17C-161 (9) following conditions:
1. The applicant shall install a stop sign at the lot's
intersection with Reyes Street.
2. The applicant shall pursue the installation of a cross
walk with the BPW, to be located between the bank's two
existing lots in the vicinity of the rear entry of the bank.
3. The plans shall be revised to show three-foot sumps in all
catch basins.
4. Applicant shall obtain easements from Massachusetts
Electric. Proof of the granted easements shall be submitted
to the Planning Department, to become part of the file, prior
to work being started.
5. The applicant shall obtain a trench permit from the
Department of Public Works. Proof of the granted permit shall
be submitted to the Planning Department, to become part of the
f ile, prior to work being started.
6. The applicant shall install a gate at the entrance to the
lot to be locked at night after the last employee has left.
7. The parking lot's lights shall be on timers and shall be
turned off nightly at 7:30 p.m.
8. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the
traff is engineer onto the site plan and shall revise the site
plans to show sidewalks and signage for stop sign and one-way
circulation inside the lot.
9. Lighting fixtures shall be 14 feet in height and limited
to 70 watts. A revised plan shall be submitted to the
Planning Department, to become part of the file, prior to work
being started.
10. Applicant shall install a "Caution Bikepath" sign under
the stop sign with an arrow indicating where the bike path is
located.
11. Applicant shall record the Site Plan Special Permit at
the registry of deeds and submit proof of recordation to the
building inspector.
12 . The Site Plan Special Permit must be exercised within two
years of the date of issuance of the permit.
Jodrie seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously 7: 0.
Y ' �
6. Lights shall be on a timer which shall turn the lights off
at 7 : 30 p.m.
7 . The recommendations of the transportation engineer shall
be incorporated into the final plans, including the
construction of a sidewalk and the posting of internal
signage.
8. The applicant must obtain permission from the DPW to tie
into the storm system.
9. The applicant shall obtain easements from Mass. Electric.
Board members discussed the possibility of limiting the number of
parking spaces still further. Yacuzzo suggested limiting the
number to 80 since that is the number of spaces required by the
Zoning Ordinance for the bank's current square footage. Crystal
pointed out that zoning requirements are sometimes less than actual
demand, however.
Kuzdeba clarified that the Board needs to justify any reductions
that they may impose and explain what the difference is between 90
spaces and 80 spaces.
Romano and Blatt agreed with Yacuzzo that they would like to see
fewer spaces. Blatt said she was not sure a reduction in spaces
was within the Board's right. Kuzdeba pointed out the Zoning Board
also could reduce the number of parking spaces. Kuzdeba was asked
if the Zoning Board wanted to reduce the size of the lot, and she
replied that the Chair had asked the bank and the neighbors to each
come up with a compromise they could live with.
The Board continued to discuss what criteria could be used to
justify a reduction in parking spaces. Yacuzzo withdrew his`
suggestion to reduce the number of spaces to 80. Crystal said that
vehicle safety is a criteria, but he believes Florence Savings Bank
._ has addressed this concern. Yacuzzo said the applicant has not
addressed the criteria of a harmonious relationship with the
neighborhood. NeJame said he believed that if the Board could site
a criteria, it could defend a reduction in the number of spaces.
" Kuzdeba further clarified that the Board needed to specify what
difference such a reduction would make.
Blatt repeated her desire to see signage warning of bikers
approaching. Dietrich said a diamond-shaped bicycle sign could be
placed underneath the stop sign at the lot's exit. Blatt suggested
a verbal warning such as, "bicyclists approaching from rear. "
Jodrie suggested 6: 00 p.m. as a reasonable time for the lights in
the parking lot to be turned off. However, other Board members
disagreed, saying that the purpose of the lighting was for the
safety of bank employees.
Yacuzzo moved to approve the Site Plan Special Permit with the
Crystal clarified that a parking lot is an allowed use in a
business district. He noted that the applicant is seeking
permission to cross over a side lot to save a significant tree. He
pointed out that the bank could cut down the tree and come back and
not need a special permit.
Senior Planner Paulette Kuzdeba explained that the bank is not
required to demonstrate a need for the proposed number of spaces.
Kuzdeba also summarized the comments of Zoning Board members on the
project at their meeting on October 18, 1995.
Sanford Kaye, 92 High street, said the neighbors would like the
Planning Board to shape the size of this project, as they believe
it is too big.
