Large HB RetailIn the Year
//7
Titp of Notti an tptim
MASSACHUSETTS
Two Thousand One
Amended 2/28/02
Councilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
Appendix A §2.0
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section of said Code;
Definition of Substantial Improvement to be changed.
providing that
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows:
"Section
Section 2.1
{Amend §2.1 by changing the definition of substantial improvements as follows (bold indicates new text
and strikethrough indicates deletions)
SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT: Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure
within a thee- five year period which either increases the building area of size or the original structure by
tea- percent (10 fifteen (15 or more, or the cost of repair, reconstruction, or improvement which
equals or exceeds ten-percent (10 fifteen (15 of the assessed value of tho original structure, either
(a) before the improvement is started, or (b) if the structure has been damaged and is being restored,
before the damage occurred.
personal services
and retail.
L 2 ,_,1 !02
Appendix A §2.0
§5.2
Automotive service station and repair station be defined. Combine definition of
Insert the following new definitions within §2.1 in alphabetical order
Automotive service station- Establishment in which the principal use is the retail sale of gasoline,
oil, or other motor yehicle fuel, and may contain retail convenience and variety goods for retail.
The premises may include, facilities for polishing, greasing, washing, or otherwise cleaning,
servicing, or repairing motor vehicles.
Automotive repair Establishment in which the principal use is the repair of motor vehicles,
including maintenance servicing, upholstery, etc. No gas sales or retail allowed.
Delete the entire definition of "Personal and Consumer Service Establishment" within §2.0
Insert the following new definition within §2.0 in alphabetical order
Retail Personal Services- The sale rental, or repair of goods and /or provision of services
including: antiques, apparel, appliances (home use), art supplies, bakeries, barber shops, beauty
shops, books, cameras, card shops, china and pottery, draperies and interior decorating supplies,
drugs, film developing and printing, florist, fruit, furniture, gifts and stationery, grocery, hardware,
house wares and home furnishing, jewelry, laundering and other garment servicing, music,
newsstand, novelties, paint, shoes, pet supplies and pet grooming, shoe cleaning or repair,
specialized food, sporting goods, toys, tailors, vegetable markets, and other similar places of
business. Includes discount food and merchandise "clubs
Amend §5.2 "Retail and Commercial Services" category by deleting entire entry for Personal and
Consumer service Establishment
Amend §5.2 "Retail and Commercial Services" category by deleting the first paragraph of "Retail
Establishments selling principally consumer goods...." And replacing it with the following
Retail Personal Services with a maximum floor area:
No other changes to this category in §5.2
1
Section 5.2 Table of Use
'Principal Use
Business
Medical
Industrial
Business.
Park
•Consr.
CB
GB
HB
NB
M
GI SI
BP
sc
Retail And Commercial Uses (continued)'
Retail and Personal Service with maximum floor area
A
PB
PB
PB
Site
A
PB
PB
PB
PB
A
PB
Site
Site
PB
A
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
of:establishments selling principally convenience goods
goods and cstablislunents selling general merchandise
accessorica:
A: less than or equal to 10,000 square feet for any
single establislunent; or
B: over 10,000 square feet, single establishment (see §6.2,
§10.15, §11) •3 or
C: over 10,000 sq. feet (single or cumulative) with 2 or
more stories and all parking in rear or side. (2nd+
floor may include other permitted uses)• or
D: Less than or equal to 10,000 sq. feet single
establishment and less than or equal to 15,000 sq.
feet of cumulative development in a 3 -year period on
the same parcel of land which has been in common or
affiliated ownership within the same 3 -year period; or
EE: Less than or equal to10,000 sq. feet single
establishment and over 15,000 sq. feet of cumulative
development in a 3 -year period on the same parcel of
land or on land which has been in common or affiliated
the 3 in B
ownership within same -year period (if not
thew):
I n J .57 Air I s/y/o1.
3
In the Year
(Lit n W.OrrtIranxpt nt
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
MASSACHUSETTS
Councilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
ORDINANCE
Two Thousand One
Amended 2/28/32
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section Appendix A 5 o a f said Code;
providing that Permit and dimensional requirements for retail uses over 10,000 sq. ft.
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
Section 5.2
kgg table of use regulations within the category of Retail and Commercial Uses as shown .on'the
table below. No other changes to this section.
Section 6 -2 HB District
Principal Use
Minimum Required Lot
Minimum Setback
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Open
Space
Area
Frontage
Depth
Front
Side
Rear
Any allowed use on a property with a
building that is setback no more than 10'
along 80% of the property's frontage.
0
60
60
0
0
6
40
5%
Any use when all parking is in the rcar
and /or side of a parcel's principal building
and rear of the front of the principal building.
Applies to 1- story retail establishment(s)
over 10,000 s.f. with all parking located at
the rear or side. (parking in front of
building defined as parking in front of
longest facade facing the street)
20,000
120
140
0
10
20
35
15%
must include the entire frontage.
.•Applies to new projects and substantial improvements (For the purposes of this section, exclude the value of improvements to repair or replacement of
roofs, mechanical systems, elevators, parking lots, or landscaping from calculations.)
+2nd story must be at least 50% of the footprint and
Section 6.2
{Amend §6.2 within HB district by adding the following new row as shown table below and
amend §6.2 within the HB district for "any use when all parking in the rear..." by adding text as
shown on table below}
In the Year
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
Tit of N 'tila nph'.Ortt
MASSACHUSETTS
ORDINANCE
Two Thousand One
Councilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
Amended 2/28/02
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
Appdx A §8.6,8.10,8.11
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section §.1.1.:6(2)., of said Code;
Shared Parking and Parking Fee requirements
providing that
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
"Section
Section 8.6 Shared Parking
§8.6 Insert new standard as follows [regular text indicates that which was moved from §8.10(6) and
§11.6(2)):
In all Zoning Districts except the Central Business (CB) Districts, the Planning Board may:
1. allew-with a special permit Through site plan approval, allow the reduction of the parking
space requirements of up to twenty (20) percent of that required in the Table of Off Street
Parking Regulations where conditions unique to the use will reasonably justify such a reduction,
including 2 story buildings in (NB).
2. The Planning -Beard may allow Through site plan approval reduce parking requirements for
Major Projects listed in §8.1 by up to 20 percent of parking needed for employees (no credit for
parking needed for visitors or customers) if:
A. the applicant incorporates satisfactory methods, acceptable to the permit granting authority, to
reduce the need for parking into their design and into the trip reduction plan described in §11.5
(3.B.) by at least the same percentage; and
B. if the Site Plan Approval is conditioned on the on -going use of those trip reduction methods with
effective enforcement tools included and
3. r at Through a special permit allow a greater percentage reduction
where joint use of the same spaces by two or more uses or establishments is justifiable by virtue
of the fact that the uses or establishments generate peak demand at substantially different time
periods.
Section 8.10
{Amend §8.10 by deleting all of item 6 (to be moved to §8.6). No other changes to this section. Amend
§11.6 by deleting 11.6(2), second paragraphs and subparagraphs A,B, and C.)
Section 11.6(2)
Amend §11.6 (2) as indicated below:
2. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement
within the site and on adjacent streets, minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area. If
applicable, this shall include considering the location of driveways openings in relation to traffic and
adjacent streets, access by emergency vehicles, the arrangement of parking and loading spaces, and
provisions for persons with disabilities; and.(See also §8.6).
Section 8.11
Amend §8.11 as follows:
Section 8.11 Special Provisions in the Central Business District for Meeting Off Street Parking
Requirements
pPayment made to the City of Northampton in -lieu of providing some or all of the required off street
parking spaces for a project in the CB district 1, shall be allowed by -right if
to other applicable criteria, s arc met:
The Planning Board may grant a Special Pcrmit allowing payment to the City of Northampton in lieu of
other applicable criteria, thc following conditions are met:.
41, Scction 81 C and D.
3. Parking is available to mcct the project's nccds or could be macie-ava-i-lable with thc use of
'1 Payment in lieu of funds can eventually be used to mitigate thc project's impact on thc city's
parking system.
5. The Planning Board has received and considered thc recem
Parking Commission regarding the application or the Parking Commission has not made a
s of the Commission's receipt of the request.
The fee to be paid shall be $4,80842,000 per parking space.
y matter and study plans adopted under M.G.L. Chapter
such spaces. Fees paid to the City of Northampton, in -lieu of providing required parking spaces on -site,
shall be deposited into a Downtown Parking Reserve Account to be used solely for expenses (land
acquisition, design /engineering services and construction costs, but not maintenance costs) related to
adding parking spaces, improving the utilization of existing parking spaces, or reducing the need for new
parking to serve the Central Business District. Requests to appropriate funds out of this Reserve Account
shall be filed with the City Council and referred to the Office of Planning and Development, Planning
Board, and Northampton Parking Commission, which shall have 60 days to forward their comments and
recommendations before a City Council vote of the appropriation is taken. (Amended 9/20/1990 and
12/21/1995.)
5
Two Thousand One
2/28/02
Councilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
Appendix A §10.1
Amend special permit approval criteria to include review of large retail
uses over 10,000 square feet.
Section 10.1
{Amend §10.1 by adding in alphabetical order
H. Retail Personal Services uses over 10,000 square feet requiring a special permit in
accordance with §5 -2 shall show that the use does not adversely affect the City's economic
vitality through the provision of jobs and housing as well as the diversity of retail, services and
product purchasing options.
Projects shall provide new economic development opportunities, housing, revenues and retail
diversity to add to the character of Northampton, its downtown and pedestrian scaled villages,
and its long -term vitality and attractiveness as a regional center.
(ztti .af lorr tt amptnn
6 MASSACHUSETTS
In the Year
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
Two Thousand One
rz y_ 6 7,/,o
Amended 2/28/02
Councilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section Appendix A §1,1oi said Code;
providing that Amend site plan submittal requirements for retail establishments
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
"Section
Amend 611.6(7) as follows: Add (s) to the word "establishment" in the first sentence. Delete "25,000" and
replace it with 10,000 in the first sentence. No other changes to this §11.6(7).
Type
Size "'1 'etail;:z
Mitigation Required
E-t,»Iishment
New building, conversion to
0- •,000 square feet
$0
retail or expansion of existing
single or cumulative
development (see §6.2)
New building, conversion to
20,001+ square feet single
$5 /sf for entire footprint of
retail, or expansion
or cumulative (see §6.2)
establishment or cumulative
building(s). Existing grocery stores
(stores in which non -food items do not
exceed 20,000 square feet) pay only
for the footprint of the expansion area.
Expansion of an existing
establishment(s), other than grocery
stores, for which payment has been
made previously, pay only for the
expansion area.0
OR
B- Provide a one -time payment -in -lieu to the City fo
accordance with:
3 0, D 0 a
tail mitigation shall be made in
OThe Planninq Board may issue a special permit to allow expansion of existing
businesses to pay only the fee for the portion of the expansion that exceed <20,0U
square feet if the building comes closer to conforming with dimensional zoning 3 O
requirements then in effect.
Such payment —in -lieu enables the City to create vitality within the business district
through expenditures that foster economic development providing increased customer
base and safe pedestrian space that would not otherwise be provided through
construction of single story, single use building.
Payment -in -lieu shall be used by the City for activities that have direct or indirect
economic development benefits.
The Office of Planning Development shall review the payment -in -lieu fee on an
annual basis and shall submit a report to the Planning Board with any
recommendations on changes that should be made to the fee based upon market
costs /demands.
Fees paid to the City of Northampton, in -lieu of retail mitigation, shall be deposited into
an Economic Development Reserve Account. The distribution of funds for any
projects shall only occur after a vote of approval from the Mayor and City Council.
Requests to appropriate funds out of the Reserve Account shall be filed with the City
Council and referred to the Office of Planning and Development, Planning Board and
Mayor's Office, which shall have 60 days to forward their comments and
recommendations before a City Council vote of the appropriation is taken. The goal
will be to appropriate the use of these funds within five years, to the extent practicable.
In the Year
"Section
tr¢ 4r 4h /n!,! e_0-f .f ~A /4t
v/c
(City of Nlyttlyartptri
7 MASSACHUSETTS
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
0 R t cllcN Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section of said Code;
providing that
„Appe ctix.A.. §.1.1..6
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows
Amend site plan submittal requirements for retail establishments over 10,000 sf
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
Section 11.6
{Amend §11.6 by adding new criteria in numeric order
8. For 1 -story retail uses in the Highway Business
single establishments or cumulative developmen
I rear, an applicant may choose as an alternative-I
+a an in -lieu of fee as described
Consistent with the City's adopted Vision 02I goals to foster development that is sustainable for
the long term, is built to human scale, and expands economic opportunities, the city encourages
applicants to develop buildings that are pedestrian oriented and which enhance economic vitality
by building along the street with second story space for residential or other commercial use. In
lieu of designing projects that meet these goals, the alternative options in- either A or-B below will
mitigate the impacts that large, single- story, single -use retail businesses create by effectively
eliminating land that could otherwise be used to construct multi- story, mixed use space within
Northampton's core. Such multi -story development enables the limited land remaining in
Northampton to be used more efficiently in order to provide vibrant mixed uses and vital
economic development opportunities within the City.
A,P- rovide .85 square feet of on or off cite affordable- housing- units for- east-& ua et
s Feat ed4w4he- retail d ve{opment 4 feet -of- retail would require
85 000-sq pare4eet -of- affordable -units eery -tw-o persons -makin less Char 80%-of
median- insome —Thi& w4ll- meet -tbe- goal cif- provic ng- guaranteed- e- usto+ner -base for
retail- uses- in -tlie- highway- business istrict and -it- will provide -more around -the -clock
#fe and -v4b -ancy to -the- area- by- or-eating-pedestrian- axed residential- space.
C
Two Thousand One
C GS. /.l C5
76 C 1c'/
Amended 3/12/02
a. follows ?a, a
istrict that are over2-07080 feet of
jth parking located in the front, side and/or
evelo•in+ as a two -stor buildin.. to either
ow.
Type
Size "'i etail
E-t
Mitigation Required
New building, conversion to
0- •,000 square feet
$0
retail or expansion of existing
single or cumulative
development (see §6.2)
New building, conversion to
20,001+ square feet single
$5 /sf for entire footprint of
retail, or expansion
or cumulative (see §6.2)
establishment or cumulative
building(s). Existing grocery stores
(stores in which non -food items do not
exceed 20,000 square feet) pay only
for the footprint of the expansion area.
Expansion of an existing
establishment(s), other than grocery
stores, for which payment has been
made previously, pay only for the
expansion area.O
OR
B;Provide a one -time payment -in -lieu to the City for etail mitigation shall be made in
accordance with:
OThe Planning Board may issue a special permit to allow expansion of existing
businesses to pay only the fee for the portion of the expansion that exceed(0,079
square feet if the building comes closer to conforming with dimensional zoning 3 0,
requirements then in effect.
Such payment —in -lieu enables the City to create vitality within the business district
through expenditures that foster economic development providing increased customer
base and safe pedestrian space that would not otherwise be provided through
construction of single story, single use building.
Payment -in -lieu shall be used by the City for activities that have direct or indirect
economic development benefits.
The Office of Planning Development shall review the payment -in -lieu fee on an
annual basis and shall submit a report to the Planning Board with any
recommendations on changes that should be made to the fee based upon market
costs /demands.
Fees paid to the City of Northampton, in -lieu of retail mitigation, shall be deposited into
an Economic Development Reserve Account. The distribution of funds for any
projects shall only occur after a vote of approval from the Mayor and City Council.
Requests to appropriate funds out of the Reserve Account shall be filed with the City
Council and referred to the Office of Planning and Development, Planning Board and
Mayor's Office, which shall have 60 days to forward their comments and
recommendations before a City Council vote of the appropriation is taken. The goal
will be to appropriate the use of these funds within five years, to the extent practicable.
If a court invalidates any portion or uses of this fee for economic development, then
the applicant must meet erne -of the alternative standard ofs- by-- to to c:thei building
two -story construction —a the stree nor build- af#er- dable- housing.
Two Thousand One
Removal of abandoned large retail buildings
Councilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
'Appendix A §10.1
Amend Special Permit criteria &10.1 (4) by leaving the first paragraph with no changes, and begin
lettering the second paragraph as "A Insert the following new paragraph as:
B. Removal of large retail structures: In order to prevent economic, social and visual blight in the
community, as a condition of approval, the applicant shall remove if requested by the
Planning Board any retail buildings greater than 50,000sf that cease to be used for any
purpose allowed by the zoning ordinance for twenty -four consecutive months. Exceptions
may be given if, in the opinion of the Planning Board, the property is being actively marketed
or is in the permitting process for a new use /tenant. The Planning Board may require a
performance guarantee for such buildings of up to $1.50 per gross leasable square foot, as a
means to enforce this condition. The Planning Board may increase this amount as necessary
in their bylaws, after analysis of current demolitions fees.
2/28/02
Section 6 -2 HB District
All other use
9
In the Year
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
Czar of .artIxamptrnt
MASSACHUSETTS
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section Append A §6.0 of said Code;
providing that Create maximum setback for single story retail establishments over 10,000 square feet
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
"Section
Section 6.2
§6.2 Amend the table of dimensional regulations for Highway Business Section of 6.2
as shown below. No other changes to this section}
Principal Use
Minimum Required Lot
Area
Frontage.
Depth
20,000 120 140
C f( o .7/L/°
Two Thousand Two
Councilors Bleiman, Dwight Ghiselin
Minimum. Setback
Front
Side
Rear
10❖ 10 20
Amended 2/28/02
Maximum Minimum
Building Open
Height Space
35 30%
.•For retail uses above 10,000 square feet, the maximum setback is fifty fve(55) feet within which no more than one row of
parking is allowed. The Planning Board may issue a special permit to allow existing buildings with 75' or greater setback to
maintain a maximum setback of 75 feet within which no more than 1 row of parking and no more than 42' of asphalt may be
created if the Board determines that exceptional circumstances exist.
1 0
In the Year
UPON THE ,RECOMMENDATION OF
Lzftr of X.artlxattYphin
MASSACHUSETTS
ORDINANCE
Add new subsection in alphabetical order to read:
No other changes to this section.
t?
