I just need to correct one items in Daryl's email and Fran's comment from last night. 1. Daryl correctly quotes Fran Volkmann as saying that the Planning Board has the right to change the side yard setbacks and impose an additional setback distance. Fran was not exactly accurate, however, in her statement. A. Fran correctly cited the language in 350-10.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance as allowing the Planning Board to impose greater side yard setbacks. Section 10.1 is part of the SPECIAL PERMIT approval criteria. The Planning Board issued this permit last fall, during a public hearing, without increasing the setback requirements, and they do not have the right to back and change this. It was in reliance on this Special Permit that the applicant proceeded on their design. B. There is general language in the SITE PLAN APPROVAL criteria (the permit that is being applied for) about light and air and avoiding adverse impacts on the neighbors. This language does NOT, however, give them the right to impose additional setbacks. It does give them the right to condition landscaping, facade treatment and the like to minimize these problems. C. There was a court case handed down by the Essex Land Court earlier this month on exactly this subject. They ruled that a Planning Board may NOT impose increased setback requirements as part of Site Plan approval. The basic premise is that Special Permit is about saying YES or NO, and the board has every right to say no. Site Plan approval is about the details of a permitted project. Wayne Feiden, AICP Director of Planning and Development City of Northampton 210 Main Street, Room 11 Northampton, MA 01060

These might be notes to the Planning Board for the "FINAL" review of Northampton's biggest change to downtown. At the forum last night some important issues never came up that our final review board truly needs to consider and hopefully will not simply react predisposed. HILTON HOTEL SITE & DESIGN PROBLEMS; A.SAFETY 1. The Fire Truck access to the high 5 level residential building [& Hotel rear] will be closed off thus making it more dangerous in both lacking fire rescue and fire fighting ability at those open wood decks. 2. Our fire chief lamented that the garage will not be sprinkled as parking garage gas fires are especially bad being able to spread by easily flowing to the many gas tanks on the many levels. 3. The close proximity of the garage to the hotel itself and the residential housing without fire truck access is problematic. 4. Pedestrian personal safety is lowered in urban alleyways if not connected with open spaces at their ends which is an error planned for in the new dead-end alley at the residential housing. B.TRAFFIC 1. When the Hospital Hill Village traffic arrives with all the added fast growing 25% of Northampton's South West residential areas, all that new traffic plus the existing will be prevented from an easy direct access to the city and I-91 by the hotel garage's location. 2. Rt-66 will need to use the Rail Road bed which CLEARLY by far is the shortest, most direct, level future connection to Crafts, Old South & Conz St to I-91, right through the Hilton garage that would be blocking it. 3. The Quality of life will be reduced in 3 neighborhoods, West St, South street and Earl/Grove Street, plus the Smith college Campus when the traffic increases, from the future excess traffic stress and the air pollution of standing gas fumes that will occur. 4. The new hotel traffic will be an additional impact on the above huge impact, even if very small by comparison. C.PARKING 1. The lack of a Future Rt-66 direct I-91 connector link to improve life in 3 neighborhoods and a campus, would eliminate 65 NEW parking spaces both attached to the Hotel site and Down town, PLUS providing parking behind the newly renovated Baptist church which closed due to a lack of parking. 2. The current designed garage covers too much land with only 3-4 levels above grade while our garage behind Thornes is one level higher and structurally designed for more floors to be added. D.HEALTH 1. The greatly reduced Light and View to the residences and office workers will increase their chances for depression and worsen their psychological condition in areas such as productivity and motivation, as has been empirically proven by AIA statistical research studies and many anecdotal awareness's world wide. 2. The closeness of the Hotel will also reduce Air quality as trapped stagnant and lowered fresh air levels will certainly occur. 3. If we can assume a larger park is a psychologically healthier park by having more entrances and exits to attract more people than less, then Pulaski park patrons will have less options to that end as is designed than is clearly possible if done differently. E.AESTHETICS & DESIGN 1. The hotel architecture is very poor postmodernism with many clumsy historic or traditional references that are tacky at best unless you think their humorous quality is endearing. 2. The public at large even with no education in historic architecture can sense what is authentic in centuries of good evolved design vs the endless contemporary naive clumsy new attempts at it we all see everywhere but should not also again in the center of town. 3. The good evolved traditional styles standing in our many historic buildings, greatly contrast the na￯ve contemporary post modern and that is what bothers people consciously &or subconsciously and would therefore here also lower the character of the hotel to its patrons and to our fellow citizens in that central area of our city. SOLUTIONS to ALL above Items A, B, C, D & E can be solved by using these simple design ideas; 1. Add much greater set backs to the two existing buildings. 2. Keep existing designed floor areas the developer has planned in their finance proforma with a smaller narrower but slightly taller building which increases views and light at both neighboring building front walls. The better set backs also reduce a big box massing while added height will not be seen from Main street due to the many trees and existing rare downtown firs can have open air wells for longer life. 3. A smaller footprint as was reported in the plan approved at the Special Permit approval in 10/06, will reduce lawsuit potentials against this change which should require a new permit revisiting or a potential judgment. 4. Reducing the costs in higher massing comes from less; a.) foundation and b.) roof area material and labor and so their appeal to the Planning Bd to increase set backs would ONLY occur if they're allowed the added height. 5. Saved money in building Foundation and Roof area can help pay for a garage sprinkler system, which then only endangers the hotel itself with more human and sane setbacks to its neighbors. 6. Keeping the garage east wall open as is, PLUS opening the west wall for Fire trucks access to the residential housing and also the back side of hotel allows a MUCH MORE important improvement to the city by allowing the existing 28ft wide roadway to let ALL EMERGENCY vehicles through for the future 25% of Northampton residences AND Hospital Hill village. This also Reduces pollution and traffic stress to 3 neighborhoods and a campus for future Northampton's sustainability. lastly 7. Improve Pulaski Park by allowing it to spread and grow in stepped down rock walled garden paths to go around the hotel's environs for nice flowered walk for its patrons and our citizens while opening pedestrian circulation to all people to the new Mill River Park at Veteran's Field. But most importantly for the resident's children forced by economics beyond their control to grow up in 'front yard garden' vs a 'dead-end dumpster', should give a life time of thanks to Shardool Parmar's American family who have already been given a permit to build the worst site plan I've ever seen on my 47 years of studying and 37 years of practicing architecture. I hope the Parmars will do a Smarter growth than our usually very excellent planning process has done. Any of the designer complainers should not accept any remuneration from the Parmars, but should offer to volunteer in a design charette to bring this center of Paradise into reality before it reaches the planning Board, or, they will have to approve it with no substantive change to its very serous issues,, as is their mandate. I want to publicly apologize to Wayne for raising my voice in query as to how a 15 ft set back was ever approved which appears is the single most damaging element to the city from this project.

With regard to Wayne Feiden's comment, it seems that if the planning board increases the setbacks, they might have a lawsuit from the developer. If the plannning board does NOT increase the setbacks, the city WILL face lawsuits from the owner of the round house and the owners of the New South Street Apartments. Since there are lawsuits either way, they may as well do what's best for Northampton.