Kuzdeba reviewed the Board's authority under the site plan special
permit ordinance. The Board is allowed to regulate how the lot is
built by imposing reasonable conditions, she said.
Crystal said the Board is trying to address concerns which have
been raised by discussing enhancements to safety. He noted that
the bank has made an effort to address these concerns by reducing
spaces, lowering lighting and increasing plantings.
Kaye asked why it would not be a reasonable restriction to require
that the lot be only 40 spaces as opposed to 90? Crystal responded
that the traff;c engineer believes there is capacity in the road to
handle 90 par,Ang spaces. The Board must rely on information
furnished to them by professionals, he said.
Roseanna Stone, 96 High Street, asked if the lot could be built in
stages and whether children would be allowed to play in the lot.
Blatt moved to close the public hearing, Yacuzzo seconded the-
motion, and the motion passed unanimously 7:0.
Crystal reviewed the conditions the Board is considering imposing:
1. Requiring that a stop sign be placed at the entrance to
the lot on Keyes Street.
2 . Requiring that the applicant pursue the construction of a
cross walk with the Department of Public Works.
3 . Requiring three-foot sumps to be installed in the catch
basin.
4 . Requiring a gate to be installed at the entrance of the
parking lot, to be locked by a janitor after the departure of
the last employee.
5. Requiring light fixtures to be no more than 14 feet high
with wattage limited to 70.
Jon W. Dietrich of Fuss & O'Neill said the applicant's proposal
basically moves an existing use to a new location, 110 feet to the
north. He said there would be very little increase in traffic
volume in the neighborhood, notwithstanding the increase in the
number of parking spaces. He said that the "sight distance" is
adequate coming out of the parking lot in both directions. He
noted that bike path users are required to stop at a stop sign when
crossing Keyes Street. The current traffic distribution will not
be changed by the new lot, he said. He said he did not believe a
right turn only sign would be appropriate because there are
adequate gaps in traffic for people exiting the lot to make a left
turn.
Yacuzzo suggested a crosswalk could be pursued as an added safety
feature.
NeJame asked about the assumptions of the traffic study. Dietrich
explained some underlying assumptions.
NeJame asked Growhoski to justify the number of spaces the bank has
requested. Growhoski said the bank is looking for a place for its
employees to park. The impetus in seeking the lot at this time is
that the opportunity has arisen to acquire this land. He noted
that 48% of the land will remain open space. He said the use of
the lot for parking is the least objectionable commercial use it
could have.
Mary Kasper, 106 High Street, said she would like it to be part of
the record that while the proposed lot is being called an employee
lot, it is in reality a customer and employee lot.
Thomas F. Carragher, 19 Wilder Place, asked a couple of questions.
Michael Kasper, 106 High Street, repeated his .'concern that the-
safety of bikepath users had not been adequately addressed by the
bank.
Crystal asked Dietrich to review the criteria he used to evaluate
the safety of the lot entrance. Dietrich said the volume of
traffic going in and out of the entrance and the ability to see and
be seen exiting the lot are the safety criteria.
Blatt suggested signage could alert those exiting the lot to bikers
crossing Keyes Street.
Mary C. Donovan, 92 High Street, repeated the observation that the
current parking lot is not normally full.
Richard E. Alcorn, 53 Chestnut Street, said the lot will not
enhance the community, no compelling need has been stated for 90
spaces, and a lot of asphalt already exists in the area.
Growhoski stated that the bank does feel a compelling need for the
spaces.
Chair Crystal asked if anyone else wanted to speak in support of
the application. No one else spoke.
Chair Crystal asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposition to the
proposal.
Sanford Kaye, 92 High Street, reported the results of his
monitoring of the bank parking lot the week prior to the hearing.
He stated that Florence Savings Bank has not demonstrated a need
for even a single space. Many neighbors believe the applicant has
plans to erect additional office space, despite assurances to the
contrary, Kaye said. He believes a parking lot would be
substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the current
use of the lot. He suggested the Board limit the number of
parking spaces to 40 spaces or deny acceptance of the bank's
proposal until the bank submits a plan for its future growth.
Edward M. Zadworny, it Wilder Place, said he believes the bank has
not addressed the safety concerns of residents, the potential
decrease in property values, and the increase in traffic which may
occur when the bank adds employees in the future.