1',
sr /Z 61--
l
Tw Q.. .T. hoa.! d. One
Amended 2/28/02
Councilors William Dwight Alex Ghiselin
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section of said Code;
providing that Appendix••A -§6.2
retaiLestablishraents•ov-er• 90 square•feet•shall- be••Kehibited
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows:
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
"Section
Section 5.2
§5.2 Amend table of use regulations within the category of Retail and Commercial Uses as follows:
Amend subsection B of Retail and Personal Service to read "10,000 to 90,000 square feet
"Over 90,000 square feet of footprint for single establishment {not to be allowed in any district}
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
Cite Ha((- 2 i o Main Street, Room 11 Northampton, MA 01060 -3198 (4131587 -1266 Fax: 587 -1264
Wasnc Feiden, Director p (arming @nortbawptonp(anning.org www.northamptonp(annin,g.org
Memorandum
To: City Council
From: Wayne Feiden Director of Planning and Development and Carolyn Misch, Senior Land Use Planner
Date: Friday, April 12, 2002 (revised)
Proposed zoning changes: Retail Standards and related changes
Date Action
Referred from City Council 11/15/01 to Ordinance and Planning Board
Chamber Economic Development Com. 10/18 /01 11/16 /01 discussions
Legal notice and posting 11/21/02,11/29/2001,1 /10/2002, 1/17/2002
City Council Ordinance Committee informal reviewl2/10 /01 Request three changes (see table)
Ordinance Committee informal review 12/11/01 discussion
Housing Partnership 1/ 15/02 Supports the consideration of affordable housing; and
Endorses proposals, with affordable housing mitigation; and would support further restrictions on large retail
Ordinance /Planning Board Public Hearing 12/13/01,1/24/2002, 2/28/2002, and 4/4/2002
Planning Board recommendation 2/28 /2002 and 4/4/2002 see attached
Ordinance Committee recommendation 4/11/2002 —see ttachea
Deadline for final City Council action 5/16/2002 it/ /it a.- p 1 a o'• 6_
This package of ten zoning ordinances creates a vision Rng Street. This vision is
designed to implement Northampton Vision 2020 and most of the comments received during the City's
December King Street visioning workshop. This vision includes improving waikability of King Street and
the ability of buildings to frame the street, while acknowledging that the majority of trips on King Street will
continue to be by automobile. The vision also includes maintaining or expanding a wide range of retail
opportunities, while expanding the opportunity for additional offices and housing to be built on King Street.
This package of zoning changes will significantly decrease the regulatory burden on developers who build
buildings consistent with this vision. For these developers, open space requirements and setbacks will be
dramatically reduced, parking requirements will be reduced somewhat, and fewer special permits will be
required. Developers creating development at odds with this vision will find some new regulatory burdens,
specifically a maximum setback requirement and tougher site plan review standards, and a requirement to
mitigate the impact of low wage jobs on the housing market.
Janet Sheppard, the City Solicitor, has determined that the "in- lieu -of" fee for economic development is a
valid fee. This is a voluntary fee, which is only applied to those developments which are not built with two
stories up to the front property boundary, and will be used to mitigate the housing and economic
development impacts of those projects. Robert Ritchie, Director of the Municipal Law Unit of the Attorney
General's office has indicated that if Northampton was a town instead of a city, his office could -srr
of -fee such as ours because it would be considered an optional fee (City's are not required to receive
approval). Robert noted that the fee related zoning issues are simple. He said that the key legal issue is
ensuring that monies collected are spend in compliance with Mass General Laws and not for general fund
purposes.
planning board conservation commission zoning board of appeals hoilsing partnership redevelOpmentautboritN nort)alnpton GIS
economic development •comm 1w1it3develOpment historic district commission --bistorical commission -central businessarcbitectnre
suoiepuauauaooa�
1 Ordinance Com
l In favor (3-0)
As amended
1 In favor (3-0)
In favor (2 -0-1)
As amended
In favor (2 -0 -1)
As amended
Refer with 'no
recommenda
2 -0-1)
In favor (2 -0-1)
As amended
4
c
co
E
Refer with no
recommendat 41
(2 -0-1)
In favor (2-0-1)
As amended
Refer with no
recommendation
(2 -0-1)
p8;6wuueld
In favor (4 -3)
As amended
(0-L) JOAeJ ul
In favor (5-2)
As amended
In favor (7 -0)
As amended
Opposed (7 -1)
In favor (8 -0)
As amended
(D
C 2
L-a
as as
Opposed (8 -0)
In favor (5-3)
As amended
In favor (5-3)
Proposed Amendment Purpose
Correct typo in ordinance
No proposed amendments
Better define how a building can frame the street
and allow buildings with no maximum setbacks
behind buildings built to the streetline.
Cleanup language in ordinance
No proposed amendments
Correct reference typo
Drop living wage and economic analysis options,
revise fee table, drop affordable housing as a use
for in- lieu -of -fees and as altemative options,
explain nexus. Increase thresholds to 20,000
square feet. Fee only applies to HB for one
story projects. These changes make it easier to
evaluate projects and minimize effects on small
local businesses. By Special Permit for existing
businesses, apply fee only to expansion that is
over 20,000 sf, not to entire building, if building
is closer to meeting dimensional standards.
No proposed changes
Increase setback to 55' (75' for existing buildings),
but keep buildings close to street with minimal
asphalt in front of buildings
Increase cap to 90,000 square feet to allow large
retail, but prevent the huge mega- big -boxes which
limit retail opportunities. (also simplify format)
Onginal Ordinance Purpose
Change for both floodplain and redevelopment
purposes
Improve clarity
Encourage development to frame the street.
Such development creates greater economic
development potential, promotes better use
of land and creates environment that
encourages access by foot, bicycle and bus.
Allow shared parking by site plan (instead of
special permit) and simplify. Lower payment -in-
lieu for not providing parking spaces and allow by
right
Add standard to address retail
Decrease the threshold size for large retail site
plan /design standards
Create mitigation and in- lieu -of fees for retail not
meeting preferred placement
Standards for removal of abandoned buildings
Create a maximum 50' setback for retail over
10,000 square feet to ensure development frames
the street. Such development creates greater
economic development potential, promotes
better use of land and creates environment
that encourages access by foot, bicycle and
bus
Prohibit retail over 20,000 square feet to limit large
retail
Ordinance'.
Substantial
improvement
suoltlu!faa 1
Use /dimensions
Parking and
parking fee
Special Permit
standards
Retail site plan
thresholds
c
0
CU
0)
E
as
a)
CC
lenouaal
Maximum setback
dea I1ela j
Sections
0'Z
Z `0
c
c•i
1)
8.6, 8.10,
8.11,
11.6
6'0l•
9'b.
r
N-
9'66
CSI
CO
Z'9
N
CO
d'
LO
CO
N-
CO
O)
0
Table 3: Summary of Ordinances and Proposed Amendments
O
C
N
rY
(O CO d' 0 0 O N O CO (O 0 0 CO
Q 1-- 0 0 0 0 00) N 0)) 0)) 0 Off) 0 00) 0)
J
W
O
Z_
O m CO m CO m m CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
N 2 2 2 2 2 2 S 11111 2 2
CO CO h-
0) 0) 0) 0)
CO CO CO CO
1111
G
(n
Z 0 70
1
0) Q
U
C CO 1 a� Q Y Q
N a a X (6 J
E
Q-' 0 O o W 0 Z
Q- W a) J 0 0 m co
O Z 2 (n m 2 L- J 'a Q a O D a
N To O c a 0 0 O 2
0_ .7.. U 2 2 0 0 2 8 U U
L.) o
fl Z 0
o C7 C7 Z O
Q Q n O W W W W U
N "O J a J d J co II I- W H F- u)
a a t co co D D 0
E o W o 0 °zs a U H w
z
EL Q Q 1 Z S O Q Z Z 2 W Z Z
a 2 S
1.. N S w co w Q J (n W a W W O J J Q O W LL W
_0 W 0 m 0- W 2 2 Z J c 7 3 Ei J tY J w> O O CO
e Z Q z ��o 0 00 Z
Y Z= 0 Y w O 2 J Q O 0 0 g w J Q t 0 Y U W W 0 0
U Z Y Y Q Z W U W W W J Q J J Q o M W 0 0 0 0
N O Q Q Z Q 0) tL p J 2 Z rn W W W Q Q Q
d O O J c m m 0 5 co LL 0 0 0 Y 0 C7 Q N I-- 2 J J
CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
as O Z Z Z Z Z Z z
0) 3- Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 3- I- I I- F- F- F- H I- F- F- H F- I- I-
C W M S S 2 2 S S CO CO CO CO CO CO Cn co co co co co (n '(n CO 0)
ti_ W Ct CC CC CC CC CC H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3- a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z -Z Z Z Z
0
W Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Q W 0 0) 0
'(0 W N N M 00 0 CO 0 'd 00 n CO CO N N 0 CO
N CO N CO CO M N r 'h N O CO .4-
Cl. F N N co co M CO 0) CO CO N N
CO
O
L
0 0 0 0 0 O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N L6 o o O O O O O 0 0" O O O O+
(n d y M O O O nj (.j Ln r O O O N N 0 0" 0 0 O O CD
CC O O O O O r O O O O O i p O p
3 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 p O O c.() O p 0 0 O O O O
N Z N O O M O O O O t0 In O O O O O N N. O
O W Or N co co co- M CO O O p
0- t 0
0)
O 0 r LC) O N O r 0 CO CO LO N- M r 0 CD
00 CO M oo 6 N O 6 N: Op 0) C O
0) CO CO 0) CO 00 T CO 0 0) 0) (0
00 CO 'd_ M 0 LO CO a) M CO O CO O
CO M N
CO O O) O CO N O 1.6 ti O O co LO r N O t•-• C1
Q N CO 0 0 N N N f` 0d' c.00) r r 0 0 C
W CO CO LO V• m
Q a
0
M M M 0 0 0 O h 0 N N- 0 CO CO CO O N C) CO M O) h (O t O
CO O 0 LO CO O O N O h LO CO h O ti O I N
(n CO CO O O N h h r N d. CO CO O O h CO O O r O L j CO c co h
ILI O r CV O M r r r O r 1C) 0 e• r o- 0) C) (p e- N O e): 0
o o0
a a o
M h
N
r 'd'
t i7,-- 00') co C N
O N- M LLc) (0 (1) et M 00 O M O CO
.-100000 CO O CO O CO CO O O CO O 40 CO CO O w O O v O
C LB COM O O w
O co
Q O O 0 m m m m m O m m m 0 0 0 0 c p p c p m m Q Z
00 Op_ N co N N N N N N N N CO 2 "r r r r r r
CO CO 0 (0
00) m 0)
m m
2
03 03
2 S
A to Z
47'
Foster Farrar
77'
Pot Pourri
106'
Hunan Gourmet
35'
Northampton Health Club
61'
Fire Station
40'
Radio Shack and Chrysler Dodge
38'
Good Year Tire
60'
Florence Savings Bank
25'
Table 1: Typical Store Configurations
Table 2: Sample Existin g King Street Setbacks (of buildings close to street
Diagram 1: Typical 50 foot setback development
1?' e
1 iot
S i t+
sr
Lt
dy
1-1
:fe1.0.4 ,N r _.:g;•-• 4140:W.:50
7 .2:4'1:
1..0...47-,.,
AW:214,
A to Z
8,540 Sq. Ft.
Foster Farrar (King St.)
10,600 Sq. Ft. w/ warehouse
Kia
12,180 Sq. Ft.
Liquor Mart
11,000 Sq. Ft.
7-11
4,094 Sq. Ft.
Home Depot
90,000 —150,000 Sq. Ft.
Hamelin Furniture
11,674 Sq. Ft.
Pier 1 Holyoke
10,000 Sq. Ft.
Radio Shack
10,240 Sq. Ft.
Price Chopper (existing)
64,000 Sq. Ft.
Liquors 44
12,320 Sq. Ft.
Serve U (King St.)
41,000 Sq. Ft.
L H Appliances
6,990 Sq. Ft.
Staples (standard)
24,000 Sq. Ft.
Blockbuster
5,900 Sq. Ft.
Stop Shop (King St.)
Entire plaza
80,000 Sq. Ft.
101,000 Sq. Ft.
Barnes Noble
(standard)
20,000 —45,000 Sq. Ft.
Wal-Mart (N. King St.)
96,000 Sq. Ft. w/ garden
ctr.
Circuit City Holyoke
33,000 Sq. Ft.
Wal-Mart Hadley
98,000 Sq. Ft.
Table 1: Typical Store Configurations
Table 2: Sample Existin g King Street Setbacks (of buildings close to street
Diagram 1: Typical 50 foot setback development
1?' e
1 iot
S i t+
sr
Lt
dy
1-1
:fe1.0.4 ,N r _.:g;•-• 4140:W.:50
7 .2:4'1:
1..0...47-,.,
Type of Center
Neighborhood, convenience, community,
free standing
Regional, power center, shopping center pad
site, free- standing
Neighborhood, convenience, community,
free- standing
Regional, neighborhood, community, power
center, free standing
Power center, free- standing
Neighborhood, convenience, community,
mixed -use, free standing, CBD
Neighborhood, convenience, community,
power center, mixed -use, free standing, CBD
Regional, neighborhood, convenience,
community, mixed -use, free standing, CBD
Regional, neighborhood, convenience,
community, mixed -use, free standing, CBD
Neighborhood, convenience, community,
mixed -use, free standing, CBD
I
Neighborhood, convenience, community,
mixed -use, free standing, CBD
Neighborhood, convenience, community,
mixed -use, free standing, CBD
Preferred Size (sq. ft.)
000'SZ
30,000 50,000
(testing 20,000)
000`0E
000`SZ
00S`££
000`0£
000'0H
000`Z£
000`SZ-000`Z
000`t7Z
00 000
000`0£
Product Lines
Audio, Video, TV Appliance
Appliances, computers, electronics
Home Furnishings
Bookstores
Appliances, computers, electronics
Health Clubs
Hardware, home improvement
Apparel
ja eddy
Office supplies /furniture
iax.zeuuadns
Supermarket
a wuN
Bernie's
Best Buy Co.
Bob's Discount
Furniture
Borders Group
/SID llnatD
uziSO ujop°
1
Malt 5 uetussaID
Marshalls/ TJX Co.s
Peter Harris
said
Whole Foods Market
Wild Oats Market
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
Teri Anderson
Economic Development Coordinator
City Hall
210 Main Street Room 12
Northampton MA 01060 -3199
(413) 587 -1249
FAX: (413) 587 -1275
tanderso @city.northampton.ma.us
Memorandum
To: Planning Board and City Council
From: Teri Anderson, Economic Development Coordinator
Date: April 3, 2002 (Revised April 11, 2002)
Re: Retail Trends/Data and Tax Revenue Impact
The attached information is intended to help respond to the following questions that have arisen
during the discussion of regulating large -scale retail.
1. What is the tax revenue impact of limiting store sizes?
2. Will the regulations deter all retail development in the BB Zone?
Summary of Attachments
Attached is as much data regarding the existing Northampton retail sector, sales trends and
potential retail uses available without cost. Infoi illation regarding the Northampton market area,
market potential by retail category, and retail sales leakage to other retail market areas was
unavailable.
Retail Real Estate Tax Comparison Offers a comparison of various retail development
scenarios indicating the difference in estimated tax revenues between large -scale single -use free-
standing retail and mixed -use retail centers. These estimates are a snapshot of individual
development scenarios and do not consider market demand, spin -off development or potential
vacancies from loss of existing retail due to transfer of sales.
Northampton Retail Trade Data Indicates the number of businesses, number of employees and
total annual sales of specific retail categories in Northampton. Offered as baseline data and for
use in evaluating the potential impact of new retail.
Local Retail Expansion Needs A sampling of local retailers need to expand beyond 20,000sf to
help determine a threshold for regulation.
Retail Store Specifications Indicates the types of stores interested in locating in Massachusetts
or Western Massachusetts and their preferred size and location preferences.
Research on Retail Trends
An article in the March 2002 issue of Shopping Center World discusses an emerging interest in
the retail sector for "lifestyle centers." The design of these centers is evolving but they generally
have a wide range of variety of retail uses and sizes; sometimes mixed with residential, office
and public uses in a live /work/play environment. This trend is developing out of a consumer
desire to return to a community, a desire for multiple activities on the same site and because
more and more communities are mandating design requirements.
I have spoken to several national retailers to gather information on retail trends. A summary of
these discussions is attached.
Retail Goals/Policy Considerations
I would suggest the following policy considerations as guidelines for regulating retail on King
St.
1. Support local business success and growth. Business retention is a basic and critical
element of any economic development strategy. Small businesses make up the largest
part of most economies and local businesses invest and re- circulate more dollars within
the community.
2. The goal might be to level the playing field for local and national retailers not necessarily
to prohibit national chains. Given the changing retail environment, it is likely the City
will be unable to entirely keep out chains.
3. Regulating or not regulating large scale retail may not be an either /or situation.
Downtown may be impacted more by mixed -use stores. Other City retailers may be
impacted more by big box retailers (i.e. Home Depot would impact: Foster Farrar,
Agway, Rugg Lumber, Northampton Lumber, Northampton Plumbing.Supply, F.W.
Webb, paint stores). King St. is likely to draw a mixture of big box, small to mid -sized
retailers and mixed -use retail.
4. Provide a range of quality and cost of merchandise to accommodate a variety of
consumer needs and to prevent exclusivity. Conduct a baseline retail market analysis,
determine where the gaps are in the Northampton retail market, identify sales that are
leaking to other locations, and actively recruit retailers that would fill that gap.
5. A business friendly policy is to clearly identify the desired retail mix, recruit desired
businesses, and shepherd those projects through the permitting process to successfully
complete their projects. It might be helpful to state the type of retail the City wishes to
promote on King St. and the desired goals for retail as a purpose statement or special
permit criteria. Regional centers, community centers, convenience /neighborhood centers,
mixed -use centers, life -style centers, small to mid -size free standing buildings, etc.
I hope this information is helpful to your discussion.
Best Buy
Retailers have already saturated the national and mid -size markets and are now looking
for infill in the smaller markets <50,000 pop.)
Customers are asking for stores in:closer proximity to home
There are very few available sites large enough to accorrunodate big boxes. Retailers are
beginning to create smaller prototypes to fit into the real estate available in urban areas.
The volume of sales in some markets won't support a big box so retailers will be testing
smaller prototypes in smaller markets
There is some desire to fit the concept to the community rather than the other way
around) I I I (I could not believe my ears. He was surprised to hear these words from his
mouth.)
The mid -size boxes can operate successfully on a smaller concept and almost always can
meet the desire for pedestrian scale design.
Home Depot
Home Depot is a working warehouse for contractors open to the public everyone pays
the same price. Have an industrial appearance for contractors, but customers are now
asking them to have more of a design/decor area with more of an office environment. (i.e.
Worcester store).
Retailers determine store size based on market demand. Size limitations may affect the
success of a store because it may not be able to accommodate the use /demand.
They look at the potential sales number and dollar value of sales in each merchandise
category to determine merchandise and store layout to fit community, /market demand.
A Home Depot store in Northampton would have a sales demand of multiple tens of
millions of dollars.
Hadley is another trade area. Would also want a store in Northampton. They plan stores
to where the market will be in five+ years. Their West Springfield and Wilbraham stores
are not equipped to handle the demand. They draw from Keene, CT., Pittsfield, Ware.
