ZBA Grants Variances for Mixed-use Project at University Drive and Amity Street

Report on the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, February 22, 2024

This meeting was conducted over Zoom and was recorded. It can be viewed here.

Present
Steve Judge (Chair), Craig Meadows, Philip White, David Sloviter, Everald Henry

Staff: Chris Brestrup (Planning Director), Jennifer Mullins (Planner)

The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) granted developer Barry Roberts, as University Drive-Amity LLC, two variances from the Zoning Bylaw to permit the construction of a mixed-use building with 85 residential units at the site of the former Rafters Bar and Grill, recently Pleasantrees Cannabis Dispensary, and the office building next door on the corner of University Drive and Amity Street. Roberts claimed that the variances were needed due to hardship because of the characteristics of the site: the high-water table and wetlands over clay and silty soils that cannot support the weight of the building. Variances were requested to reduce the required lot area from 4,000 sq. ft. per unit to 2,500 sq. ft. and allow a building height of 57 feet from average grade on the street., as opposed to the 35 feet allowed by the current zoning. The parcels are in the limited business (B-L) zone. Variances due to hardships are allowed by Section 10 of Amherst’s zoning bylaw and MGL Ch. 40A, Section 10 on variances) 

Attorney Tom Reidy of Bacon, Wilson represented Roberts. He maintained that granting the variances would not be a detriment to the neighborhood and would not set a precedent, due to the unique characteristics of this site. He said that no other parcels in this zoning district are hampered by these conditions, the legal criteria for awarding a variance. Under the B-L zoning, only 54 residential units could be created, which he asserted would not be economically viable. The proposed building would be mostly four stories high, with five stories in the rear to accommodate a parking garage on the first floor in order to provide enough parking for the commercial and residential uses. Underground parking is precluded by the ten-foot water table and drainage pipes from adjacent parcels. A total of 184 parking spaces (114 surface and 70 covered) is assumed to be sufficient, because the developers assume that the commercial and residential parking uses will be complementary.

A height of thirty-five feet is allowed by right in the B-L zone, and forty-five feet with a special permit. Fifty-five feet is allowed in other Amherst zoning districts that allow mixed-use because in a “podium built” design (see below), commercial floors have 12 to14 foot ceilings, which raises the total height of the building. Reidy explained that podium-built structures have steel or reinforced concrete structure for the lower, nonresidential floors and lighter weight wood framing for the upper floors.

The 5.32-acre site consists of four combined lots, two of which have existing building structures to be demolished. The building on the corner of Amity Street and University Drive was constructed in 1968 and, until recently, had been a cannabis establishment. The building along University Drive was constructed in 2004 as an office building. The two lots to the south are mostly wetland and swamp. The proposed building is sited on the 50 and 100-foot wetland buffers. The western property line is on the Hadley line, which borders protected wetlands. Reidy stated that all of the new construction will be limited to the already “disturbed” areas.

The developer is also asking for relief from the zoning density requirement of a minimum of 4000 square feet of land for every dwelling unit where only 2,500 square feet is required in other zoning districts. Reidy asserts that this change from 54 units to 85 units will ensure the financial viability of the project. Some of the units on the second floor facing University Drive could be commercial space if the demand exists. Planning Director Chris Brestrup noted in comparison that the density at North Square in the North Amherst Mill District is 130 residential units and first-floor commercial in a similar five-acre area.

The developers project that the building will be about half student rentals and half non-undergraduate students. The proposed mix of “ample size” units (i.e., fitting a queen bed in each bedroom) is three one-bedroom, one bath units, 29 two-bedroom, 9 three-bedroom, and 37 four-bedroom (the latter having two baths). Twelve percent of the units will be affordable units to those making up to 80% of Area Mean Income. The developers specifically did not want to build all one- and two-bedroom units. The cost to build is between $450,000 and $500,000 per unit. They anticipate the rents to be similar to those in the Fearing/Sunset project: $1900-2200 per month for one-bedrooms to $3500 for the larger units. When asked if faculty could afford these rents, the answer was “yes”. The developer alleges that families are renting the larger units because costs are less than paying mortgage, taxes, and maintenance on homes without having to come up with a 20% down payment.