Michael Kasper, 106 High Street, asked the Board to protect the
neighborhood from potentially detrimental traffic increases. He
stated that the bank's traffic study does not address traffic
safety issues because it only addresses traffic volume, not traffic
patterns. He claimed the study misrepresents traffic in the area.
The new lot will result in much more traffic passing over the bike
path, he maintained.
Kasper said traffic turning right out of the lot would also face a
safety hazard because it would have to travel up the hill on Keyes
Street, which has no sidewalk and is slippery in,bad weather. He
said increasing traffic on High Street would be dangerous because-
High Street has a crosswalk used by elderly, is residential, and is
already a bus route.
Sheron A. Rupp, 100 Chestnut Street, expressed concern for the
trees on the subject property and the old house, which she said is
an example of Victorian architecture.
Chair Crystal asked if anyone had any new information to present,
and no one else spoke.
Jodrie summarized the correspondence received from Mary Kasper.
Crystal read a letter from Jon W. Dietrich, P.E. , Sr.
Transportation Engineer with Fuss & O'Neill Inc. , providing
supplemental parking information.
Attorney Growhoski clarified details of other permits the bank had
obtained from the board previously.
Board members discussed details of the traffic study.
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
Office of Planning and Development
City Hall • 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586-6950 q
FAX (413) 586-3726
•Community and Economic Development �t s
• Conservation •Historic Preservation vsn
• Planning Board •Zoning Board of Appeals
• Northampton Parking Commission
Florence Savings Bank - Request for Site Plan Special Permit
Meeting Minutes
October 26, 1995
The Northampton Planning Board met on Thursday, October 26, 1995 in
Council Chambers, Wallace J. Puchalski Municipal Building, 212 Main
Street, Northampton. In attendance were Chair Andrew Crystal, Vice
Chair Daniel Yacuzzo, Mark NeJame, Jody Blatt, Kenneth Jodrie;
Associate members: Val Romano and Paul Diemand; Senior Planner
Paulette Kuzdeba, Principal Planner Wayne Feiden and Board
Secretary Laura H. Krutzler.
At 9 : 10 P.M. , Crystal opened the public hearing on a request from
Florence Savings Bank for a Site Plan Special Permit for
construction of a 110 space parking lot under Section 10. 11 (3)
Page 10-7, of the Zoning Ordinance, for property located on Keyes
Street, and known as Assessor's Map #17C Parcels #146 & #161.
David Thompson of Huntley & Associates posted plans for the parking
lot on the board and informed the Board of the following changes
which have been made: (1) The lot has been shortened by 20 spaces-
from 110 to 90 spaces, (2) Light poles have been lowered from 20 to
14 fret with 15 total fixtures, and (3) eight small flowering trees
.. have replaced shade trees along the southern boundary with the bike
path. Thompson showed a photometric plan which displayed the light
levels which would result from the lighting fixtures at various
locations on the property. Thompson also showed a diagram of the
lights with people next to them to show their relative size.
Kuzdeba noted that a letter had been received from Mary Kasper
relative to the project.
Crystal asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the
application.
Attorney Growhoski from 60 State Street spoke on behalf of Florence
Savings Bank. He noted that the reduction in parking spaces from
110 to 90 has reduced the "occupancy percentage" of the lot from 60
percent to 52 .8 percent. He stated that the bank has no hidden
agenda for building on the lot.
ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
• y
and the owner had the right to develop it, in accordance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
Growhoski stated that the bank was willing to work it out
with the board and the neighbors.
NeJame asked if the applicant would be accepting of the
times for the lights to go on and off? The applicants
replied yes.
NeJame asked about signage for a right turn only, and a
warning about the bike path.
Yacuzzo asked the applicant, what would the parking
requirements be, if the bank were requesting to build their
present facilities today?
Crystal asked the applicants to do some projections / a
demand study.
Jody Blatt moved to continue the hearing to October 26,
1995, at 9:10 PM, City Council Chambers. R--n Jodrie
seconded. The motion passed 7-0.
6
Crystal asked how the applicants arrived at 90 spaces verses
110? The applicant replied that it was not based on any
scientific evidence, but that the bank had grown
significantly, and is a labor intensive use. They reiterated
that the use was not like an automotive shop and that there
was no set way to predict growth. Growhoski continued on to
say that the bank is doing this for future planning needs,
and that a need for parking in the future is perceived.