Planning stores in Chicopee, Hadley, Pittsfield. Would like to be in Northampton. It is a
strong market and demand center due to condition of the housing stock, population,
potential population growth, income levels, and good road access.
Store size trends: Started at 80,000sf 98,000sf -*116,000sf (most popular)
160,000sf (experimental a few stores) 95,000sf+ 15,000sf garden center (current
prototype). Have learned that they can better serve the market with smaller stores and
more of them.
May go to another location if not too off target from the market center but could get their
size needs met. However, since they already have a presence in most markets and cannot
always get the desired real estate (11 -13 acres), they need to be more flexible to gain
better market penetration.
71
Summary of Input from Retailers
Experimenting with new formats: small neighborhood stores half the size of a Home
Depot with slightly different products to act as a satellite store working in conjunction
with a larger nearby regional store (i.e. Villagers Hardware, NJ). Also looking at an
urban neighborhood store merchandised specifically for the Mill Basin neighborhood in
Brooklyn (61,000sf).
Would consider this concept of a satellite store in Northampton working in conjunction
with a Hadley store. They believe in no regulatory restrictions, but understand that
communities need to target anchors and locations carefully. They believe HD is a more
desirable anchor (compared to Kmart) due to the spinoff development they bring.
They believe local stores can effectively compete with Home Depot by offering different
brands and pricing. Cannot compete with HD buying power so must do it by changing
product brands /mix, staff -up, expand hours. Stores already associated with a buying
cooperative already provide good service and products.
Design Considerations: HD prefers a tree /berm buffer around parking field. Only two
stores with second floor out of 1360. Can work with some design guidelines but prefer
to work with local architects rather than permitting boards.
The Bon -Ton Stores
A conventional department store. Mostly clothing. Some small electric and home
sections. Target customer: Women 35 -65. Household income: $55,000. Competition
is Kohl's, JC Penny, Macy's.
Just completed an 18 month strategic plan. Moving from 33,000sf- 155,000sf stores to
55,000sf- 75,000sf and targeting secondary and tertiary markets. Preferred location is in
a neighborhood /convenience strip center rather than downtown or a mall. Prefer to be an
anchor store with a supermarket.
Yes, would consider Northampton would target moderate income consumer.
Two stories does not make sense for them except in very large stores. Not their target
market.
Prefer not to own. Would use a developer to build and lease or take over existing space.
Roy Roberts Broker for Bob's Stores, Trader Joes
Bob's Stores sell apparel and accessories. Seeking a western MA store. Prefer regional
shopping centers like the Holyoke Mall. King St. would generally be a good area but due
to the north/south trade would want to get closer to a retail critical mass location like
Holyoke or Hadley. Wouldn't rule out Northampton but less typical.
Generally rely on the regional draw of other large box retail traffic Their sales
projections would be lower without them.
Thinks that two story, size caps, and payment in lieu fee would encourage most retailers
to look to other locations.
Bob's Stores average customer: Men 15 -35.
John Schallert Retail Consultant
Primarily consults with retailers trying to compete with big boxes after they enter a
conununity. Conducts seminars to teach principles of how to be a destination i.e. not
relying on anchors, market positioning, product choices. How to operate in the shadow
of Home Depot WalMart and capitalize on their weaknesses and traffic
Local businesses may not necessarily be put out of business it depends on how they are
aligned in the market, history, willingness to adapt and differentiate themselves from the
boxes. Must adapt to survive.
Does not like big boxes because they take more revenue out of the community than they
contribute, but it is unrealistic to think it is possible to keep them out entirely.
There is currently a giant national retail fallout happening all retailers, even the big
boxes like KMart need to learn these techniques. He thinks independent retailers have a
better chance of using the techniques successfully because they are not restricted by the
corporate organization.
Believes communities can succeed in the middle market. It is a more challenging way to
go but in the long run more beneficial to the community as a whole because local
businesses invest more in the community. (In response to the question would there be
options for Northampton to grow with mid -size retailers)
Niche stores (like Ace Hardware) can be very functional and profitable.
Sample Property:
63,000 sq. ft. retail building on 6 acres
Value: $2,186,267
Tax: 34,784
Scenario 1: Vacant Building
63,000 sq.ft. retail building on 6 acres vacant for 10 years and deteriorated condition
Value with a 20% Vacancy Factor: $1,894,609
Taxes: $30,143 $4641 reduction in tax revenue)
Note: The standard vacancy factor is 5% with an upper limit of 25
Scenario 2: Mixed Use Retail Center
Square Feet
23,942
24,340
17,900
6,000
72,182
Scenario 3:
Square Feet
90,000
Scenario 4: Free Standing Single Use (similar size to scenario 2 mixed use)
Square Feet
75,000
Use
Office Supply
Books
Health Food
Apparel
Free Standing Single Use
Use Value
Building Supply Home 4,140,000
Improvement or Similar
Retailer
Use
Building Supply Home
Improvement or Similar
Retailer
Retail Real Estate Tax Comparison
Value
1,093,000
1,093,000
760,750
750,000
3,696,750
Real Estate Tax
($15.91/$1,000)
17,3 89.63
17,389.63
12,103.53
11,932.50
58,815.29
Tax
Value Tax
65,867.40
3,450,000 54,889.50
Scenario 5: Free Standing Single Use No Cap on Assembled Land (12Acres)
Square Feet Use Value Tax
135,000 Building Supply Home $6,750,000 $107,393
Improvement or Similar
Retailer
Scenario 6: Mixed Use Retail Center Regardless of Cap on Assembled Land (12Acres)
Square Feet Use Value Tax
135,000 Mixed Use Retail $8,100,000 $128,871
Notes:
1. Size cap pertains to individual establishments not the overall size of a retail center.
2. Figures are estimates only for theoretical purposes and do not apply to actual real estate.
3. Tax is on real estate only. Does not include personal property tax.
4. Value was determined using the cost approach to valuation for the first year of new
development. Values would likely increase in subsequent years using the income
approach to valuation depending on the actual retail mix.
5. Estimates are a snapshot of individual development scenarios and do not account for
market demand, spin -off development or potential vacancies from loss of existing retail
space.
Scenarios prepared by Economic Development Coordinator and Assessor's Office, April 2002.
Retail Category
of Businesses
Total Employees
Total Sales
Motor Vehicle Parts Dealers
21
386
$122 million
Furniture Home Furnishings
9
77
$6.5 million
Electronics, Appliance Camera
17
84
$12.4 million
Building Materials Garden
Supplies
12
133
$28.2 million.
Food Beverage
25
693
$88.2 million
Health Personal Care
10
133
$18 million
Gasoline Stations
20
146
$30.9 million
Clothing Accessories
33
273
$20 5 million
Book, Periodical Music
7
58
$4.8 million
General Merchandise
3
D
D
Miscellaneous (office supplies,
stationery, gifts, used merchandise,
Art, etc.
24
D
D
7)
Northampton Retail Trade
U.S. Census Bureau
1997 Economic Census
D Withheld to avoid disclosing data about individual stores.
Compiled by Economic Development Coordinator, Mayor's Office, March 2002
Local Retail Expansion Needs
March 2002
Foster Farrar: Current size 8,500sf. Would expand to 15,000sf maximum including storage
if not constrained by land area. Larger than 20,000sf for a hardware store is very large and
would include non hardware lines. Rocky's Ace Hardware owns 8 stores in the region and has
been reducing the size as remodeled from 16,000sf range down to 10,000- 12,000sf. Would not
expect other retailers other than car dealerships to expand beyond 20,000sf.
A to Z: Current size 8,500sf. Would not need to expand. 20,000sf is huge for a toy store.
Hamelin: Current size 11,600sf Would never need to expand over this size.
Agway: Current size 10,440sf retail 4,500sf warehouse. Does not anticipate a need to
expand beyond 20,000sf— would probably remodel within existing square footage.
Faces: Current size 13,000sf Could possibly expand by 5,000- 7,000sf but not over 20,000sf'
if space was available. Generally, local retailers are not larger than 20,000sf
Manny's: Largest store is 8,000sf. Would not need to expand beyond this.
L H Appliance: Current size 6,990. Could possibly expand another 5,000sf into another
product line.
Local Commercial/Retail Inquiries for Space in Northampton Over the Last Year:
Local wholesale /retail use 5,000sf (could potentially expand up to 20,000sf)
Studio /workshop 4,000sf
Goodwill 8,000sf
Dance studio space 4,000sf
Food Coop 18,000sf
Retail 3,000sf
Retail 1; 500sf
Compiled by Economic Development Coordinator, Mayor's Office
Type of Center
Regional, power center, free standing
Regional, neighborhood, convenience,
community, free standing, central business
districts
Regional, Neighborhood, Power Center,
Free standing
Regional, community, free standing
Regional, neighborhood, power centers,
free standing
Regional, neighborhood, convenience,
community centers, free standing
i
Regional, free- standing
Regional, community, free standing
Regional, super regional, community, power
centers, free standing
Preferred Size (sq. ft.)
108,000
68,000 (Greenfield)
000`OSI 000'0S
0
130,000- 150,000
(testing 90,000)
000`98
000`05 I
00
000`SZ1 000`68
40,000- 120,000 (96,000
in Northampton)
Superstores.(116,000
233,000)
Product Lines
Discount variety
sauossaoou `ja reddy
aims luauzmdo
Building Supply, hardware, paint,
garden supply, home improvement
Department store
Appliances, computers, electronics,
floor covering, hardware, home
improvement, paint
Wholesale club- discount variety
Discount variety
Discount variety
auiuN
BJ's Wholesale Club
Bob's Stores
The Bon -Ton
1odaG ow0
S ,Itlo3I
Lowe's
Sam's Club
1a�.z�Z
JJI
Stores Listed are seeking locations in Massachusetts, New England, or USA
Source: 2001 Retail Tenant Directory
To the Planning Board and the City Council Ordinance Committee:
Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the February 28 meeting. However, in my absence, I wish to
express some of my thoughts regarding the latest ordinance proposals to regulate the development of large
retail stores in our highway business district (HB).
Over the past couple of years, as many of you know, I have had a strong concern regarding the proposal to
dramatically change the regulation of large retailers in HB. Part of my concern stems from the belief that
these "big box" ordinance changes might clearly discourage any reasonable development of property on King
Street, thus depriving the city of some much needed tax revenue. I also question whether or not building large
retail spaces up onto the street will truly provide the type of relief and calming that would be provided by
additional green space and landscaping. At the same time, I have always felt confident that our current zoning
provides certain essential protection against poorly planned and harmful highway business development. As a
planning board we have exercised our duty in enforcing the regulations that require developers to perform
within the intent of the current zoning ordinance. We have required applicants to protect the city's
infrastructure, to improve pedestrian and vehicular access and to enhance the overall appearance of the
property with green space and additional landscaping.
My initial concerns aside, I certainly admire the ultimate vision of the ordinance sponsors, as I too wish to see
a more attractive northerly gateway to our city. However, because of my worries regarding a strong deterrent
against development in this zoning district, I ask that some modification and compromise be considered within
the specifics of the proposed ordinance changes.
V 1. I oppose economic impact studies, which by their nature tend to be "more art than science" and not easily
applied by the planning board.
4 /-2. I do not believe a cap of 20,000 -sq. ft. allows for effective development of these parcels, thus severely
limiting the tax revenue potential for the city. oo 0
I believe that a demolition ordinance for abandoned property is onerous, if not unenforceable; and it very
likely could discourage any new development.
v 4. I believe that a 10,000 sq. ft threshold for big boxes is far too extreme. A 20,000 sq. ft threshold would
seem more reasonable. However, a 10,000 sq. ft threshold for big box design standards makes sense,
because of the potential for building up onto the street.
The impact /linkage fee certainly may present some future legal problems. That aside, I would propose that
the fee be reduced ter sq. ft for all development over 20,000 sq. ft. and e r sq. ft for all
development over 50,000 sq. ft. yes
The fund that arises out of the linkage fee should be used for economic development only, as the developer
will always have the option to provide a .85 square foot ratio of affordable housln. I believe that there
should be a specific period of time in which the funds are to be used (five years eems reasonable), as our
P
current economic development needs must be addressed.
SS, v A 50 -ft maximum front set back does not allow for two -lane traffic, a lane of parking and a 10 -ft. green
belt. xpanding to a 75 -ft maximum front set back would afford space for all of the above i.e. fire lanes,
additional green space, etc.
8 Please consider raising the threshold for "substantially improved" to 25 in line with some state codes
and a change that encourages reuse.
I would support all of the other proposals, as they are complimentary to the above, proposed zoning changes.
Thank you for any consideration.
1 1
Dan acuzzo
Chair, Northampton Planning Board
c o commercial market in the Greater Springfield to other community has
ton y a unique t onm cc osition and serves a purpose
Northampton. Northampton occupies a p
regional economy,
duplicated or can replace.
sor a for examp Longmeadow and Wilbraham, beyond their own existences
le o as in to ted Town
the `bedroom c ommunities of the Greater rest uoantsncafes, delis and sweet shops (the majority
the as jewelers, and
e mmket for disposable income• o full -time, year -round entertainment venues, art galleries, j
th )with dozens unit of approximately 30,000 souls serves the larger,
fine
them full-service);
inercha to
art m arket tf more is obvious that this community or of mutual al J ere in dependency toi
both serving the Greater Boston Metropolitan his
fine
000 consumers. (To find a similar e aample of mutual dependency to t 1s
regional market of more than 600,
e would have to look as far as Nei Harr street in the Back Bay degree on
In this context, I am concerned that Northampton continue to perform its unique role in the regional
economy g
The proposed long -term, healthy, commercial
lar e -scale retail regulations will n os discourage eculatve developent.
development. They will not allow room for hit -or 'th li i ht is
is, in the best of times, simply stable and at worst, markedly static, g
Because the Western Mass market
growth
National interests come to secondary te rra kets a After
a secondary
market for national interests. This is a matured market, no th market, w
to fill -in between two or more other, prim these markets. Ater population density wh e they are looking levels. "in- fill" locations. When,
like Western Mass national interests select
nitrk market penetration, region c le of
i in- fill the fill -in markets, it goes beyond
fill torestaretby nature, canal
suppo long-term m an ok n fi
t -ion -term sales un l im ited number of superstores. These one aspect of future development
support g es ecially when in close proximit us on to P etitor.. The chances of a
meeting projected sales volumes,
tore closing are much greater in markets of this size. This is j
u ers retail regulations seek to address, but it is probably the most important
s uperstore
that the proposed large-scale re
aspect, and from which all the other issues flow. satellite locations to the
hico
Chicopee for the next proposed Home Depot red area weaker in -fill stores are the Home Depooftss in Enfield and Wilbraham, ver s
West Springfield of weak performer. The choice
West Springfield rs- volume
stiffed. The mart in Palmer is been fu y built- outaand leased in the more than
retail site selectors my Agawam eds the
a more t n
a djacent strip center there still has space that has never
twenty years since origin al construction). The Southgate Plaza in lower sf temporary flea market tenant through two economic upturns. ers from overbuilding in this secondary
posed large -scale retail regulations will prevent retai
The p ro
market..
r are the j st me that
sub market for ti
Examples of superstore locations that have become detrimental d was a 135,000 sf, to their markets are the just men lone
art in et for more th the han 5 years; d
closed Kmart Boston Road in Springfield stores Memorial v to cue continues
yet
Km rs• the e W
closed mart in West st Springfield on Memorial Avenue continues to
ears. Thee
be a vacant 80,000 sf anchor space after more than 6 y
GALLIVAN
Real Estate Consultants
8 HAMPDEN, I ASSAC SE 01036 PRONE 413.566.8006 FAX 413566.7.9,9,7
28 SOMEIZS ROAD BOX 17 TENANT ANT REPR ESENT A'T'T ®N
'RETAIL
SALES LEASING- SITE SELECTION
Memorandum
To: Planning Board Ordinance Committee
From: Teri Anderson, Economic Development Coordinator
Date: February 28, 2002
Re: Large Retail Regulations
I appreciate the compromise zoning amendments proposed by the sponsors in response to public
comments. I think the overall goals of the proposed regulations are positive for the community.
Balancing the details and various community and business needs is the key. Below is a summary of
some of my research.
Developer feedback
There is an understanding of the goals by retail developers.
There is some concern about being too restrictive that deals become financially infeasible
and would most prefer to let the marketplace determine project feasibility.
It is not clear whether the regulations will be a detriment to retail attraction on King St.
Some retailers and developers can live with the designs standards, building close to the
street and the fees if not too expensive. The regulations may cause some retailers to look
elsewhere but some will still pursue projects on King St. Some will never do second story
retail because it doesn't work for them (one developer said this is likely to occur only with
small buildings on small lots). Some retailers will never build close to the street, some have
already prepared to do this because it is required in other places and will accommodate to
achieve their prototype building.
Developers would try to work the fees into the economics of the deal (negotiate lower land
costs or recoup in lease rates). If the project did not cost out, they would pursue another
Town or market. It is difficult to project the outcome of the regulations until they are
finalized and applied to specific projects (development costs real estate, rent and
construction costs need to be 3 -6% of project retail sales to make a project feasible).
There is conflicting information about the Northampton/King St. market. Some say it is an
attractive'regional location others say it is not a strong market. However, there appears to be
prospects investigating sites on King St. It is clear that King St. has some of the most
expensive land prices in the region (comparable to Newton Hartford) and that retailing in
general is volatile and constantly changing making it complex and tricky to achieve
successful deals with adequate lender support.
It is agreed that leasing to local retailers makes projects more difficult to obtain lender
financing. Lenders approve the tenants and usually look for the credit backing of a national
chain.
Reasonable and clear fees are preferable to impact studies because it helps eliminate
uncertainty in the permitting process. 5% is a substantial fee. Some projects would not
sustain it others would. Flexibility in the fee payment may be helpful for some projects. A
five year term would be suitable and a lien on the property to guarantee payment would be
e PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
City Haft 2I o Main Street, Room I I Northampton, MA 0'06o-3198 (413) 587-1266 Fax: 5 87 -I z64
Warne Feiden, Director pianning @northamptonpianning.org www.northamptonp anning.org
Northampton Housing Partnership
Jack Hornor, Chair
Motion on Proposed Retail/ "Big Box" Ordinances
Passed Unanimously at the Partnership's Meeting on January 15, 2002
1. The Northampton Housing Partnership supports and applauds the consideration of
affordable housing in the planning process;
2. We endorse the proposed ordinance as a great improvement over the present situation
and endorse strongly the incorporation of affordable housing where mitigation is called for;
3. However, large retail development has a significant impact on the affordable housing
needs of our community and the Northampton Housing Partnership would support further
restrictions on large retail development.
planning board conservation commission zoning board o of appeals housing partnership redevelopment authority northampton GIS
economic development community development historic district commission historical commission• central business architecture
original printed on recycled paper
square feet.
