is focused on being negative not positive. Speakers also focused on need to do market analysis and consider what other successful communities are size are doing. If he could help or Gazette could help fund studies he would be happy. The economic realities are we probably can’t retain office and industry on King Street but we can’t afford to turn our back on potential tax revenue. Chuck Bowles, formerly moderator in Hadley, said that Hadley seized on the opportunity for redevelopment of Route 9 at the former “dead mall.” We all agree that we need to keep the community livable, but that we shouldn’t be afraid of big boxes, rather we should focus on proper regulations of the large retail. Daryl Lafleur, South Street, in support of the ordinances (without wanting to comment on each specific ordinance), because they should help reduce traffic problems by making area more pedestrian focused. Seattle is able to be a boom community without focusing on automobile. Deb Jacobs, Leeds, got interested from Paradise City Forum. Her two favorite buildings on King Street are the fire station and the athletic club. These show that the city and developers can set the model for good development. More of King Street should be like this. Jami Albio-Fisher, South Street, Mass Bike, the street can be more pedestrian friendly and easing the parking requirements would be good. We need to look at all development to focus how to make more pedestrian friendly. Richard White, Rocky Road and Citizens for Climate Protection, has seen many communities where downtown has been killed by development on the edge of town. Very concerned about what kind of development minimizes energy needs, both within each building and by their impact on land use patterns and driving habits. Councillor Bill Dwight, ward councilor for King Street and one of the sponsors, said the ordinance package encourages expansion of local businesses. Northampton has a great number of entry level jobs and in fact many employers say we have too many of those jobs for them to find employees. The need as a community is for better paid jobs. The ordinance would encourage positive development and not development that harms the community. If the ordinance passes, we can then do a comprehensive plan, without adverse impacts on the community, and can always amend the ordinance later. If the ordinance doesn’t pass, development that occurs based on the current development pattern will create adverse impacts that can’t be mitigated later. Community has obligation to impose rules to implement the community’s vision. Jack Horner, Housing Partnership, reported that the Housing Partnership supports the ordinances and the need to mitigate the adverse impact that large retail businesses have on affordable housing. Dave Murphy, N. Elm Street, concerned about on-going loss of taxable properties to tax-exempt status. The city needs to get the $105-$125,000/year we get for each large retail business on King Street. Can’t afford to create economic disincentive for large retail. The buildings on King Street are not landmark buildings and all have a short life span. Large retailers, the only ones who can afford to develop on King Street are national chains and if we discourage their patterns, then those businesses wouldn’t come. King Street is and will remain the main street of the area, most customers will not by foot. Ed Etheredge agrees that we want a city we are proud of and participate in. Said in-lieu of fees are not legal fees in that they do not provide services to the fee payers. Leon Jasnowski, retailer and HCAC board member, concerned about the negative impact the ordinance would have on existing retailers. Small sized retailing is a very difficult business and not going to happen on King Street.