Crystal asked if the bank would monitor the present parking
to exclude non banking customers? Growhoski stated that they
would not, unless there was a problem.
Blatt asked if an upgrade to the existing lot was planned?
The applicants replied that it was not proposed at this
time, but they may do more in the future, - not too far down
road.
Yacuzzo asked about past permits and the banks terms for
leased parking? He also asked if this number was required by
ordinance?
Growhoski explained the permits that had been obtained by
the bank, in the past.
Yacuzzo stated that he would like to have time to review the
traffic report.
Yacuzzo asked for more information. on the past permits and
asked Kuzdeba to give the Board a summary of past permits
and conditions that may not have been met.
NeJame asked if by reducing the poles to 14.! , would they _
require more? Growhoski stated yes.
Crystal asked that the applicants bring a. photometric plan
and a cut sheet on the lights to the next hearing.
NeJame asked if they downsized the lot to 90 could they cut
the number of poles, and could they provide additional
plantings along bike path? Thompson said that he would
research the questions.
Yacuzzo stated that fencing or screening along the bike path
could have a downside, because people can't see.
Paul Diemand asked if there was any thought process as to
what impact the lot would have on the neighborhood?Thompson
stated that he was not given that much leeway with the
design process.
Crystal reminded the board that this was private property,
5
Erwin Grady, Wilder Place: stated that the traffic has
become worse with years due to expansion and bad traffic
patterns.
Barry stone, 96 High Street: who stated that his lot
overlooks the site and was concerned that he will see
lighting from property. He suggested that the bank use low
lights to be located in the island. He also asked that the
number of spaces reflect the numbers of employees, and asked
if they needed 155 spaces - could they only make 30 spaces
and lower lights? Also, for the safety of his children,
could they require the Bank to put up fence along property
lines?
Shawn Rupp, 100 Chestnut Street: - Who stated that the land
is beautiful and should not be destroyed, it is an oasis.
Don Dukes, 91 High Street: - who stated that there was a
safety problem with drive and location of bike path. He
stated that the area currently is a place for loitering if
the area is not locked, bad things could happen there.
19 Wilder Place: - Asked the Board to consider the following
if the opposition doesn't sway them to turn down the
project.
1. R^duce the number of spaces
2 . Reduce the height of the lights and put them on timers;
3 . Require a gate to be locked after a certain time; and
4 . Require additional landscaping to be planted along the
bike path.
Rosanna Stone, 19 High Street: - who stated, that there was
no need for the parking lot, and that low shrubs would not
work. She requested that 15-20' hedges be required in order
to block the view and light of the parking lot.
Crystal read a letter from Leon Cranson, who was in favor of
the project. see appended
Crystal explained the non-conformity of the lot, and that it
was zoned for business use.
Nancy Duseau, who was a site inspector, stated that more
screening should be provided along the bike path. She stated
that this issue could not be perceived as a problem during
the design process and that the bike path goes through all
types of areas.
Duseau stated that from the street, the view needs
screening.
4
,
would most likely go off between 8-9 pm. He stated that a
typical mall parking lot uses 400 watt lighting.
Jon Dietrich, 16 Upland Road, Leeds explained the traffic
study, and how they had concentrated at looking at the
change of access and location of parking for employees. He
reviewed the information of the report and impacts on all
effected intersections. Dietrich reviewed the conclusions of
report.
He stated that the peak traffic time would be 3:45PM -
4 :45PM, when the bank closes at 4, and 4:30PM - 4 :45PM, when
the bank closes at 5 PM.
Dietrich reviewed his recommendations for signange in the
lot, and for sidewalks to be constructed to aid in the
passage of workers from the lot to the bank.
NeJame asked if the parking lot to the south would remain
for customers?
Attorney Growhoski reviewed the approval criteria:
Crystal asked if there was anyone present who would like to
speak in favor of the project?
Robert Koch addressed the abutters regarding the need for
the ban}: to grow and it's need for parking. He stated that
the bank will grow slowly and take the abutters' needs into
account.
Crystal asked if there was anyone present who would like to
speak in opposition to the project?
Michael Kasper, 106 High Street: read a statement,
requesting that the Board guarantee that the plantrigs be in
place and completed, the lighting be the lowest possible and
to go off with a timer; and that the Board request another
traffic study, addressing the impact of the traffic on the
rise in the road to High Street, which causes problems in
the winter.