Thank you for your consideration.
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
Mayor Mary Clare Higgins
City Hall
210 Main Street
Northampton MA 01060
(413) 587 -1249
FAX: (413) 587 -1275
mayor @city.northampton.ma.us
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Board Ordinance Committee
From: Industrial Affairs Committee
Date: December 12, 2001
Re: Large Retail Zoning Proposal
The Industrial Affairs Committee has reviewed the proposed zoning amendments regarding large
retail development. In general, the Cornrnittee agrees that the impacts of large retail should be
mitigated. At the same time, we do not want to create disincentives for local businesses. The
following comments and suggestions are offered to fine -tune the proposal.
1. The Committee is concerned that the 10,000 square foot threshold will negatively affect
existing local small businesses. We recommend an alternative approach for the payment
in lieu fee creating a graduated formula which would exempt the first 10,000 square feet,
exempt the second 10,000 square feet for expansion of an existing business up to 20,000
square feet, and set a fee for new development over 10,000 or expansions over 20,000
2. We are concerned that the option to provide one third of the jobs at the Northampton
average wage will be difficult to measure, difficult to monitor and sustain over time, and
may have unintended consequences. We recommend that it either be deleted or replaced
with a provision that will create a standard with direct benefit to small businesses.
3. We are concerned about the effectiveness of impact statements. The data is open to
interpretation and may be difficult to prepare on a local vs. a regional basis. We
recommend that this option be deleted. This will leave clear criteria for providing
mitigation in the form of affordable housing, economic development, or payment in lieu.
Proposed Ordinances relating to Retail Development
Greater than 10,000 Square Feet
What Other Communities are Doing:
Y'
dinance
ti
1N ere y
Mandatory 0' front setbacks
Northampton Central
Business, Portland,
OR; Boulder, CO;
Baltimore County, MD
etc.;
Incentive Zoning
Multiple states Encourages desired development
including MA patterns by proposing density
(Cambridge, Boston, height and build -out bonuses
Northampton)
Design Requirements for large
CA, CO, Baltimore
retailers: second story and other
Cnty MD; OR,
bldg materials "main street
style
Columbus Ohio etc.
Cape Cod, MA For Developments of Regional
Economic Impact
Impact (retail over 10,000sf) Looks
Mitigation /Review
at affordable housing for employees
of proposed development,
Salary/benefits, opportunities for
local workers, impact to existing
businesses.
NY State (Lake Placid, NY- review of consistency with
Ithaca etc), Napa CA; community character
Concord CA, Wilton,
CT; Santa Cruz, CA
Prevents displacement of local
Palm Springs, FLA businesses.
Payment -in -lieu and /or Impact
Multiple state -39) Widely applied in CA, FLA, WA
Fees (exactions also used)
Affordable Housing Linkage
Boston and San Specified new commercial
Requirements
Francisco development required to provide or
pay -in -lieu.
Proposed Ordinances relating to Retail Development
Greater than 10,000 Square Feet
What Other Communities are Doing:
`d S 9 ?y E r' t t •e, ,r' S'� S
i f?�. '�.2, ^r i �t"i
r� r te Amend ent
1 d z s a
i% ?s• "`f �''F h..�}Z+x
r,�.�y c L �Ta y P�J%3'e.
R.ecorr�rmentl.ed z
r i y Y
.>�,�.:e,�.�.,�,
•tea i�^`i£'kM'`
P urp os e
1. Buildings over 10,000 sf that have 80% of their building
facade built up to and along the public street frontage at the
minimum 10' setback will obtain a density bonus allowing
95% building coverage. Merger of rows in §6.2.
.Staff
Promotes better use of
land and creates
environment that
encourages access by
foot, bicycle and bus.
2. Eliminate option for developer to provide economic
development based on wages.
City Council Industrial
Affairs Committee
Extremely difficult to
track this provision for
the long term.
3. Eliminate option for providing detailed economic impact
study.
City Council Industrial
Affairs Committee
Difficult to quantify
impacts.
4. Amend payment -in -lieu provision by creating a graduated
fee schedule and merger of establishments
Increased fee for very large boxes
City Council Industrial
Affairs Committee
Ordinance Comm.
Encourages expansion
of existing businesses
and more evenly
distributes payment -in-
lieu options.
5. Amend housing options to tie to square footage instead of
wages
Comments from Industrial
Affairs and Ordinance
Committee
Hard to track wages and
is consistent with State
Hospital approach
6. Correct typographic error in substantial improvements and
add severability clause. No change to inconsistencies in
nla§i?nCAR•PrADerifl440 tr Wnmmi•s•sion 7 nnina hnardofannea(s housing partnership
Staff and comments from
reviewers
redevelopment authori
Clean up language
n northamnton GIS
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
a I
t.
To City Council,
city Half 210 Main Street, Roont 11 Northantpton, MA 01060-3198 (4 587-1266 Fax: 587 -1264
WaNne Feiden, Director planning @nortbantptonplanning.org ry vw.nortbamptonp(anning.org
Memorandum
From: Wayne Feiden, AICP, Director of Planning and Development 587- 1265 orfeiden (cDnorthamptonpianninq .oral
and Carolyn Misch, Senior Land Use Planner
Date: Thursday, December 13, 2001
Proposed zoning changes: Retail Standards and related changes, including substantial
improvement
Date
Referred from City Council 11/15/01
Housing Partnership Planning Subcommittee 11/ /01
Chamber Economic Development Com. 10/18 /01
Legal notice and posting 11/21 1
City Council Ordinance Committee informal reviewl2/10 /01
Ordinance Committee inforrnal review 12/11/01
Ordinance /Planning Board Public Hearing 12/13/01
Planning Board recommendation
Ordinance Committee recommendation
Deadline for final City Council action
Action
to Ordinance and Planning Board
Recommend in favor
11/16 /01 discussions
1/29/2001
Request three changes (see table)
discussion
Table of Proposed Amendments to Ordinances
economic development community development historic district commission historical commission• central business arc
orig bud prin i recgctedpaper
itecture
To: Planning Board Ordinance Committee
From: Teri Anderson, Economic Development Coordinator
Date: December 13, 2001
Re: Large Retail Zoning Proposal
Generally, I support the concept of regulating the impacts of large scale retail. Some
communities' welcome large retail, some prohibit with building size caps. This proposal is in
the middle it attempts to address the negative impacts.
The proposal is consistent with the July public forum input:
Allow large retail but regulate the impacts
Respond to the need for a range of consumer prices /products
Economic Development Policy Concerns:
Impacts to Small Businesses:
Local businesses are currently priced out of the market on King Street due to escalating
land values and lease rates.
Developers are looking for tenants with national credit backing.
Local businesses have difficulty competing against the purchasing power and product
pricing of large chains.
Municipal:
CITY OF NORTHAlLITON
Teri Anderson
Economic Development Coordinator
City Hall
210 Main Street Room 12
Northampton MA 01060 -3199
(413) 587-1249
FAX: (413) 587 -1275
tanderso @city.northampton.ma.us
Memorandum
Large scale retail is not the primary focus of our economic development efforts. We
should focus on expanding our industrial, technology, and small business base.
Large retail is a major tax generator but is offset by the costs of traffic improvements and
potential loss of local businesses.
Research shows there is generally a net fiscal gain for the host community but there can
be a shift in the retail base with a net loss in local businesses.
The worst case scenario is to have big boxes in a nearby community that draws consumer
spending away, impacting local businesses, and the community gains no tax revenue.
Without a detailed analysis, it is difficult to know how Northampton would fare.
EDWARD D. ETHEREDGE
SHELLEY STEUER
Also Admitted in New York
and California
To: M. Clare Higgins, Mayor
Michael Bardsley, Council President
Fran Volkmann, Councilor Ward 2
Maria Tymoczko, Councilor, Ward 3
Dan Yacuzzo, Chair, Planning Board
Wayne Feiden, Director of Planning
Terri Anderson, Development Director
From: Edward D. Etheredge 4t,
Etheredge Steuer, P.C.
Etheredge Steuer, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
64 GOTHIC STREET
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUS
(413) 584 -1600
MEMORAND
Re: Proposed Retail/Personal Service and HB Zoning Amendments
no. 1 0.1
E U E
DEC 2 1 2001
DEPT OF PLANNING
NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060
(413) 585 -8406
Date: December 19, 2001
Please accept the following comments on the proposed zoning amendments as my personal
opinion. I write not as a director of the Chamber of commerce, officer of the Northampton
Development Corporation, or counsel to any specific property owner affected by the proposed changes.
As you know, dramatic changes for King Street are imminent. Serv-U has closed. The Hill
Dale property is in play between a filed subdivision to freeze the existing zoning and the already
granted Special Permit. Ponderosa has closed. Plumb Auto and Taco Bell remain vacant. The
Northampton Plumbing Supply Site is for sale or lease. Stop Shop is in the midst of construction
and Northampton Honda and Kollmorgan are considering development options. The next few months
is a critical transition time and the fate of much of the street will be decided within the next year.
Of paramount importance to any business or developer is a stable and fixed set of rules by
which to design, develop and operate a project. While all sales or leases are subject to contingencies
for successfully obtaining the necessary permits, no project can even begin the evaluation and design
phase without an established set of zoning restrictions.
1
0
The tone of the proposed zoning amendments is clearly anti large retail, but the issue ought not
to be whether the citizens of Northampton oppose large retailers, but what is appropriate development
for King Street and how can the City facilitate and obtain appropriate development through the zoning
ordinance.
There are several sections of the zoning ordinance proposed to be amended that fulfill the goal
of regulating, by zoning, appropriate development of King Street. The proposed amendments to the
Table of Uses, Section 5.2, allows developments under 10,000 square feet, but requires a special permit
for projects over 10,000 square feet unless the project meets the favorable design criteria, i.e. 2 or more
stories, all parking in the rear. In those cases, Table 5.2 reduces the necessary permit to site plan
approval.
The new site plan approval amendment, Section 11.6, is not any bonus for appropriate
development, i.e. streetscapes with parking in the rear. Site plan approval, section 11.6, is no longer a
zoning amendment but a mission statement for housing advocates. The proposed Section 11.6 states,
in part, "The provision of safe affordable housing for all residents is a city wide goal and the city
is obligated to assist in providing such housing Later in Section 11.6.8A it becomes clear as to
how the city will "satisfy' its obligation to meet this goal. All new retail development over 10,000
square feet or old retail that proposes to undertake "substantial improvement" will have to build .85
square feet of affordable housing for each square foot of development.
If, for example, the River Valley Coop were not exempt from zoning and wanted to construct
18,000 square feet of space, it would be required to either construct 15,300 square feet of affordable
housing or pay the city $40,000.00. An easy choice. The payments works out to be less than $2.25 per
square foot on a typical $90.00 per square foot construction cost.
If, however, Lowes or Home Depot wanted to construct 100,000 square feet with 'a brick
streetscape and all parking in the rear to take advantage of the bonus of site plan approval §5.2) and
increased density calculations §6.2), then 85,000 square feet of affordable housing would have to be
constructed or a payment made to the city of $700,000.00. This is no incentive for building
appropriately. In reality, no affordable housing will be built because it is an inconsistent use of very
expensive land on King Street and not particularly good land use planning The cost to design and
permit a unique store, which is ostensibly what Northampton wants, will make the cost significantly
more than a "big box For this additional cost, the developer will now have to add an additional $7.00
per square foot to pay the city.
Only the market will decide if the regulations will work to sensibly develop King Street and
create affordable housing. From my experience, it is possible that the regulations could work for small
10,000 to 20,000 square foot developments, but will preclude any large development, 40,000 square
feet and larger. This is what any reader of the regulations will reasonably presume. Since the land is in
large blocs, this would require multiple new curb cuts for individual lots, or some shared roadways and
parking areas similar to condominiums but in common ownership. The problems for development
are exceedingly complicated. Since Section 5.2 captures all land in "common or affiliated ownership
the cost of development will reasonably preclude any large development, no matter how sensible or
cleverly designed.
2
It is clear that the intent of the amendments is to preclude any large retail development. At least
the alternative Section 5.2 proposed by Councilors Dwight and Ghiselin is a straightforward and honest
flat prohibition. It does not allow any retail development over 20,000 square feet. The proposed
incentives would be relevant only to development between 10,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet.
Even if a developer were to be willing to pay the extra costs required for retail development, the
proposed amendments provide two new additional hurdles to any large (excess of 10,000 square feet)
retail development. A new section 11.6 amends site plan review to assess an additional $1.50 per
square foot as a performance guarantee for removal of a building. This proposal is another regulation
targeted at a hypothetical evil. The only possible example is the Hill Dale Mall and the question is
whether the building is creating economic or social blight? The building is being taxed at a valuation
in excess of two million dollars. Is the owner desirous of paying forty or fifty thousand dollars a year
to the city to create blight? The sensible question would be to ask, `why has the property not been
developed? Is the zoning wrong? Is there no market for 75,000 square feet of retail space? What does
the owner say The proposed ordinance is right out of the "How to stop Wal -Mart" manual. All of
the other arguments I heard at the big box forum were examples from areas that do not match the local
environment. Northampton is different. Northampton is vibrant with giant malls in Holyoke and
Hadley less than fifteen minutes away. Is it threatened by two or three stores that are ten minutes
closer? In reality most of Northampton's downtown enterprises, restaurants, galleries, craft shops, and
boutiques benefit from more traffic. Aren't we discussing building another garage?
If a large retail store were ever to build on King Street would it impact some downtown
business? Yes. If it is Borders, it would probably negatively impact a traditional bookstore like
Broadside. What is the trade -off if Borders would pay ten times more in taxes than Broadside and add
additional vitality (visitors) to twenty other downtown businesses?
In addition, any large retail development that requires a special permit must under the new
Section 10.1.H prove that the store "does not adversely affect the city's economic vitality through the
provision of jobs and housing How can a developer provide "housing" in a retail project? No
other developer of industrial, commercial, office or residential property is required by law to provide
housing and prove that housing is provided. Section 10.1.H also requires developers provide
housing, revenues and retail diversity to add to the character of Northampton, its downtown and
pedestrian scaled villages, and its long -term vitality and attractiveness as a regional center." If no large
retail is allowed in HB, the remaining uses are gas stations, restaurants and automobile dealers. Large
retail would provide jobs for nearby residents that they could walk to. They would probably be better
paying jobs than fast food restaurants.
Sensible large retail use is appropriate for King Street. It. is zoned Highway Business. Zoning
is supposed to be a statement of the city's intent for the use of its land. If retail development on King
Street is effectively limited to 20,000 square feet, the zoning should be changed to GB, GENERAL
business. It is no longer a HB zone.
I attended a number of the ad hoc committee meetings considering the zoning amendments. I
repeatedly stated my opposition to economic regulation in the guise of zoning regulation. When one
3
4
member of the committee finally, and accurately, noted, "We're not going to get anywhere if we don't
move on. He [meaning me] will always be opposed to economic regulation and we need to move on."
I remain willing to discuss zoning regulation designed to effect a vital HB zoning district, e.g.
streetscape construction, parking on the side and rear, two story facades, etc. Adding costly regulation,
unrelated to land use, does not create any incentive for sensible development.
The new fire station is always cited as the appropriate model for King Street development. It
can be done, but not easily. The new fire station cost over $300 per square foot to build. No developer
can afford even one -third of that cost.
I understand from the discussion at the public hearing on December 13` that the approval of the
amendments is essentially a foregone conclusion. That is unfortunate. The previously approved design
criteria in Section 11.0 and the proposed incentives in .Sections 5.2 and 6.2 are valuable land use
regulations to improve the development of King Street. The proposed 'economic regulations and
affordable housing requirements and development fees are examples of an "elephant" built by
committee, and in all likelihood are probably illegal and unconstitutional.
There are a number of valuable and positive development opportunities awaiting the vote on
January 24` Since three councilors sponsor the amendments and three different councilors sit on
ordinance, the vote will determine the future of the regulations and probably the future of King Street.
Certainly it will determine the immediate present for King Street.
In the Year
(Eit f Wortil
MASSACHUSETTS
Two Thousand One
Amended 2/28/02
Councilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
Appendix A §2.0
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section of said Code;
Definition of Substantial Improvement to be changed.
providing that
Be it by City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows:
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
"Section
Section 2.1
{Amend §2.1 by changing the definition of substantial improvements as follows (bold indicates new text
and strikethrough.indicates deletions)}:
SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT: Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure
within a thfee- five year period which either increases the building area of size or the original structure by
te; per-- e 1 0°k0%) fifteen (15 or more, or the cost of repair, reconstruction, or improvement which
equals or exceeds ten -per- cent- (-1 -0 fifteen (15 of the assessed value of the original structure, either
(a) before the improvement is started, or (b) if the structure has been damaged and is being restored,
before „the damage occurred_
In City Council,
Rules susp
Attest:
May 2, 200.2
Approved: Mary Clare. Higgins
ained an er oiled.
;Clerk
,Mayor
(zt .a arJJxampt.arx
MASSACHUSETTS
In the Year Two Thousand One
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION O F Councilors William Dwight, Rita Blieman, Alex Ghiselin
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising, sectiA pendix A §2.t
iPi §5:2 f said Code;
providing that Automotive service station and repair station be defined. Combine definition of personal services
and retail.
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows.:
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows:
"Section
Insert the following new definitions within §2.1 in alphabetical order
Automotive service station Establishment in which the principal use is the retail sale of gasoline, oil, or
other motor yehicle fuel, and may contain retail convenience and variety goods for retail. The premises may
include, facilities for polishing, greasing, washing, or otherwise cleaning, servicing, or repairing motor
vehicles.
Automotive repair Establishment in which the principal use is the repair of motor vehicles, including
maintenance servicing, upholstery, etc. No gas sales or retail allowed.
Delete the entire definition of "Personal and Consumer Service Establishment" within §2.0
Insert the following new definition within §2.1 in alphabetical order
Retail Personal Services- The sale rental, or repair of goods and!or provision of services including:
antiques, apparel, appliances (home use), art supplies. bakeries, barber shops, beauty shops, books,
cameras shops, china and pottery, draperies and interior decorating supplies, drugs, film developing
and printing, florist, fruit, furniture, gifts and stationery, grocery,.hardware, house wares and home
furnishing, jewelry, laundering and tither garment servicing, music, newsstand, novelties, paint, shoes; pet
supplies and pet grooming, shoe cleaning or repair, specialized food, sporting goods, toys, tailors, vegetable
markets, and other similar places of business. includes discount food and merchandise "clubs
Amend §5.2 "Retail and Commercial Services" category by deleting entire entry for Personal and Consumer service
Establishment
No other changes to this category in §5.2
In City Council, May 2, 2002
Rules suspende passed two readings
Attest:
Approved:
A true co
Attest:
dained a
enrolled.