ZBA member Everald Henry asked if these would all be rental units or if some could be available for condo ownership. Reidy replied that these will all be rental units because condo units could be bought as investment properties making it more difficult to control the management, as opposed to single ownership of the buildings. He added that rent levels can be increased to cover costs, but pledged that these rent increases would be only enough to offset fixed costs “not to make money.”

ZBA Chair Steve Judge asked about the magnitude of the additional costs due to soils that created the “hardship” justifying the requested dimensional variances. Reidy replied that the necessary pre-loading, test pits, wells, and gravel fill could cost $850,000 or even more than a $1 million. Associate member David Sloviter noted ways that costs could be reduced to increase profit like eliminating parking, but Reidy replied that this would not reduce fixed costs like maintenance, taxes, debt service and insurance.

Henry asked why the developer did not build only residential units, as opposed to a mixed-use building. Reidy answered that apartment buildings are limited to 24 units per building, and this is the perfect location for mixed use. UMass wants University Drive to become the gateway to the university to get traffic off the residential streets. Unlike the 54 abutters who appeared at the hearing for the Atkins Corner, opposing the requested variance, there were about 20 abutters in the Zoom room, all enthusiastically in favor of this project , as were the letters submitted to the board before the hearing. Planning Board member Bruce Coldham noted that the Planning Board is discussing how to zone University Drive in this direction.

Town officials and developers have been talking to UMass, which proposes to support the town in applying for a MassWorks grant to build a rotary at the problematic intersection of University Drive and Amity Street. Town staff maintains that there is a very high probability of getting the grant with letters of support from UMass and the developer, because the project will provide jobs and other economic benefits to the town. Sloviter asked who will pay for the rotary, if there is no grant money forthcoming to pay the $1.5 to 2,000,000 cost?  Brestrup responded that she believes that the probability of a grant is very high with UMass support.

While there were questions about the definition of “hardship” from all five board members, Reidy commented that there were no detriments (another Variance criterion). Reidy’s contention that the project contributed to the public good by providing housing, commercial enterprises, and increased tax payments to the town convinced the board to support the two variances for the project with a 5-0 vote. The Planning Board will now take up the Site Plan Review of this project. Members of the ZBA plan to write a letter to the Planning Board, asking for more affordable units particularly for people at the 60% Area Median Income level.

Shutesbury Road Solar and Shays Street Special Permit Hearings Continued to April
In other business, the Shutesbury Road Solar Project was continued to April 25 to allow the Conservation Commission and the peer review by the developer to finish the work needed to renew the permit that had expired. Independent peer reviewers have been hired for the delineation of the wetlands and to review the battery energy storage plan. Pure Sky has selected a new provider for the battery energy storage, but the supplier was not specified. The previous manufacturer of the battery energy storage, Powin, has had several instances of fires occurring with its batteries.

Also, a request for a Special Permit for construction of a single-family home on a deeply-sloped flag lot at 368A Shays Street was also continued to April 25 to allow the petitioner to provide more information of where lighting would be on a house yet to be designed. The board was concerned about light trespass on abutting homes, since the home site is high on a hill where lamps could cast light down on the abutters. The petitioner had asked for waivers from providing lighting and landscaping plans that block that light from abutters.

Addendum: A Note on “Podium Built”
For mixed use construction:

“In the construction industry, podium construction is typically defined as a construction method that divides a building into lower and upper portions. The lower portion, the “podium”, is typically a single story or two and is built of a robust structural system, such as steel or reinforced concrete. The upper portion, which is typically four-to-five stories on top of the podium, is built of a more economical structural system, such as wood light frame construction (WLFC).”

“The advantages of podium construction lie in the use of the most appropriate and economical structural system for each user. The lower floor of a mixed-use building is often a use that requires a stronger structural system for long open spans and a more fire-resistant system for more vulnerable uses, such as restaurants, retail, or automobile parking.”

“The upper floors are generally residential where long spans aren’t required, since the average apartment is comprised of multiple small spaces (living/dining, kitchen, bedrooms, bathrooms, etc.) that require relatively short spans. In this case, wood light frame is more economical, because the materials used and the skills required to use them are less costly than steel or reinforced concrete construction. By code, multifamily residential uses must be fire-sprinklered, which reduces the potential fire risk of using wood construction in this type of building.”

Source: https://www.schooleycaldwell.com/blog/overview-of-podium-construction-building-code