Ed Zdworny 11 Wilder Place: addressed the board regarding
the high intensity lighting, the bike path and city
ordinances requiring 110' verses 60' of frontage; that the
business was located on the abutting lot, and asked if the
parking had to be located on the same lot. He also expressed
concerns about safety, and reminded the Board that Keyes was
considered to be made 1 way due to safety concerns. He
raised the possibility that his property values may go down
1-4% . He closed by stating that it appeared that the whole
truth was not being told.
3
L
Growhoski stated that there were four (4) items that the
bank was willing to do to help appease the neighbors who
were against the initial project.
1. To reduce the number of proposed spaces from 110 to 90
2 . To reduce the height of the lights to 141 .
3 . To prevent access after hours, by installing a gate; and
4 . To provide additional plantings along the bike path
He passed out a plan showing the driveways entrance and
explained why it would be relocated - to save a large sugar
maple tree. Growhoski stated that he had requested
permission from the Massachusetts Electric company
approximately 9-10 months ago, to grant two easements: one
for access at the street intersection and the second, for
access the city's drainage system.
Attorney Growhoski passed out a locus plan and a request for
waivers.
David Thompson, Landscape Architect from Huntley Associates,
reviewed the two plans posted. He explained how driveway
ended up where it was shown, in order to save the large
sugar maple. He explained that the lot would be paved with
asphalt, have curbing, drainage, and a bump at the entrance
with Keyes Street.
Thompson gave details on a) landscaping; b) lighting,
explaining that it was identical to that located at the
Kaiser, CDH, and Smith vocational facilities. He stated that
it would be a "shoebox" fixture, which was a directional
lighting fixture.
He showed the computer analysis on lighting, stating that
the maximum output beneath the pole would be i-1 foot
candle, and if they used 14' poles, 15 would be needed. If
they used 20' poles only 9 would be needed. Additionally,
the element of the light fixture would not be visible.
Thompson compared the lighting at various facilities to this
lot, stating that the height of the lights at Kaiser are
approximately 20'-21' feet; at the Cooley Dickinson hospital
they are 351 ; and at the Smith Vocational High School, they
are 241 . He stated that the lights were proposed to be high
pressure sodium but may switch the lighting to a metal
halide, which gives a bluish-white light.
Crystal asked if they would review the criteria fro the
lighting and wattage. Thompson stated that the lights would
not be brighter than 100 watts.
Growhoski stated that the lights would be on a timer and
2
"Jf 1P
City of Northampton, Massachusetts �04� TOE
Office of Planning and Development t�
City Hall • 210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586-6950
FAX (413) 586-3726 x
•Community and Economic Development t s•Conservation •Historic Preservation
• Planning Board•Zoning Board of Appeals
• Northampton Parking Commission
Florence Savings Bank — Request for Site Plan Special Permit
Meeting Minutes
October 12, 1995
The Northampton Planning Board met on Thursday, October 12, 1995
in Council Chambers, Wallace J. Pulchalski Municipal Building,
212 Main Street, Northampton. In attendance were Chair Andrew
Crystal, Vice Chair Daniel Yacuzzo, Mark NeJame, Jody Blatt,
Nancy Duseau, and Kenneth Jodrie; Associate Members: Anne Romano
and Paul Diemand; Senior Planner Paulette L. Kuzdeba and
Principal Planner Wayne Feiden.
Chair Andrew Crystal Crystal opened the Public Hearing for
Florence Savings Bank for construction of a parking lot on a
parcel of land located on Keyes Street, Florence, read the
legal notice and explained how the hearing would proceed.
Mark NeJame stated for the record, that in the past, he has
represented the Florence Savings Bank and was part of a
neighborhood group who opposed other projects to be located
on the site, and asked if the bank had any objections to him
sitting for the permit.
Attorney Thomas Growhoski, 60 State Street was present for
the applicant, and stated that he did not have a problem
with Mr. NeJame sitting for the permit.
Robert Koch, Senior vice President, Florence Savings Bank,
explained to the Board and the audience, why cars had been
parked in field the previous day. He explained the it had
been due to a memo distributed to all employees, asking them
to park there during the bank's "Open House" . He apologized
to the abutters for any inconvenience.