Clerk
,Mayor
Mary Clare Hig•
Y s litako City Clerk
Section 5.2 Table of Use
Principal Use
Business
Medical
Industrial
Busines
Park
Consr.
CB
GB
HB
NB
M
GI
SI
BP
Cr'
Retail And Commercial Uses (continued)
Retail and Personal Service with maximum floor area
1l'' i ^•tce„oods
A
PB
PB
PB
Site
A
PB
PB
PB
PB
A
PB
Site
Site
PB
A
M-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
1
,1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
of:establishments sellir,
but limited to, food. drugs.
including, not and proprietary
coods and establishrncais
selling general merchandise
including, but limited dry
not to, goods, apparel and
accessories:
A: less than or equal to 10,000 square feet for any
single establishment; or
B: over 10,000 square feet, single establishment (see §6.2,
§10.15, §11) or
C: over 10,000 sq. feet (single or cumulative) with 2 or
more stories and all parking in rear or side. (2nd+
floor may include other permitted uses):-+; or
D: Less or equal to 10,000 sq. feet single
establishment. and less than or equal to 155.000 sq.
feet of cumulative development in a 3 -year period on
the same parcel of land which has been in common or
affiliated ownership within the same 3 -year period; or
GE: Less than or equal to10,000 sq. feet single
establishment and over 15,000 sq. feet of cumulative
development in a 3 -year period on the same parcel of
land or on land which has been in common or affiliated
ownership within the same 3 -year (if in B
period not
In the Year
Lzftr of XiortiTampton
MASSACHUSETTS
Two Thousand One
Amended 2/28/J2
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF' Councilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section App A said Code;
providing that Permit and dimensional requirements for retail uses over. 10,000 sq. ft.
Be it ordained bY the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Cout•ic.il assembled, as follows:
S 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
Section 5.2
%V. table of use regulations within the category of Retail and Commercial Uses as shown on the
table below. No other changes to this section.
Section 6 -2 HB District
Principal Use
Minimum Required Lot
Minimum Setback
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Open.
Space
Area
Frontage
Depth
Front
Side
Rear
Any allowed use on a property with a
building that is setback no more than 10'
along 80%. of the property's frontage.
0
60
60
0
0
6
40
5
Any use when all parking is in .the rear
and /or sidc of a parcel's principal building
and rear of the front of the principal building.
Applies to 1- story retail establishment(s)
over 10,000 s.f. with all parking located at
the rear or side. (parking in front -of
building defined as parking in front of
longest facade facing the street)
20,000
120
140
0
10
20
35
15%
Applies to new projects and substantial improvements (For the purposes of this section, exclude the value of improvements to repair or replacement of
roofs, mechanical systems, elevators, parking lots, or landscaping from calculations.)
a•
must include the entire frontage.
Section 6.2
{Amend §6.2 within HB district by adding the following new row as shown table below and
amend §6.2 within the HB district for. "any use when all parking in the rear..." by adding text as
shown on table below}
In City Council,.
May 2, 2002
Rules suspended, passed two readings drdained a enrolled.
Attest: r 'City Clerk
Approved: Mary Clare Higgins
A true copy:°`
Attest: a 414:"`
AMENDED
*2nd story must be at least 501/4 of the footprint and
,Mayor
In the Year
Tztu of Xiarthantpton
MASSACHUSETTS
ORDINANCE
Two Thousand One
Amended 2/28/02
Councilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
Appdx A §8.6,8.10,8.11
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section of said Code;
Shared Parking and Parking Fee requirements
providing that
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows:
S ection 1. That section, of the Code of Ordinances of the' City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows:
"Section
Section 8.6 Shared Parking
§8.6 Insert new standard as follows [regular text indicates that which was moved from §8.10(6) and
§11.6(2)
In all Zoning Districts except the'Central Business (CB) Districts, the Planning Board may:
1. allow- wit eaial- peFm+t-Through site plan approval, allow the reduction of the parking
space requirements of up to twenty (20) percent of that required in the Table of Off Street
Parking Regulations where conditions unique to the use will reasonably justify such a reduction,
including 2 -story buildings in (HB).
2 The Planning- Board -ma -alfew Through site plan approval reduce parking requirements for
Major Projects listed in §8.1 by up to 20 percent of parking needed for employees (no credit for
parking needed for visitors or customers) if:
A. the applicant incorporates satisfactory methods, acceptable to the permit granting authority, to
reduce the need for parking into their design and into the trip reduction plan described in §11.5
(3.B.) by at least the same percentage; and
B. if the Site Plan Approval is conditioned on the on -going use of those trip reduction methods with
effective enforcement tools included; and:
3. The -P-la fa bo ard -m art Through a special permit allow a greater percentage reduction
where joint use of the same spaces by two or more uses or establishments is justifiable by virtue
of the fact that the uses or establishments generate peak demand at substantially different time
periods.
Section 8.10
{Amend §8.10 by deleting all of item 6 (to be moved to §8.6). No other charges to this section. Amend
§11.6 by deleting 11.6(2) second paragraphs and subparagraphs A,B, and C.}
Section 11.6(2)
Amend §11.6 (2) as indicated below:
2. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement
within the site and on adjacent streets, minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area. If
applicable, this shall include considering the location of driveways openings in relation to traffic and
adjacent streets, access by emergency vehicles, the arrangement of parking and loading spaces, and
provisions for persons with disabilities; and.(See also §8.6).
Section 8.11
Amend §8.11 as follows:
Section 8.11 Special Provisions in the Central Business District for Meeting Off Street Parking
Requirements in Central Busineec Districts. The Punning Board may grant a Special Permit a lI ow i n
pPayment made to the City of Northampton in -lieu of providing some or all of the required off- street
parking spaces for a project in the CB district whew shall be allowed by right if it finds that, in addition
to other applicable criteria, itions ai e
of thc requ
e criteria, th
1. The project is in the Central Business District.
payment in lieu of fees.
2. It ie either -IRet possible- ts-era ado tho g iced' nu e- e rking spaces o+a- site -e-F
i conflict with city master and study pia e -s-a€ ad-. der- M-G.L. Chapter
/11, Section 81 C and D.
parking system.
5- The Planning Board ha _e -e _e. -e
°are C i ss iea- regar-el-ieg-the--a e e e ssion has at- adc a
;eso -m e„dation within 30 days of thc Commission's receipt of thc request-
The fee to be paid shall be 84,890 $2,000 per parking space. S i- d- €ee-s„aH-be reviewed, and if
necessary adjusted, periodically e _tl- e-det rLmieed -u r-efessionai cost
estimates, seaea e ----e e e .adicating t
d capital cost of providing
such spaces —Fees paid to. the City of Northampton, in -lieu of providing required parking spaces on -site,
shall be deposited into a Downtown Parking Reserve Account to be used solely for expenses (land
acquisition, design /engineering services and construction costs, butnot maintenance costs) related to
adding parking spaces, improving the utilization of existing parking spaces, or reducing the need for new
parking to serve the Central Business District. Requests to appropriate funds out of this Reserve Account
shall be filed with the City Council and referred to the Office of Planning and Development, Planning
Board, and Northampton Parking Commission, which shall have 60 days to forward their comments and
recommendations before a City Council vote of the appropriation is taken. (Amended 9/20/1990 and
12/21/1995.)
In City Council, May 2 2 0.0 2
Rules susuncied two readings, rained an}en 011ed.
Attest: t, it r
Approved: Mary Clare Higgins ,Mayor
A true co yam P
1
I J Y Lr.
Attest: N, 7 A City Clerk
ester
Amended
e
-ee -e
In the Year
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF Councilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances;
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section Appendix A §110 said Code;
providing that Amend site plan submittal requirements for retail establishments
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts; be amended so that such section shall read as follows
"Section
Amend §11.6(7) as follows: Add (s) to the word "establishment" in the first sentence. Delete "25,000" and
replace it with 10,000 in the first sentence. No other changes to this §11.6(7)_
In City Council, May 2, 2 0 0 2.
Rules susp
Attest:
Approved: Mary Clare Higgins
Lz t� .af ort! am rt n
MASSACHUSETTS
.vo Thousand One
dained arp erjolled.
Clerk
;Mayor
Amended 2/28/02
MASSACHUSETTS
(,xfu .of XiartlIantiatar
Amended 3/12/02
In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Two-Ther ai d-O ne
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION
M
lors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section of said Code;
Appendix A §11.6
providing thatrPer,d. si te• plan• sularrt itte regvirements•• forretait •estatrtishments'over'7ti;n0i7' T'
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows:
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City cif Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
{Amend x.11.6 by adding new criteria in numeric order as follows
8. For 1 -story retail uses in the Highway Business District that are over 30.000 square feet of
single establishments or cumulative development with parking located in the front, side and /or
rear, an applicant may choose as an alternative to. developing as a two -story building, to either
pay an in -lieu of fee. as described below. or develop in- either category A, or categor below,
Consistent with the City's adopted Vision 2020 goals to foster development that is sustainable for
the long term, is built to human scale, and expands economic opportunities, the city encourages
applicants to develop buildings that are pedestrian oriented and which enhance economic vitality
by building along the street with second story space for residential or other commercial use. In
lieu of designing projects that meet these goals, the alternative options -kl- either- /t -or-B below will
mitigate the impacts that large, single story, single -use retail businesses create by effectively
eliminating land that could otherwise be used to construct multi -story, mixed use space within
Northampton's core. Such multi -story development enables the limited land remaining in
Northampton to be used more efficiently in order to provide vibrant mixed uses and vital
economic development opportunities within the City.
A. Provide .35 square fcct of on
Efeated the eveleiameat -(c.g. 108900 cquaFe -fact of retail wo 44Pe -gUiFe
85,000 square fe
rx�ediara- incsmc. This w}ili -meet :he- goal -of providing- g- uarantccd ouster:sec -base for
;Ctail uccs in the highway bucino
life -aect ibr'ahsy-t e ar a by crcvtiflg- aeelectrian and reckiesti,a1 space.
Type
Size of Retail':
•Esta liStiment
Mitigation .Required:'
New building, conversion to
0- 30,000 square feet
$0 no penalties and no fees
retail or expansion of existing
single or cumulative
development (see §6.2)
New building, conversion to
30.001+ square feet single
$5 /sf for entire footprint of
retail, or expansion
or cumulative (see §6.2)
establishment or cumulative
building(s). Existing grocery stores
(stores in which non -food items do not
exceed 20,000 square feet) pay only
for the footprint of the expansion area.
Expansion of an existing
establishment(s), other than grocery
stores, for which payment has been
made previously, pay only for the
expansion area _O
OR
B:Provide a one-time payment -in -lieu to the City for retail mitigation shall be made in
accordance with:
OThe Planninq Board may issue a special permit to allow expansion of existing.
businesses to pay only the fee for the portion 'of the expansion that exceeds 30,000
square feet if the building comes closer to conforming with dimensional zoning
requirements then in effect.
Such payment —in -lieu enables the City to create vitality within the business district
through expenditures that foster economic development providing increased customer
base and safe pedestrian space that would not otherwise be provided through
construction of single story, single use building.
Payment -in -lieu shall be used by the City for activities that have direct or indirect
economic development benefits.
The Office of Planning Development shall review the payment -in -lieu fee on an
annual basis.and shall submit a report to the Planning Board with any
recommendations on changes that should be made to the based upon market
costs /demands.
Fees paid to the City of Northampton, in -lieu of retail mitigation, shall be deposited into
an Economic Development Reserve Account. The distribution of funds for any
projects shall only occur after a vote of approval from the Mayor and City Council.
Requests to appropriate funds out of the Reserve Account shall be filed with the City
Council and referred to the Office of Planning and Development, Planning Board and
Mayor's Office, which shall have 60 days to forward their comments and
recommendations before a City Council vote of the appropriation is taken. The goal
will be to appropriate the use of these funds within five years, to the extent practicable.
In City Council, May 2, 2 0 0 2
Rules suspend9d, passed two readings;,brdained and enrolled.
ID
Attest' C ity Clerk
LP Approved: Mary Clare Higgins ,Mayor
A true copy
Attest:
i
Clerk
AMENDMENT
9
In the Year
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
Section 6 -2 HB District
All other use
Principal Use
Area
____Attest:
Tit sof X.artlIamptim
In City Council,
Attest:
Approved:
Atruec
MASSACHUSETTS
Minimum Required Lot
Frontage
20,000 120 140
Rules sus, passed two reading
Two Thousand Two
Councilors Bleiman, Dwight Ghiselin
ORDINANCE
An_ Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section Append A §6.0 of said Code;
providing that Create maximum setback for single story retail establishments over 10,000 square feet
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
"Section
Section 6.2
§6.2 Amend the table of dimensional regulations for Highway Business Section of 6.2
as shown below. No other changes to this section}
Depth
May 2, 2002
Minimum Setback
gront
Mary Clare Higgins
Side
10 10 20
dained -a d Trolled.
Clerk
,Mayor
Cleric
Amended 2/28/02
Rear
Maximum Minimum
Building Open
Height Space
35 30%
•:•For retail uses above 10,000 square feet, the maximum setback is fifty five(55) feet within which no more than one row of
parking is allowed. The Planning Board may issue a special permit to allow existing buildings with 75' or greater setback to
maintain a maximum setback of 75 feet within which no more than 1 row of parking and no more than 42' of asphalt may be
created if the Board determines that exceptional circumstances exist.
10
In the Year
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
Lifv' of Nortilamptroct
MASSACHUSETTS
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section of said Code;
providing that Appendix- •A §5.2
reta4.estabiishr ents over• 90 square feet- shall•- be- pranibited
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows;
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
"Section
Section 5.2
§5.2 Amend table of use regulations within the category of Retail and Commercial Uses as follows:
Amend subsection B of Retail and Personal Service to read "10,000 to 90,000 square feet
Add new subsection in alphabetical order to read:
"Over 90,000 square feet of footprint for single establishment {not to be allowed in any district}
No other changes to this,section.
in City Council, May 2 2002
Rules sus
Attest:
Approved:
Twg Thousand One
Amended 2/28/02
Councilors William Dwight Alex Ghiselin
d, passed two reading" rdained d ,rolled.
iv— iertjt Clerk
Mary, Clare Higgins Mayor
viVAlirsi-<143frogwakoromoft:t
KV
*V
utgiNT#04
44 z
*0'4
Mandatory 0' front setbacks
Northampton Central
Business, Portland,
OR; Boulder, CO;
Baltimore County, MD
etc.;
Incentive Zoning
Multiple states
Encourages desired development
including MA
patterns by proposing density
(Cambridge, Boston,
Northampton)
height and build-out bonuses
Design Requirements for large
CA, CO, Baltimore
retailers: second story and other
bldg materials ("main street
style")
Cnty MD; OR,
Columbus Ohio etc.
Cape Cod, MA
For Developments of Regional
Economic Impact
Impact (retail over 10,000sf) Looks
Mitigation/Review
at affordable housing for employees
of proposed development,
Salary/benefits, opportunities for
local workers, impact to existing
businesses.
NY State (Lake Placid,
NY-review of consistency with
Ithaca etc), Napa CA;
community character
Concord CA, Wilton,
CT; Santa Cruz, CA
Palm Springs, FLA
Prevents displacement of local
businesses.
Payment-in-lieu and/or Impact
Multiple state (-39)
Widely a pplied in CA, FLA, WA
Fees (exactions also used)
Affordable Housing Linkage
Boston and San
Specified new commercial
Requirements
Francisco
development required to provide or
pay-in-lieu.
What Other Communities are Doing:
Proposed Ordinances relating to Retail Development
Greater than 10,000 Square Feet
A to Z
Kia
7-11
Hamelin Furniture
Radio Shack
Liqudrs 44
L H Appliances
Blockbuster
Barnes Noble Standard
Circuit City Holyoke
Foster Farrar King Street
Liquor Mart
Home Depot
Pier .1 Holyoke
Price Chopper
Serve U King Street
Staples- Standard Store
Stop Shop King Street
VVal-Mart Northampton
Wal-Mart Hadley
8,540
12,180
4,094
11,674
10,240
12,320
6,990
5,900
20,000 45,000
33,000
10,600 incl. w.h.
11,000
90,000 150,000
10,000
64,000
41,000
24,000
80,000
96,000 (incl.'9,000 garden
ctr)
98,000
New Construction. See
Prototype
Existing footprint
New store rqrments: 2
acres, 100 car prkg
Entire Plaza 101,000
A to Z
Kia
7 -11
Hamelin Furniture
Radio Shack
Liquors 44
L H Appliances
Blockbuster
Barnes Noble Standard
Circuit City Holyoke
Foster Farrar King Street
Liquor Mart
Home Depot
Pier 1 Holyoke
Price Chopper
Serve U King Street
Staples- Standard Store
Stop Shop King Street
Wal -Mart Northampton
WaI -Mart Hadley
8,540
12,180
4,094
11,674
10,240
12,320
6,990
5,900
20,000 45,000
33,000
10,600 incl. w.h.
11,000
90,000 150,000
10,000
64,000
41,000
24,000
80,000
96,000 (incl. 9,000 garden
ctr)
98,000
New Construction. See
Prototype
Existing footprint
New store rqrments: 2
acres, 100 car prkg
Entire Plaza 101,000
remained as 'white elephants' that discouraged, for some time, significant growth, or even recovery, in their
markets.
The proposed large -scale retail regulations will not only provide for how to initially avoid the risk, but
actively deal with the eventual reality of economic blight, always inherent to some degree, in this level of
development.
The area Bradlees stores will not sit for much longer though it should be noted that they were still
available after more than two rounds of review by national interests but they will be replaced by
superstores which, if ideally successful, will only serve to put out of business other superstores currently
built and in the markets. Examples of this gargantuan competition are Lowes versus Home Depot on
Springfield's Boston Road; Target versus Sears inIngleside, Kohl's versus JC Penny elsewhere.
If the proposed large scale retail regulations are not adopted, Northampton will stay in familiar regulatory
territory, though nothing new and good may necessarily come with that sense of familiarity. If the
regulations are adopted, though even flawed, they can be perfected in practice, by continuing to
intentionally address how growth will be controlled and directed in more dynamic, creative ways.
Contrary to the express opinion of local boosters, Northampton is not a deep market. Just as a stable,
industrial jobs base has always been critical to all other aspects of a community's economic health,
(especially in the Northeast); tourist oriented, disposable- income reliant markets everywhere need to
maintain their unique identity, a very subjective, fragile quality. If upon nothing else, we can all agree that
cookie cutter, global architecture available elsewhere and everywhere contributes nothing, and is
detrimental to, a unique setting.
The region will not suffer if so- called 'big -box' development is not allowed to arbitrarily happen in
Northampton. Northampton will not prosper if, when this level of development does come, it is not
regulated to be the kind that will enhance what Northampton is. Development will follow where
Northampton leads. The proposed large -scale retail regulations provide a means to foresee and forestall
this otherwise probable eventuality.
28 SOMERS ROAD BOX 178 ADEN, MASSACHUSE'T'TS 01036 PHONE 413.566.8006 FAX 413.566.7.27.7
RETAIL SALES LEASING SITE SPLEC' N'ION TENANT REPRESENTATION
HTTY' S SHEPPHPDgREHLL :413-586-2937
DRAFT
M E M O R A N D U M
Jan 23 ;0:; 10:49
C O N F I D E N T I A L
ATTORNEY /CLIENT
I N F O R M A T I O N
DATE: January 23, 2002
TO: Wayne Feiden
FROM: Janet M. Sheppard, Esq., City Solicitor
RE: King Street Ordinances
CC: Mayor Mary Clare Higgins, Councilor Michael
Bar dsley, Councilor Frances. V oikman -n, Councilor
Maria Tymoczko
JAN 2 3 2002
i'IONINGI
"D CIO6O
P. 02
I have reviewed the material which was presented to me by former
Councilor Patrick Goggins.
As you I�n���� we ►tir.��ii^,, 111/ J
r s y ou kn p6e6'iou J discussed various issues discussed -C..5 CC: L.; ::'.+..ew and l
researched these issues when these ordinances were presented to me
for signature and approval.
The ordinances, as originally presented are, in my opinion, legal and
constitutional.
As you know, I regularly attend the Ordinance Committee and expect
to be present if these Zoning Ordinances come before the Ordinance
Committee on either February 12 or March 12
Please let me know if there are any further legal questions which arise
of January 7h _:.ter:
out of the Januar 24 public hearing.
EDWARD D. ETHEREDGE
SHELLEY STEUER'
'Also Admitted in New York
and California
Dear Wayne:
EDE /kap
Enc.
Wayne Feiden, Director
Office of Planning
City of Northampton
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Etheredge Steuer, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
64 GOTHIC STREET
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01060
(413) 584 -1600
Re: Proposed Retail Zoning Amendments
January 23, 2002,'
Very truly your
t 1�
JAN 25 2002
DEPT OF PLANNING
N MA 010'
I enclose a copy of the Town of Franklin case. I know your position is that the
proposed amendment to Section 11.6 is a "payment -in- lieu" fee rather than an impact fee,
i.e. a developer has a choice under §11.6 to either build affordable housing or pay a fee. I
believe that the requirement to build housing or pay a fee is still a fee, and proscribed by
Franklin and Emerson.
Obviously we could create a mixed use zone and require housing and commercial
use on the same site, but my own opinion is that it would severely restrict, if not stop, the
commercial development. We are developing plenty of residential property, but no
commercial property; it is all going to Hadley and Hatfield.
FAX (413) 585 -8406
MA: Mass Supreme Judicial Appeals Cour t_Reports
l
GREATER FRANKLIN DEVELOPERS ASSN: v. FRANKLIN, 49 Mass. App. Ct' X00 (2000)
730 N.E.2d 900
GREATER FRANKLIN DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and others[fnl] vs.
TOWN OF FRANKLIN another.[fn2]
No. 98 -P -1032.
Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
Norfolk.
January 13, 2000.
June 26, 2000.
[fnl] Dennis F. Marguerite, Francis A. Molla, John C. Colella,
Sean Skahill, and Anthony Marinella.
[fn2] Town council of town of Franklin.
Present: Porada, Greenberg, Rapoza, JJ.
Municipal Corporations, By -laws and ordinances, Fees.
Constitutional Law, Taxation.
A "school impact fee," charged by the town of Franklin to persons
Constructing new housing or expanding an existing dwelling, was
an impermissible tax, where, although paid by choice, the charges
did not benefit the payers in a manner not shared by other residents
and were collected to augment general revenues out of which payment
was made for necessary improved and expanded school facilities.
[502 -505]
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on
December 4, 1995.
Motions for summary judgment were heard by Gordon L. Doerfer,
J., and entry of a separate and final judgment was ordered by him.
Eric W. Wodlinger Mark Bobrowski for Town of Franklin
another.
J. Owen Todd for Greater Franklin Developers Association,
Inc., others.
Thomas A. Reed for Home Builders Association of
Massachusetts, amicus curiae.
Elaine M. Lucas for City Solicitors Town Counsel
Association, amicus curiae, submitted a brief.
GREENBERG, J.
Sheltered by geography from the bustle of Boston, yet within a
reasonable commute to work, the town of
Page 501
Franklin has drastically changed demographics. From 1980 to 1995, the
town's population increased by 41 percent from 17,500 to 25,000. Despite
the building of a brand new school, completed in 1995, a research group
hired by the town that same year projected that growth would cause the
town's schools to overflow by the year 2000, with an estimated 320 more
pupils than spaces.
On December 4, 1995, the date on which the Greater Franklin
Developers Association (association) brought this action, by -law
amendment 95 -300, adding a new chapter 83 to the town code, had
come into effect, under which the town imposed a "school impact
fee" to "ensure[] that development bears a proportionate share of
the cost of capital facilities necessary to accommodate such
development and to promote and protect the public health, safety
and welfare." 83 -2(2). The association and certain of its
individually named members sought declaratory and injunctive
relief in the Superior Court to set aside the imposition and
Date Printed: January 4, 2002 12.56.50 PM
MA: Mass— Supreme Judicial Appeals Cour 1 eports
collection of those fees. On cross- motions for summary judgment,
the judge decided in favor of the association. The judge declared
that the fees were "an invalid and unauthorized tax." The town
appeals.
The material facts are not disputed. Essentially carrying
out the recommendations of the town council's forecast of
overcrowding in the public schools, the legislative findings of
the by -law amendment state that "Franklin must expand its school
systems if new development is to be accommodated without
decreasing current [educational] standards." 83 -2(1). The
findings further state that "[e]ach type of residential dwelling
unit [subject to this by -law] will create demand for the
acquisition, expansion or construction of school improvements."
83 -2(3).
The pertinent part of the by -law reads as follows: "No
certificate of use and occupancy for any new or expanded
residential building shall be issued unless and until the
impact fees hereby required have been paid, unless exempted by
this By- Law." By -law 95 -300, 83 -3(A). The by -law sets out a
fee schedule, based on the estimated cost increase imposed by each
kind of housing unit. Each single family house, for example, is
estimated to bring .68 children into the public school system,
while each condominium brings .25 children. Initially, the town
determined how much of the cost to expand the school system would
remain after it utilized all other funding sources, and
Page 502
then applied the above formula to cover the deficit, charging
proportionately higher school impact fees for single- family homes
than for condominiums.[fn3] Money collected under the by -law is
funneled into one of two accounts earmarked to cover the cost of
expanding schools in either the northern or the southern district,
depending on the location of the new housing. 83- 3(C)(2), 83 -4.
The funds may not be used to maintain existing buildings, and
after eight years, any remainder not used for expansion will be
returned to the payer, if the payer applies for it.
83- 3(D)(1), 83 -3(F).
Under Massachusetts law, towns do not have the power to tax.
See art. 89, 7, of the Amendments to the Massachusetts
Constitution "Nothing in this article shall be deemed to grant to
any city or town the power to levy, assess and collect taxes
Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 25 Mass. App. Ct. 91, 92
(1987). Towns may, however, exact fees. See G.L.c. 40, 22F
"Any municipal board or officer empowered to issue a license,
permit, certificate, or to render a service or perform work for a
person or class of persons, may, from time to time, fix reasonable
fees for all such licenses, permits, or certificates and may
fix reasonable charges to be paid for any services rendered or
work performed This case turns on whether the by -law imposes
an impermissible tax or a permissible fee.
Fees "share common traits that distinguish them from taxes:
[1] they are charged in exchange for a particular governmental
service which benefits the party paying the fee in a manner 'not
shared by other members of society'; [2] they are paid by choice,
in that the party paying the fee has the option of not utilizing
the governmental service and thereby avoiding the charge; and [3]
the charges are collected not to raise revenues but to compensate
the governmental entity providing the services for its expenses."
Emerson College v. Boston, 391 Mass. 415, 424 -425 (1984)
(citations omitted).
We apply the analysis developed in the Emerson College case
to distinguish valid municipal user fees from unlawful taxes
Page 503
and, more specifically, to determine whether the judge in the case at
Date Printed: January 4, 2002 12:56:50 PM
MA: Mass .Supreme Judicial Appeals Courj�1 eports
hand correctly concluded that the purported "impact fee" was
invalid because it failed to benefit fee payers in a manner not
shared by other members of the community. We agree with the judge
that the benefit of expanded school facilities is not
particularized to the fee payers. First and foremost, expanded
school capacity benefits the entire community. We hardly need
state that society as a whole gains with the education of its
children and suffers at the lack.
More than that, assuming without deciding that individuals
under the by -law are able to demonstrate that their new housing
will not contribute to the demand for more schools and thereby
exempt themselves from the fee requirement, the benefit of new
school facilities still is not limited to fee payers. An example
may be illustrative: The funds are earmarked for capital
improvements, such as a new cafeteria or an entirely new school.
No one has proposed, as we expect no one would, that only students
living in homes assessed this fee be granted access to the new
cafeteria, while those living in older homes must continue to eat
in the gymnasium; nor that children living in homes not assessed
the fee be prevented from attending the new school, and instead
must be bused to an older facility.[fn4] Under the first
Emerson College factor, therefore, the school impact fee is
better characterized as a tax because it does not benefit the fee
payer in a manner not shared by others. See Emerson College v.
Boston, 391 Mass. at 424.
As for the second test, that the fee be paid by choice, it is
true that developers can decide not to build residences in the
town and that homebuyers, if they are the feepayers, can buy
elsewhere. See Bertone v. Department of Pub. Util.,
411 Mass. 536, 549 (1992); Baker v. Department of Envtl. Protection,
39 Mass. App. Ct. 444, 446 (1995). The motion judge so held,[fn5]
but correctly noted that this factor is not conclusive. See Berry
v. Danvers, 34 Mass. App. Ct. 507, 512 n. 6 (1993); Morton v.
Hanover, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 197, 202 (1997).
Page 504
The third test, together with the first, demonstrates the
taxing nature of this fee. In true fee situations, charges are
collected not to raise general revenue but to compensate the
governmental entity for its expenses in providing that particular
service. The provision of sufficient school facilities is not a
particular service which is unavailable to the general public; it
is the government's obligation to provide such facilities to the
general public out of general revenue funds. See Jenkins v.
Andover, 103 Mass. 94, 96 -97 (1869) (noting that since the
founding of the colony, towns have been required to provide "free
education supported by taxation of the inhabitants The
point can be seen in Emerson College, where the court stated that
the fee there for augmented fire protection services did
nothing in particular for the properties that paid it: "instead,
fire protection once included within the general property tax has
been reclassified as a special service and an incremental cost
imposed." Emerson College v. Boston, 391 Mass. at 418 n. 5. In
the case at bar, school facilities once included within the
general property tax have been improperly reclassified as a
special service. In a strikingly similar school impact fee case,
the court in Daniels v. Point Pleasant, 23 N.J. 357, 362 (1957),
struck down an ordinance raising the cost of building permits to
cover the increased school costs incurred by growth. "What the
Borough of Point Pleasant is attempting to do here," that court
said, "is to defray the general cost of government under the guise
of reimbursement for the special services required by the
regulation and control of new buildings. The philosophy of
this ordinance is that the tax rate of the borough should remain
the same and the new people coming into the municipality should
bear the burden of the increased cost of their presence. This is
Date Printed: January 4, 20`02 PM
MA: Mass- Supreme Judicial Appeals Cour
so totally contrary to tax philosophy as to require it to be
stricken down." Daniels v. Point Pleasant, supra. We agree.
The town points to St. John's County v. Northeast Florida
Builders Assn., Inc., 583 So.2d 635 (Fla. 1991), a case in which
the Florida Supreme Court upheld a school impact fee. The law of
Florida, however, requires only that the town satisfy a "rational
nexus" test. See id. at 637. The Emerson College test is far
more stringent. The case before us also differs in several key
ways from the other case the town relies on, Bertone v. Department
of Pub. Util., 411 Mass. 536 (hook -up charges assessed to those
seeking electrical service at a location not previously serviced
are valid fees). Most importantly, a
Page 505
statute in Bertone gave the municipality the authority to
set electricity rates, and the court concluded that hook -up fees
fall within that power. See id. at 542 -545. No statute grants the
town in the case at bar similar authority.[fn6]
In concluding that the school impact fee is really a tax, we
are not without sympathy for the town's position. "There can be
no controversy about the obvious fact that the orderly development
of a municipality must necessarily include a consideration of the
present and future need for school facilities." Pioneer
Trust Say. Bank v. Mt. Prospect, 22 I11.2d 375, 380 381 (1961).
As said in Daniels v. Point Pleasant, 23 N.J.'at 362, however,
"the remedy must come not from the municipalities nor from the
courts, but from the Legislature."
Finally, the town fastens upon the notion that the service
bought with this fee is the increased marketability that new homes
boast when located near schools with sufficient capacity for
incoming pupils. It is enough to say that the by -law itself
states that the money is being collected to pay for the cost of
new school facilities. See 83- 3(D)(1). The town filed nothing
and the record contains nothing setting forth facts which
unsettle the conclusion that the benefits obtained by exacting the
school impact fee are expanded and improved school facilities.
Judgment affirmed.
[fn3] Although the occupancy permit feepayer has the option of
preparing and submitting to the town administrator an independent
fee calculation study, the by -law amendment requires that the
calculation must follow the town's methodology and establishes
that the town administrator is at liberty to accept or reject the
permit seeker's calculations. See 83- 3(B)(2). According to the
record, the school impact fee schedule charges $2,500 for single
family attached homes; $528 for condominium /single family attached
homes; and $726 for multi family /rental residences. See id. at
83 -4(2).
[fn4] As it is not before us, we do not pass on the dubious
legality of such segregation. We simply illustrate the point that
beyond the obvious benefit accruing to society at large from the
availability of sufficient facilities to educate every child, the
benefit accruing to individual children and through them to the
actual fee payers is not particularized.
[fn5] Although the town's counsel devotes considerable energy on
appeal to claiming that the motion judge erred in determining that
the voluntariness prong was not met, in fact he concluded that it
was.
[fn6] Amicus curiae for the town claim the Superior Court erred
in failing to consider three additional cases from other
jurisdictions upholding school impact fees or land dedications.
The motion judge explicitly discussed these very cases in his
-,Reports
Date Printed: January 4, 2002 12:56:50 PM
MA: Mass- Supreme Judicial Appeals Courf Reports
decision, correctly distinguishing them as upholding such fees dr'
dedications either under a statute that specifically permits the
imposition of fees or dedications for schools, or under a
Florida -style rational nexus test. See Jordan v. Menomonee Falls,
28 Wis.2d 608, 614 -620 (1965) (statute plus rational- nexus);
Krughoff v. Naperville, 68 I11.2d 352, 358 -359 (1977) (statute
plus rational nexus); Loyola Marymount Univ. v. Los Angeles
Unified Sch. Dist., 45 Cal.App.4th 1256 (1996) (statute).
Furthermore, as these amici intended to persuade us that the
by -law at issue was not a tax and therefore could be grounded on
home rule, one of the above was particularly poorly chosen.
Jordan, supra at 621, reads: "The provision possesses sufficient
attributes of a tax so that it cannot be grounded upon the
home -rule amendment, sec. 3, art. XI of the Wisconsin
constitution."
Page 506
Date Prihted: "January 4, -20-02-1256-:50-PM
1
In the Year
Ct of N.grtIrampttrn
MASSACHUSETTS
Councilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
ORDINANCE
Two Thousand One
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
Appendix A §2.0
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section of said Code;
Definition of Substantial Improvement to be changed.
providing that
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows:
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
"Section
Section 2.1
{Amend §2.1 by changing the definition of substantial improvements as follows (bold indicates new text
and strikethrough indicates deletions)
SUBSTANTIAL 'IMPROVEMENT: Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure
within a three- five year period which either increases the building area of size or the original structure by
ten- per- c- ent- (1 -0 fifteen (15 or more, or the cost of repair, reconstruction, or improvement which
equals or exceeds ten percent- (1.0 fifteen (15 of the assessed value of the original structure, either
(a) before the improvement is started, or (b) if the structure has been damaged and is being restored,
before the damage occurred.
In City Council,
Rules susp
Attest:
May 2, 200
Approved: Mary Clare Higgins
A true c
Attest:
erolled.
Clerk
,Mayor
Amended 2/28/02
Titpr of Ti tlfamptrnt
MASSACHUSETTS
In the Year Two Thousand One
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF Councilors William Dwight, Rita Blieman, Alex Ghiselin
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising sec ..A pen5i� A §2.t of said Code;
providing that Automotive service station and repair station be defined. Combine definition of personal services
and retail.
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows:
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows:
"Section
Insert the following new definitions within §2.1 in alphabetical order
Automotive service station Establishment in which the principal use is the retail sale of gasoline, oil, or
other motor vehicle fuel, and may contain retail convenience and variety goods for retail. The premises may
include, facilities for polishing, greasing, washing, or otherwise cleaning, servicing, or repairing motor
vehicles.
Automotive repair Establishment in which the principal use is the repair of motor vehicles, including
maintenance servicing, upholstery, etc. No gas sales or retail allowed.
Delete the entire definition of "Personal and Consumer Service Establishment" within §2.0
Insert the following new definition within X2.1 in alphabetical order
Retail Personal Services The sale rental, or repair of goods and!or provision of services including:
antiques, apparel, appliances (home use), art supplies. bakeries, barber shops, beauty shops, books,
cameras, card shops, china and pottery, draperies and interior decorating supplies, drugs, film developing
and printing, florist, fruit, furniture, gifts and stationery, grocery, hardware, house wares and home
furnishing, jewelry, laundering and other garment servicing, music, newsstand, novelties, paint, shoes, pet
supplies and pet grooming, shoe cleaning or repair, specialized food, sporting goods, toys, tailors, vegetable
markets, and other similar places of business. Includes discount food and merchandise "clubs
Amend §5.2 "Retail and Commercial Services" category by deleting entire entry for Personal and Consumer service
Establishment
No other changes to this category in §5.2
in Cify Council, May 2, 2002
Rules suspende s, passed two readings j•1 dained a enrolled.
Attest: Clerk
Approved: Mary Clare Hig• ins ,Mayor
A true co
Attest:____ City_Clerk
Section 5.2 Table of Use
Principal Use
Business
Medical
Industrial
Business
Park
Consr.
CB
GB
HB
NB
M
GI
SI
BP
SC
Retail And Commercial Uses (continued)
Retail and Personal Service with maximum floor area
A
PB
PB
PB
Site
A
PB
PB
PB
PB
A
PB
Site
Site
P13
A
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
of:establis-lmicnts se114 -n principally convenience goods
ij l+di but limited to ;ooc
-ng, not m s, a rieta}y
and establishme
goods -Rts selling eene-i-al merchandise
i-nc-1 iug b ted to, dry
not1in foods, apparel and
accessories:
A: less than or equal to 10,000 square feet for any
single establishment; or
13: over 10,000 square feet, single establishment (see §6.2,
§10.15, §11)C• or
C: over 10,000 sq. feet (single or cumulative) with 2 or
more stories and all parking in rear or side. (2nd+
floor may include other permitted uses)••+; or
D: Less than or equal to 10,000 sq. feet single
establishment and Less than or equal to 15.000 sq.
feet of cumulative development in a 3 year period on
the same parcel of land which has been in common or
affiliated ownership within the same 3 -year period; or
GE: Less than or equal to10,000 sq. feet single
establishment and over 15,000 sq. feet of cumulative
development in a 3 -year period on the same parcel of
land or on land which has been in common or affiliated
ownership within the same 3 -year in B
period (i# -net
abeN}
In the Year
trz tr .olf Nx utI anxpttnt
MASSACHUSETTS
Two Thousand One
Amended 2/28/J2
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF Councilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section Appendix A §5
o said Code;
providing that Permit and dimensional requirements for retail uses over 10,000 sq. ft.
Be it ordained bY the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows:
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows:
Section 5.2
table of use regulations within the category of Retail and Commercial Uses as shown on the
table below. No other changes to this section.
Section 6 -2 HB District
Principal Use
Minimum Required Lot
Minimum Setback
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Open
Space
Area
Frontage
Depth
Front
Side
Rear
Any allowed use on a property with a
building that is setback no more than 10'
along 80% of the property's frontage.
0
60
60
0
0
6
40
5%
Any use when all parking is in the rear
and /or side of a parcel's principal building
and rear of the front of the principal building.
Applies to 1- story retail establishment(s)
over 10,000 s.f. with all parking located at
the rear or side. (parking in front of
building defined as parking in front of
longest facade facing the street)
20,000
120
140
0
10
20
35
15%
❖Applies to new projects and substantial improvements (For the purposes of this section, exclude the value of improvements to repair or replacement of
roofs, mechanical systems, elevators, parking Tots, or landscaping from calculations.)
must include the entire frontage.
Section 6.2
{Amend §6.2 within HB district by adding the following new row as shown table below and
amend §6.2 within the HB district for "any use when all parking in the rear..." by adding text as
shown on table below}
In City Council,
Rules susperrd
%rolled.
,City Clerk
Approved: Mary Clare Higgins ,Mayor
Attest:
May 2, 2002
passed two reading
AMENDED
*2nd story must be at least 50% of the footprint and
4 Tit r of X.orttlIamptort
MASSACHUSETTS
In the Year
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
Two Thousand One
Councilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
Appdx A §8.6,8.10,8.11
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section §1.1..6(2)., of said Code;
Shared Parking and Parking Fee requirements
providing that
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows:
"Section
Section 8.6 Shared Parking
§8.6 Insert new standard as follows [regular text indicates that which was moved from §8.10(6) and
§11.6(2)}:
Amended 2/28/02
In all Zoning Districts except the Central Business (CB) Districts, the Planning Board may:
t allow- wit-h-a-spes -ial- permit- Through site plan approval, allow the reduction of the parking
space requirements of up to twenty (20) percent of that required in the Table of Off Street
Parking Regulations where conditions unique to the use will reasonably justify such a reduction,
including 2 -story buildings in (HB).
2. T- he- Rlanning- Board- may -allow Through site plan approval reduce parking requirements for
Major Projects listed in §8.1 by up to 20 percent of parking needed for employees (no credit for
parking needed for visitors or customers) if:
A. the applicant incorporates satisfactory methods, acceptable to the permit granting authority, to
reduce the need for parking into their design and into the trip reduction plan described in §11.5
(3.B.) by at least the same percentage; and
B. if the Site Plan Approval is conditioned on the on -going use of those trip reduction methods with
effective enforcement tools included =ands
3. The- lalannieq- Board- rxnay -gran4 Through a special permit allow a greater percentage reduction
where joint use of the same spaces by two or more uses or establishments is justifiable by virtue
of the fact that the uses or establishments generate peak demand at substantially different time
periods.
Section 8.10
{Amend §8.10 by deleting all of item 6 (to be moved to §8.6). No other changes to this section. Amend
§11.6 by deleting 11.6(2), second paragraphs and subparagraphs A,B, and C.}
Section 11.6(2)
Amend §11.6 (2) as indicated below:
2. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement
within the site and on adjacent streets, minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area. If
applicable, this shall include considering the location of driveways openings in relation to traffic and
adjacent streets, access by emergency vehicles, the arrangement of parking and loading spaces, and
provisions for persons with disabilities; and.(See also §8.6).
Section 8.11
Amend §8.11 as follows:
Section 8.11 Special Provisions in the Central Business District for Meeting Off Street Parking
Requirements in Cent The Planning Board may grant a Special Permit allowing
pPayment made to the City of Northampton in -lieu of providing some or all of the required off street
parking spaces for a project in the CB district when shall be allowed by right if it finds—that, in addition
to othcr applicable criteria the fo Nawi are rnet
ay grant a Special Permit allowing payment to th Cit of ,'orthampton -in -lieu of
prey dingseme -srali of the required off street parking spaces -for a pr- ojec-t_ ent; ndTt„a, -in addition to
ot1- ier- applicable- erateFia -he eitewing conditions are—met:.
1. The projest-is -i^ ie-G trat- Business District.
2. It is either -not possible fovide- #h„e-requircd number-sf-eff- street- par -k}n paces -on- site -eF
to do so woad- be-in-eonflict -with city master and study- plans adopted- under-M:G- L— GlaapteF
3. Parking is availa"i -te-m eenlic project's needs or could be made available with- the- dee-of
payment in lieu of fees.
4. Payment in lieu of funds can eventually be used to mitigate the projects- impact -en the city's
pa rkin g s s t e m
5. The Planning- Bear -d-ha e e e e •.mendation -of the Ner-thampten
Parking Gemmission- r-egarding- he- application or the Parking- Camm-ission -has not-Faade -a
Fesommendation within 30 day e -e e e e- r &gaest.
The fee to be paid shall be 54,899- $2,000 per parking space. Said-Fee- hall -be- reviewed, and if
necessary adjusted, periodisall-y- by -the- City -Ceti all -be- detained- using- prefessional cost
estimates, submitted in writing by the Northampton Parking Commas;own-,indisa1 —t1 e— s -efadding -the
repulred dditienal- park e_ stitute /3- sf -tl}e -design -and -G apital- cestofproviding
suds spaces. Fees paid to the City of Northampton, in -lieu of providing required parking spaces on -site,
shall be deposited into a Downtown Parking Reserve Account to be used solely for expenses (land
acquisition, design /engineering services and construction costs, but not maintenance costs) related to
adding parking spaces, improving the utilization of existing parking spaces, or reducing the need for new
parking to serve the Central Business District. Requests to appropriate funds out of this Reserve Account
shall be filed with the City Council and referred to the Office of Planning and Development, Planning
Board, and Northampton Parking Commission, which shall have 60 days to forward their comments and
recommendations before a City Council vote of the appropriation is taken. (Amended 9/20/1990 and
12/21/1995.)
In City Council,
May 2, 2002
Rules suspeedeo passed two readings, o ained an enrolled.
r
Attest: ,6itytlerk
Approved: Mary
A true co
Attest:
Clare Higgins
,Mayor
6
In the Year I vo Thousand One
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF Councilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section Appendix A §1,101 said Code;
providing that Amend site plan submittal requirements for retail establishments
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows:
"Section
Amend §11.6(7) as follows: Add (s) to the word "establishment" in the first sentence. Delete "25,000" and
replace it with 10,000 in the first sentence. No other changes to this §11.6(7).
In City Council, May 2, 2 0 0 2
Rules sus passed two readings;dained a molted.
Attest: -r i Clerk
few
Approved: Mary Clare Higgins ,Mayor
Ta .of Northampton
MASSACHUSETTS
Amended 2/28/02
7
CCiti of .1rt1 anxph r
MASSACHUSETTS
Amended 3/12/02
In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and .Two.Tlaousertd.One
UPON THE RECOMMENDATIO
ilors William Dwight, Rita Bleiman, Alex Ghiselin
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section of said Code;
Appendix §11.6
providing thalkmend. site• pl an- subrrfi itte+ tequirements forretail•establistrments'nVer t0;t70Q'SF
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
{Amend 11.6 by adding new criteria in numeric order as follows
8. For 1 -story retail uses in the Highway Business District that are over 30,000 square feet of
single establishments or cumulative development with parking located in the front, side and/or
rear, an applicant may choose as an alternative to. developing as a two -story building, to either
pay an in -lieu of fee. as described below. or develop in -either- sategor A -0r- category- B- helow,
Consistent with the City's adopted Vision 2020 goals to foster development that is sustainable for
the long term, is built to human scale, and expands economic opportunities, the city encourages
applicants to develop buildings that are pedestrian oriented and which enhance economic vitality
by building along the street with second story space for residential or other commercial use. In
lieu of designing projects that meet these goals, the alternative options -in- either- A-or B below will
mitigate the impacts that large, single story, single -use retail businesses create by effectively
eliminating land that could otherwise be used to construct multi -story, mixed use space within
Northampton's core. Such multi -story development enables the limited land remaining in
Northampton to be used more efficiently in order to provide vibrant mixed uses and vital
economic development opportunities within the City.
A.Providc .85 square feet of on or off cite affordable- hGusi-ng- ueite- fearse-feet
oreated-lay- the- r-etaia- development -(e g— Ot1900 uar-e -feet of retail- weale- require
85 -sq ar- e- feet -ef afford^ ;i#s)-every two persons making -legs than 80% of
median -ino nae --his will- nneet-the-goal -of providing- g- ua;a,-,te^ed-- sastGmerbase-for
retail uccs- inthe- laignway- husiaess sli tri t-a -'o .t -will provide more around the- ofas.1
lifeanel -vibr agcy- to- thearea- hy- orcating -pedestrian and-residential-span
Type'
Size of�Retail',
Establishment
•Mitigation Required:
New building, conversion to
0- 30,000 square feet
$0 with no penalties and no fees
retail or expansion of existing
single or cumulative
development (see §6.2)
New building, conversion to
30.001+ square feet single
$5 /sf for entire footprint of
retail, or expansion
or cumulative (see §6.2)
establishment or cumulative
building(s). Existing grocery stores
(stores in which non -food items do not
exceed 20,000 square feet) pay only
for the footprint of the expansion area.
Expansion of an existing
establishment(s), other than grocery
stores, for which payment has been
made previously, pay only for the
expansion area _O
1 OR
B:Provide a one -time payment -in -lieu to the City for retail mitigation shall be made in
accordance with:
OThe Planning Board may issue a special permit to allow expansion of existing
businesses to pay only the fee for the portion of the expansion that exceeds 30,000
square feet if the building comes closer to conforming with dimensional zoning
requirements then in effect.
Such payment —in -lieu enables the City to create vitality within the business district
through expenditures that foster economic development providing increased customer
base and safe pedestrian space that would not otherwise be provided through
construction of single story, single use building.
Payment -in -lieu shall be used by the City for activities that have direct or indirect
economic development benefits.
The Office of Planning Development shall review the payment -in -lieu fee on an
annual basis and shall submit a report to the Planning Board with any
recommendations on changes that should be made to the fee based upon market
costs /demands.
Fees paid to the City of Northampton, in -lieu of retail mitigation, shall be deposited into
an Economic Development Reserve Account. The distribution of funds for any
projects shall only occur after a vote of approval from the Mayor and City Council.
Requests to appropriate funds out of the Reserve Account shall be filed with the City
Council and referred to the Office of Planning and Development, Planning Board and
Mayor's Office, which shall have 60 days to forward their comments and
recommendations before a City Council vote of the appropriation is taken. The goal
will be to appropriate the use of these funds within five years, to the extent practicable.
In City Council, May 2, 2 0 0 2
Rules sus end, d, passed two reading, ordained •nd enrolled.
Attest: 't`y Clerk
Approved: Mary Clare Higgins ,Mayor
A true c
Attest: I Clerk
AMENDMENT
9
In the Year
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
Section 6 -2 HB District
All other use
Principal Use
Liar NartlIamptun
Rules sus
Attest:
Area
Approved:
MASSACHUSETTS
Councilors Bleiman, Dwight Ghiselin
Frontage
Minimum Required Lot
Two Thousand Two
ORDINANCE
An .Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section Append A §6.0 of said Code;
providing that Create maximum setback for single story retail establishments over 10,000 square feet
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council 'assembled, as follows
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
"Section
Section 6.2
§6.2 Amend the table of dimensional regulations for Highway Business Section of 6.2
as shown below. No other changes to this section}
Depth
20,000 120 140
In City Council, May 2, 2 0 0 2
passed two reading
0
A true cxEllp
Attest. �r
Minimum Setback
Front
Mary Clare Higgins
•:•For retail uses above 10,000 square feet, the maximum setback is fifty five(55) feet within which no more than one row of
parking is allowed. The Planning Board may issue a special permit to allow existing buildings with 75' or greater setback to
maintain a maximum setback of 75 feet within which no more than 1 row of parking and no more than 42' of asphalt may be
created if the Board determines that exceptional circumstances exist.
Side
10 10 20
rolled.
Clerk
,Mayor
Clerk
Amended 2/28/02
Rear
Maximum Minimum
Building Open
Height Space
35 30%
10
In the Year
UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF
Lzfv of XottlIamptiou
MASSACHUSETTS
ORDINANCE
Rules sus
Attest:
TwQ Th.4t!SP!ld. One
Councilors William Dwight Alex Ghiselin
An Ordinance of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, providing that the Code of Ordinances,
City of Northampton, Massachusetts, be amended by revising section of said Code;
providing that Appendix- •A §5.2
reta+4- establishments• over- 804000•squar-e•feet•shail be-prohibited
Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Northampton, in City Council assembled, as follows
Section 1. That section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Northampton, Mas-
sachusetts, be amended so that such section shall read as follows
"Section
Section 5.2
§5.2 Amend table of use regulations within the category of Retail and Commercial Uses as follows:
Amend subsection B of Retail and Personal Service to read "10,000 to 90,000 square feet
Add new subsection in alphabetical order to read:
"Over 90,000 square feet of footprint for single establishment {not to be allowed in any district}
No other changes to this section.
In City Council,
May 2, 2002
d, passed two reading
rdained
Approved: Mary Clare Higgins
Amended 2/28/02
d g, rolled.
Clerk
,Mayor
Clerk
4,4
x t... 4 1
1
.44:4":6:11.15'00:041 '33.1,
C ME:744 A
'1 .A hg.P.
■,1
.w,---,.."---,-=---r-r---
e.:
4,.....:::
orl\ ,.1 N. --?`---''..---'-c.„,s,t,':,....-4,;:t......-^er. ,P,.., 11 A
.f m1:" c.- -1. c; r^:r
-•-,,,-;;.-,-,,..4 ki :5 x%;50,,s--"*.q: 4 0 4 ..e'''''‘,
34,
—Vt
Ifr
4 ?,:,__,:iir,i.,14,* A
P
C:1 I LI
ip ■•:lk
;.;:c
3 'VA Va"
A',4;00.6k
Nrrrzfritqc...&
.4.`.
A
14
Li
t,\
4.*
=tItr,
VikkOZ*7-47arsifaVif
4
je
1
1
t,
r•
0 1. 4
fP441
:A.”)
V
4 ;,7
RETAIL TENANT SITE CRITERIA
Land Building Ratios March 2002
Ames Department Stores, Inc
10 Acres for 65,000 sf to 80,000 sf
Best Buy Co, Inc.
5.5 Acres for 45,000 sf (400,000 population)
3.5 Acres for 30,000 sf (250,000 population)
BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc
12 to 15 Acres for 115,000 sf
CVS Corp.
1.75 Acres (77,000 sf) for 10,880 sf
National Amusements (Showcase Cinemas)
15 Acres for 15 Screens (50,000 sf to 70,000 sf)
OfficeMax, Inc.
80,000 sf (1.8 Ac) for 20,000 sf
Petco Animal Supplies, Inc
65,000 sf (1.5 Ac) for 17,500 sf
Staples, Inc
2 to 2.5 Acres for 20,400 sf
Toys `R' Us, Inc
5 Acres for 50,000 sf
Tweeter Home Entertainment Group, Inc
1.2 Acres for 8,500 sf
Target Stores, Inc
15 to 20 Acres for 90,000 sf to 123,000 sf
N grz a rrIt I n aao F
fN
Y
C-C•fv•KC:4 ILD Y
\o/
LNIT-fr,t
ago 1.
4e)
_It i d
ok,
WiAlONT.
k..._.- ........--t A t
t A
at,
,,t,
A 4• r n J, -,2 4 1 ^,.....,.•••:„4..,,
r'••' 1 f'.:,..,.:,.:::,--- A Y c;..-.4. :7Zr- c.....
,,,,,•At.. 4 1 f C 1 4,.,.: ‘...r'; ..1P ...-i'lt, ,i' ':..,i r ;_'-',...„,*?_-i-, 'F'• ',1
';',"r.r' 7 ..4,..:ler 2 ,:r.4 .e..;;:r:';',.., %,„,....ON'T• N!!,,V*4 4 --E gn, I •T' :"•1‹. ,•'r•tYke, .3y1.rx.•;
`ti''''.1-4:-'S.;'' %,::..i.;--44,-',.J'::,,,,..:•':,;:.•.•-•-..,,,-2,1a.:07.f.e7,4•_•:1•AE",--4,"'...,-,A.,- ....,f;Z.,. :so, :Agigft)t... :;......;..,-;,-,..zu: ....y74,11 .....,,,..,:.-,..g,„,,•
=AT
1.4
1.
1
•\7
m Al, ‘2.74)13.-1, f•Or,"...,
A
11.PC
VA 't
"•P'
;;Iltti
1
Pf,
..T.i.ZQELL&T.V_ L! r-4
Wisi
r 1.:5*.
Z,;.•
t4c
tt4;'''•
g .vb•
,g.
"Pa
•gy-
M /./11.-V NW,
;let
11
1
:7 4
l'izZ....4 1
R '..■"'L s 1
Ceil -...V?. I
..,74 ,,e
•tcs i
e i
..erv:
04'
l'I•r)-. 41;:01,.
Gismq-,6,N16-
i
1 G-ply 1=1 Witt-2.D SNS‹,
!NI
gePr(1,_
Ft
A t
11
./A
NZWIs/G. 116; ej
a4,*.
■;;;A; ''..,-'0";,.' :IRIT. .P'.. 1.
rE f14 1 .402:M. 7 57 RoFg
50
L
6 5
A i
5.4
AO
S ....r.v
11
-r
apto nAgag A 4-4 *..,L tit 1-1, INS!,
4
e ,,,1
'$,3
7 17 f•frr2-
.e. I
I.
t --„4
cr\
■e•c.f.
figiri ,,t,
:0 i ffiZj. il!'
,,,..7.7...4 .......••••-••—.......---m ..i.___,,_,..t 1
..re.•,,
1 -.••x••..!••••••• s t; ;Z;;;: jr •••••••••••.,,....t.•
:T Z.aft i 1•04 r .XT•440,4i4c1Vifig4k;54+'''
1,
U ,,iie.:}" I j ',...„-k----',----<_;;;;.,,,,i,4;‘,.,-..:;\ „1 ...Jr: 4
6 -.1 s t S .1.- ■:;:'-'7' C....• ,4:ji: 'Pi'. -L,,...... 4-, :•-1. c ":-e•
f
c ,....s .2., t.,,, 1 ....N.. C. Nn,
1 re e...:^ ,.,.,y,.'••':?,"'",'=:X,■-,,,h.4V.A, ,,d,' ..4.7.. .,,,,,%,4 ,.7,.,'-',.k.'1,..,,, xe;e1":"..:.s:,;
f,:r n;. rt '4 ?rIA ..*tii.ile.:7:F.T.' :14A:t: .7 ,,,,,c
'7' ;.ttit r- t.... clgrh-.. .„o•••••••,..i ,77- .„,,4.„..t.,-...T.,-7‘4 .....y•t•:' 44:;•115.M
••••2:;;;;;PY,..1...•
FikiZ■
itsa
.1 0
•!`"7.:•• 7s::
A
•••-•1
-.4...,,lico- ,z ;,4.•,,:yitti%.,:x.41Fagres-,...,:':,'..,, „tx.a.:1”,
l._. fr 7 7:77
,XA
J..
Mi
J
:1 11/1
GR(4 1 5k:g4"-1,A 1-■ Si.//t-
'14
1130VDJ_
0.1 4
4VP..t
froji
f/V47.M
4
77.7"-,
44\
X ri-Ig7 f
1
09
-4.4 Pg"-
1/
1 ,--or,
413
T YPe
Sz of Retail y
E s t a bl is h me nt
.1/1110' g atiOn Required s
New building, conversion to
retail or expansion of existing
0- 20,000 square feet
single or cumulative
development (see §6.2)
$0
New building, conversion to
retail, or expansion
20,001+ square feet single
or cumulative (see §6.2)
$5 /sf for entire footprint of establishment or cumulative
building(s). Existing grocery stores (stores in which non -food
items do not exceed 20,000 sf of gia) pay only for the footprint
of the expansion area. Expansion of an existing
establishment(s), other than grocery stores, for which payment
has been made previously pays only for the expansion area.
Development within
Central Business
District:
Reduce Payment -in -lieu for parking
mitigation in Downtown from
$8 /sq.foot ($4,000 /space) to $4 /sq foot
($2,000 /space)
All Payment -In -Lieu by right.
Goal: encourage downtown development/redevelopment.
OPTION A
Proposed Permit Review for Retail over 10,000 sf in Highway
Business District>
2— story building (min) with parking on side and rear only
General Business District Densities with 0 min. lot size (vs. HB
densities and 20,000 sf)
>5% open Space (vs. 25% in HB)
Site Plan Review only (vs. current Special permit and site plan)
9 0' Front/Side setbacks
>20% reduction in parking for shared parking
Meet large retail design standards (10,000 +square feet)
Meet all other standard site plan review criteria
Goal: encourage development of housing /or economic development in
an ideal land use pattern that fosters human -scale building and utilizing
land more efficiently.
1
AND
City of Northampton 2/28/02
OR
OPTION 31
1
If 80% of building frontage is placed along street frontage (at
setback line)
5% open space required (vs 25% currently rqrd) as amended
OPTION B2
OPTION B
Proposed Permit Review for Retail over 10,000s.f: in Highway Business District>
1— story building 8,/or ail parking in front
Standard HB zoning density /dimensions
Special Permit with Site Plan Review
Meet large retail design standards (10,000 +square feet)
Allow removal of abandoned, 1- story retail establishments over 50,000 square feet
9 Maximum front yard setback of 55'
Goal: accommodate market demands, encourage pedestrian scale development, provide housing
and economic development benefits comparable to opportunities that exist downtown.
Parking on side and rear with 80% building
frontage along street:
15% open space required (vs 25% currently reqrd)
Special Permit Requirements
OPTION B3
1. Provide .85 square feet of on or off -site affordable housing units for each square foot created by the retail development (e.g. 100,000 square feet of retail would
require 85,000 square feet of affordable units.)
OR
2. Payment -in -lieu for retail mitigation at $5 /sq.ft (compared to the $4 /sq.ft in Central Business) to be used for economic development]
Mandatory
Tye
0' front
;CI inarice
setbacks
UVhere
Northampton Central
Business, Portland,
OR; Boulder, CO;
Baltimore County, MD
etc.;
Incentive Zoning
Multiple states Encourages desired development
including MA patterns by proposing density
(Cambridge, Boston, height and build -out bonuses
Northampton)
Design Requirements for large
retailers: second story and other
bldg materials "main street
style
CA, CO, Baltimore
Cnty MD; OR,
Columbus Ohio etc.
Economic Impact
Mitigation /Review
Cape Cod, MA For Developments of Regional
Impact (retail over 10,000sf) Looks
at affordable housing for employees
of proposed development,
Salary/benefits, opportunities for
local workers, impact to existing
businesses.
NY State (Lake Placid, NY- review of consistency with
Ithaca etc), Napa CA; community character
Concord CA, Wilton,
CT; Santa Cruz, CA
Prevents displacement of local
Palm Springs, FLA businesses.
Payment -in -lieu and /or Impact
Fees (exactions also used)
Multiple state (-39) Widely applied in CA, FLA, WA
Affordable Housing Linkage
Requirements
Boston and San Specified new commercial
Francisco development required to provide or
pay -in -lieu.
Proposed Ordinances relating to Retail Development
Greater than 10,000 Square Feet
What Other Communities are Doing:
State Average Wage
44,329 ($22/hr)❖
Northampton Average Wage
Example midpoint Salaries for*:
Public school teachers
Police/Fire
Bank teller
Restaurant dishwasher
29,345 ($15/hr)
$39,800
$30,500
$25,151
$19,500
This standard met if:
Average salaries range between $15,000 $17,000 /yr (2 empldyees at $5- $10/hr, 1 employee at $15/hr)
Development within
Central Business
District:
Reduce Payment -in -lieu for parking
mitigation in Downtown from
$8 /sq.foot ($4,000 /space) to $4 /sq foot
($2,000 /space)
All Payment -In -Lieu by right.
Goal: encourage downtown development/redevelopment.
Affordable For Sale Unit (single family)
$100 120,000
Affordable Rental
$600 /month 2Bedroom
NH median single family home sale
$144,000
Salary required to afford median housing cost
$55,158
Proposed Permit Review for Retail over 10,000 sf in Highway
Business District>
2— story building (min) with parking on side and rear only
General Business District Densities with 0 min. lot size (vs. HB
densities and 20,000 sf)
5% open Space (vs. 25% in HB)
Site Plan Review only (vs. current Special permit and site plan)
0' Front/Side setbacks
D 20% reduction in parking for shared parking
Meet large retail design standards (10,000 +square feet)
Meet all other standard site plan review criteria
Goal: encourage development of housing /or economic development in
an ideal land use pattern that fosters human-scale building and utilizing
land more efficiently.
1
AND
n
>Applies to new construction and substantial improvements
+Average annual wage as defined by Dept of Employment Training for 2000
NH Housing Affordability Survey 5/2000
1
❖Floor Amendment: If 80% of building frontage
is placed along street frontage (at setback line)
5% open space required (vs 25% currently rqrd)
this requires an amendment
OR
Proposed Permit Review for Retail over 10,000s.f: in Highway Business District>
1— story building /or all parking in front
Standard HB zoning density /dimensions
Special Permit with Site Plan Review
Meet large retail design standards (10,000 +square feet)
D Removal of abandoned, 1- story retail establishments over 50,000 square feet
Goal: accommodate market demands, encourage pedestrian scale development, provide housing
and economic development benefits comparable to opportunities that exist downtown.
Parking on side and rear with 80% building
frontage along street:
15% open space required (vs 25% currently reqrd)
Special Permit Requirements
Existing Buildings <10, 000sf have 1 -time exemption for up to 50% expansion of one principal building (includes demo /recons)if use remains same.
l
1. Provide on or off site affordable housing (e.g. for family of three making 80% of Northampton median income):
2. Provide economic development of one job for every 2 persons making <$29,345/year ($15/hour)
OR
3. Payment -in -lieu for retail mitigation at $5 /sq.ft (compared to the $4 /sq.ft in Central Business) to be used for citywide market/ED analysis, economic
development, or affordable housing [possible amendment to specify 50% of funds to be used for each category]
OR
4. Provide detailed study showing no impact. [or drop this option through amendment)
Smart Growth on King Street
will be a Win for Northampton...
Example of smart growth: Plan fora new street -side Home Depot with professional offices, residential space, and small businesses, Portland Oregon USA, Lennertz Coyle Assoc.
New zoning in will encourage responsible development on King Street, with
pedestrian-accessible, multi story, mixed -use buildings near the street and
parking in back... or we could see an explosion of big box sprawl and traffic.
The Cit y Council vote is very close. Your input can make a difference.
Tell our City Councilors to vote for smart growth ordinances 1 -8
Attend final p ublic hearing on Feb 28, 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers
Get info at www.northamptonplanning.org or call sponsors below
If the smart growth ordinances don't pass,
Northampton could see a lot more big box
sprawl... and soon.
Councilors at Large: Michael Bardsley and James Dostal;
Ward 1: Bill Dwight (584- 2814);
Ward 2: Frances Volkmann; Ward 3: Maria Tymoczko; Ward 4:
Rita Bleiman (586- 4504); Ward 5: A lex Ghiselin 586- 1849); Ward 6: Marianne LaBarge; Ward 7: Raymond LaBarge. Ordinance sponsors are bold.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CITY OF NO i'THPTON
To: City Council Ordinance Committee and Planning Board
City Hall 2x o Main Street, Room i 1 Northampton, MA o x o6o -3198 (413)587-L266 Fax: 587 -1264
Wayne Feiden Director p[ anning @nort[bamptonp[anning.org www.northamptonplanning.org
Memorandum
From: Wayne Feiden, AICP, Director of Planning and Development 587- 1265orfeiden (cnorthamptonpianninq.orri)
and Carolyn Misch, Senior Land Use Planner
Date: Wednesday, Jan a"' ry 23, 2002
Proposed zoning changes: Retail Standards and related changes
Date Action
Referred from City Council 11/15/01 to Ordinance and Planning Board
Chamber Economic Development Com. 10/18 /01 11/16 /01 discussions
Legal notice and posting 11/21 11/29/2001
City Council Ordinance Committee informal review 12/10/01 Request three changes (see table)
Ordinance Committee informal review 12/11/01 discussion.
Housing Partnership Planning Subcommittee 1/ 15/02 Recommend in favor (ordinances 1 -9), while supporting future
restrictions (unanimous vote)
Ordinance /Planning Board Public Hearing 12/13/01 and 1/24/2002
Planning Board recommendation
Ordinance Committee recommendation
Deadline for final City Council action
This package of nine zoning ordinances, plus one alternative approach, creates a vision for the future of
King Street. This vision is designed to implement Northampton Vision 2020 and most of the comments
received during the City's December King Street visioning workshop: This vision Includes improving
walkability of King Street and the ability of buildings to frame the street, while acknowledging that the
majority of trips on King Street will continue to be by automobile. The vision also includes maintaining or
expanding a wide range of retail opportunities, while expanding the opportunity for additional offices and
housing to be built on King Street.
This package of zoning changes will significantly decrease the regulatory burden on developers who build
buildings consistent with this vision. For these developers, open space requirements and setbacks will be
dramatically reduced, parking requirements will be reduced somewhat, and fewer special permits will be
required. Developers creating development at odds with this vision will find some new regulatory burdens,
specifically a maximum setback requirement and tougher site plan review standards, and a requirement to
mitigate the impact of low wage jobs on the housing market.
Janet Sheppard, the City Solicitor, has determined that the "in- lieu -of" fee for affordable housing and
economic development is a valid fee. This is a voluntary fee, which is only applied to those developments
which are not built with two stories up to the front property boundary, and will be used to mitigate the
housing and economic development impacts of those projects.
The Northampton Housing Partnership, by unanimous vote at their 1/15/2002 meeting:
1. Supports and applauds the consideration of affordable housing in the planning process;
2. Endorses the proposed ordinance as a great improvement over the present situation and endorses
strongly the incorporation of affordable housing where mitigation is called for
3. Found, however, that large retail development has a significant impact on the affordable housing
needs of our community and the Northampton Housing Partnership would supportfurther restrictions
on large retail development.
planning hoard conservation commission zoning hoard of appeals housing partnership redevelopment authority northarnpton GIS
economic development communitYJ development historic district commission historical commission central business architecture
originai prim ted recycied
Table of Proposed Amenaments to urainances
Am endme nt
Rec ended
a ,�44, X
Purpo
1. Buildings over 10,000 sf that have 80% of their building
facade built up to and along the public street frontage at the
minimum 10' setback will obtain a density bonus allowing
95% building coverage. Merger of rows in §6.2.
Staff
Promotes better use of
land and creates
environment that
encourages access by
foot, bicycle and bus.
2. Eliminate option for developer to provide economic
development based on wages.
City Council Industrial
Affairs Committee
Extremely difficult to
track this provision for
the long term.
3. Eliminate option for providing detailed economic impact
study.
City Council Industrial
Affairs Committee
Difficult to quantify
impacts.
4. Amend payment -in -lieu provision by creating a graduated
fee schedule and merger of establishments
Increased fee for very large boxes
City Council Industrial
Affairs Committee
Ordinance Comm.
Encourages expansion
of existing businesses
and more evenly
distributes payment -in-
lieu options.
5. Amend housing options to tie to square footage instead of
wages
Comments from Industrial
Affairs and Ordinance
Committee
Hard to track wages and
is consistent with State
Hospital approach
6. Correct typographic error in substantial improvements and
add severability clause. No change to inconsistencies in
nlarPPAti(19, 101;WAPY :nmmi,esion Inning board of appeals housing
Staff and comments from
reviewers
partnership redevelopmentauthori:y
Clean up language
northampton
T� City Council
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
City Half 21 o Main Street, Room 1 1 Northampton, MA o 1060 -3198 (413) 587-1266 Fax: 587-1264
Wa9 ne Feiden, Director p fanning @northamp ton pia nning.org www.northamptonp anning.org
Memorandum
From: Wayne Feiden, AICP, Director of Planning and Development 587- 1265 orfeiden na northamptonplanninq.orq)
and Carolyn Misch, Senior Land Use Planner
Date: Thursday, December 13, 2001
Proposed zoning changes: Retail Standards and related changes, including substantial
improvement
Date Action
Referred from City Council 11/15/01 to Ordinance and Planning Board
Housing Partnership Planning Subcommittee 11/ /01 Recommend in favor
Chamber Economic Development Com. 10/18 /01 11/16 /01 discussions
Legal notice and posting 11/21 11/29/2001
City Council Ordinance Committee informal review12/10 /01 Request three changes (see table)
Ordinance Committee inforrnal review 12/11/01 discussion
Ordinance /Planning Board Public Hearing 12/13/01
Planning Board recommendation
Ordinance Committee recommendation
Deadline for final City Council action
1
economic development community development historic district commission bistorica( commission central business architecture
original prin tedon recycled paper
«Adj of
3.
P
3
4.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
City Hall 21 o Main Street, Room I I Northampton, MA o 1 o6o -3198 (413)587-1266 Fax: 5 87 -1264
Wayne Feiden, Director planning @northamptonplanning.org www.northamptonplanning.org
OFFICIAL MEETING NOTICE
NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD
DATE: December 13, 2001 TIME: 6:00 P.M.
PLACE: Council Chambers, Puchalski Municipal Building, 212 Main Street,
Northampton.
Carolyn Misc1, Senior Land Use Planner/ Permits Manager
NORTHAMPTON PLANNING
BOARD
AND CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE
COMMITTEE
The N t amp o P HEARING and and
City Council Ordinance Committee will hold
a joint Public Hearing on Thursday,
December 13, 2001 at 7:00 P.M, in Council
Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal
Building, 212 Main Street, Northampton, to
consider nine proposed zoning changes for
large retail developments over 10,000 square
feet including:
1. Reducing open space and dimensional
requirements for retail buildings that are 2
or more stories with parking on the side and
rear in Highway Business;
2. Reducing the parking payment -in -lieu
i fee by .50% for development in Central
Business;
3. Requiring payment -in -lieu of mitiga-
tion, or provision of affordable housing, or
f economic development for one -story retail
structures greater than 10,000 sf;
4. Clarifying permit requirements for
shared parking in Highway Business;
5. Removal of abandoned retail struc-
tures over 50,000 sf;
6. As an alternative to the above, prohibit
retail establishments over 20,000 square
feet;
7. Changing definitions to retail and
personal services, substantial improve-
ments, and automotive repair stations.
Nov 21, 29
AGENDA
1. 6:00 P.M. Public Forum to discuss land use and planning design issues
along'; the King Street Corridor from Main Street to the Hatfield town line.
«Joint Public Hearing with the City Council Ordinance Committee»
2. 7:00 P.M. Joint Public Hearing with the City Council Ordinance
Committee to consider nine zoning changes for large retail developments
over 10,000 square feet.
rent Public Hearing. Resume Regular Planning Board Meeting.»
y Dickinson Hospital, Inc. for a Site Plan (major
e Zoning Ordinance to, construct a new 8,962
fox, a new MRI facility for property located at
as Assessor's Map 23B, Parcel 46.
DU WILL BE UNABLE TO ATTEND.
planning board conservation commission zoning board of appeals housing partnership redevelopment authorit, northampton GIS
economic development community development historic district commission historica[commission central business architecture
original printed on recycled paper