Attorney Growhoski explained the proposed parking lot would
be used by employees only. He stated that there were 81
people employed in downtown Florence. He gave the background
of the bank, it's growth pattern, and why it needed
additional parking: "in order to maintain vitality" of the
area.
1
ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) , Chapter 40A,
Section 11, no Site Plan Special Permit, or any extension,
modification or renewal thereof, shall take effect until a copy
of the decision bearing the certification of the City Clerk that
twenty days have elapsed after the decision has been filed, or if
such an appeal has been filed that it has been dismissed or
denied, is recorded in the Hampshire County registry of Deeds or
Land Court, as applicable and indexed under the name of the owner
of record or is recorded and noted on the owner's certificate of
title. The fee for such recording or registering shall be paid by
the owner or applicant. It is the owner or applicant's
responsibility to pick up the certified decision from the City
Clerk and record it at the Registry of Deeds.
The Northampton Planning Board hereby certifies that a Site Plan
Special Permit has been Granted and that copies of this decision
and all plans referred to in it have been filed with the Planning
Board and the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, Section 15,
notice is hereby given that this decision is filed with the
Northampton City Clerk on the date below.
If anyone wishes to appeal this action, an appeal must be filed
pursuant to MGL Chapter 40A, Section 17, with the Hampshire
County Superior Court and notice of said appeal filed with the
City Cleric within twenty days (20) of the dace of that this
decision was filed with the City Clerk.
Applicant: Florence Savings Bank, Keyes Street, Map 17C,
Parcels 146 & 161
DECISION DATE: October 26, 1995
DECISION FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 5, 1995
1
f
r/
t
F. The requested use has complied with the following technical
performance standards:
1. Curb cuts onto streets have been minimized through the
utilization of only one curb cut onto Keyes Street for
an entrance/exit to the proposed parking lot in order
to minimize traffic and safety impacts.
2 . Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic movement has
been separated on the site by incorporating the traffic
engineer's recommendations, including the construction
of a sidewalk and the posting of signage inside the lot
for a stop sign and one-way circulation.
3 . The project will receive permission to discharge into
the City's storm drain system, which the Department of
Public Works has found can accommodate the expected
discharge with no adverse impacts. Catch basins shall
incorporate sumps of a minimum of three (3) feet.
t
Attachment A
Site Plan - Special Permit Review/Approval Criteria
Section 10.11 (6)
In conducting the Site Plan Review for this Major Project, the
Planning Board found the following:
A. The requested use protects adjoining premises against
seriously detrimental uses by providing for surface water
drainage, including three-foot sumps in all catch basins,
and screening as depicted on plans and information submitted
with the Special Permit application. The requested use also
protects adjoining premises against ambient light by
providing for light fixtures no more than 14 feet high with
wattage limited to 70.
B. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of
vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and on
adjacent streets and minimize traffic impacts on the streets
and roads in the area by incorporating the recommendations
of a transportation engineer, including the construction of
a sidewalk and the posting of signs inside the lot. In
addition, a stop sign and a "Caution Bikepath" sign shall be
placed at the lot's intersection with Keyes Street.
C. The requested use will promote a harmonious relationship of
structures and open spaces to the natural landscape,
existing buildings and other community assets in the area by
retaining 47.2% of the lot's square footage as undeveloped
open space.
D. The requested use will not overload, and will mitigate
adverse impacts on, the City's resources by not increasing
the use of these resources, and by mitigating the impact on
the storm system by the installation of three-foot sumps in
all catch basins.
E. The requested use meets all special regulations set forth in
the Zoning ordinance.
2 . The applicant shall pursue the installation of a cross
walk with the Board of Public Works, to be located on
Reyes Street, between the bank's properties in the
vicinity of the rear entry of the existing bank
building.
3 . The plans shall be revised to show three-foot sumps in
all catch basins. A revised plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Department, to become part of the file,
prior to work being started.
4 . Applicant shall obtain easements from Massachusetts
Electric. Proof of the granted easements shall be
submitted to the Planning Department, to become part of
the file, prior to work being started.
5. The applicant shall obtain a trench permit from the
Department of Public Works. Proof of the granted
permit shall be submitted to the Planning Department,
to become part of the file, prior to work being
started.
6. The applicant shall install a gate at the entrance to
the lot to be locked every evening after the last
employee has left.
7 . Lights located within the parking lot shall be on
timers and shall be turned off nightly at 7:30 p.m.
8 . The applicant shall incorporate the traffic engineer's
recommendations into the site plan and revise the plans
to show sidewalks and signage for a stop sign and one-
way circulation inside the lot.
9 . Lighting fixtures shall be 14 feet in height and
_limited to 70 watts. A revised plan shall be submitted
Lo the Planning Department, to become part of the file,
prior to work being started.
10. Applicant shall install a "Caution Bikepath" sign under
the stop sign with an arrow indicating that the bike
path crosses Reyes Street to the South.
11. Applicant shall record the Site Plan Special Permit at
the registry of deeds and submit proof of recordation
to the building inspector, prior to obtaining a permit
to construct the lot.
12 . The Site Plan Special Permit must be exercised within
two years of the date of issuance of the permit.
and roads in the area by incorporating the recommendations
of a transportation engineer, including the construction of
a sidewalk and the posting of signs inside the lot. In
addition, a stop sign and a "Caution Bikepath" sign shall be
placed at the lot's intersection with Keyes Street.
C. The requested use will promote a harmonious relationship of
structures and open spaces to the natural landscape,
existing buildings and other community assets in the area by
retaining 47 . 2% of the lot's square footage as undeveloped
open space.
D. The requested use will not overload, and will mitigate
adverse impacts on, the City's resources by not increasing
the use of these resources, and by mitigating the impact on
the storm water system by the installation of three-foot
sumps in all catch basins.
E. The requested use meets all special regulations set forth in
the Zoning Ordinance under Section 10.11 (6) A-F. (See
"Attachment A")
F. The requested use bears a positive relationship to the
public convenience and welfare because it will add 90
parking spaces, in a General Business District.
The use will not unduly impair the integrity or character of
the district or adjoining zones because it Is in keeping
with the character of the General Business 'zoning district.
The use will not be detrimental to the health, morals, or
general welfare and shall be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Ordinance because a parking lot is
an "allowed-by-right" use in the district.
G. The requested use will promote City planning objectives to
the extent possible and will not adversely affect those
objectives, as defined in City master or study plans adopted
under M.G.L. Chapter 41, Section 81-C and D.
conditions imposed upon the project are as follows:
1. The applicant shall install a stop sign at the lot's
intersection with Keyes Street.
City of Northampton, Massachusetts
Office of Planning and Development
City Hall • 210 Main Street
4 � �
Northampton, MA 01060 • (413) 586-6950
FAX (413) 586-3726
•Community and Economic Development �t
• Conservation •Historic Preservation vm
• Planning Board •Zoning Board of Appeals
• Northampton Parking Commission
DECISION OF
NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD
APPLICANT: Florence Savings Bank '
c/o Thomas M. Growhoski, Esq.
ADDRESS: 60 State Street
Northampton, MA 01060
OWNER: Florence Savings Bank
ADDRESS: 85 Main Street
Florence, MA 01060
RE LAND OR BUILDINGS IN NORTHAMPTON AT: :Q1rCe
MAP AND PARCEL NUBBERS: 0114P 119 = ANUPPOM,
At a. Yaeetirg conducted on October 26, 1995, the Northampton
Planning Board unanimously voted 7: 0 to grant the request of
Florence Savings Bank for a SITE PLAN SPECIAL PERMIT under the
provisions of Section 10.11 (3) in the Northampton Zoning
Ordinance, to construct a 110-space parking lot at property
located on Keyes Street, and known as Assessor's Map #17C Parcels
#146 & #161.
Planning Board members present and voting were: Chair Andrew
Crystal, Virg Chair Daniel Yacuzzo, Mark NeJame, Jody Blatt,
Kenneth Jodrie; Associate Members: Val Romano and Paul Diemand.
In Granting the Special Permit, the Planning Board found:
A. The requested use protects adjoining premises against
serio• .ly detrimental uses by providing for surface water
drain-ge, including three-foot sumps in all catch basins,
and screening as depicted on plans and information submitted
with the Special Permit application. In addition, the
requested use protects adjoining premises against ambient
light by providing for light fixtures no more than 14 feet
high with wattage limited to 70.
B. The requested use will promote the convenience and safety of
vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and on
adjacent streets and minimize traffic impacts on the streets
ORIGINAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER