Owners Say Big Y Will Remain if University Drive Overlay District Created
Big Y Plaza, Amherst. Photo: Mapquest
Report on the Meeting of the Community Resources Committee, December 3, 2024
This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.
Present
Pam Rooney (Chair, District 4), Jennifer Taub (District 4), Pat DeAngelis (District 2), Freke Ette (District 1), and Mandi Jo Hanneke (at large).
Staff: Nate Malloy and Chris Brestrup (Planners), Athena O’Keeffe (Council Clerk)
There were 14 members of the public on the Zoom call.
The Planning Board has held several hearings regarding the creation of an overlay zoning district on University Drive between Route 9 and Amity Street to promote the creation of more housing. The proposed overlay district would allow mixed-use buildings of up to six floors, with increased density. Planning Board Chair Doug Marshall said that most of the reservations about the overlay stemmed from fear that the town would lose the Big Y supermarket and CVS pharmacy to more lucrative student housing. These concerns were largely allayed by a letter received by the Planning Department from the owners of the Big Y plaza in support of the proposed overlay.
Crosspoint Associates, which owns the plaza, wrote that the shopping center is completely leased and that Big Y and CVS have 20-year leases. Both are high-performing stores. Crosspoint owns several shopping centers anchored by supermarkets and has not developed housing on its land, but the letter indicated that, if circumstances changed, they might consider constructing a mixed-use building on the property, even if the ground floor was required to be entirely commercial. However, they have no such plans currently.
Marshall also said that Cooley Dickinson Hospital, which owns the medical facility across University Drive from Big Y, also plans to stay at that location long-term and even expand. CDH representative Jonathan Slate indicated that the hospital hoped to eventually acquire the corner lot on Route 9.
The proposed overlay bylaw allows mixed-use buildings that devote 75% of the street-facing façade to nonresidential use. A sixth story is permitted, but 25-foot setbacks from the street, open space, and certain design standards are delineated. The number of units and unit composition, as well as the amount of parking would be left up to the developer, with approval from the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals. Planner Nate Malloy said that Barry Roberts’ proposed development at 422 Amity Street no longer plans to have a sixth floor, so may be permitted under the existing zoning. Developers would not be compelled to use the overlay zone and could build projects using the existing zoning for the area.
The wide setback along the street is intended to encourage a 10-foot-wide multi-use path along the west side of the street where the access road is, similar to the Swift Way bicycle path on the east side.
With the proximity to UMass, Malloy thought the housing units would be largely occupied by college students, but how the buildings are configured would be left to the developers. All would be subject to the inclusionary zoning bylaw, which stipulates that 12% of the units in buildings with 10 or more units must be affordable to those earning less than 80% of area mean income.
The members of the public who spoke during public comment supported the creation of the overlay district, especially if there was no threat to the supermarket and CVS. Bob Pomeroy wondered if there was a need for more student housing, with the new buildings being built in recent years.
Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke had many questions about how 75% of the façade would be determined and if there were more than one building on the lot, would the one in the back be subject to those same restrictions. She asked how elevators, mail rooms, and lobbies would be accommodated if most of the first floors of the building were nonresidential. Malloy said that communal space is allowed, outside of the specifications. He asked that Hanneke submit her questions in writing, so the Planning Department could answer them completely.
Pam Rooney felt the parking requirements needed to be spelled out more clearly. Malloy stated that developers would be required to do a parking study to show that they provide adequate parking in order to gain approval for a permit. Rooney also worried about six-story buildings on University Drive casting a shadow over nearby Charles Lane, and suggested that buildings abutting the small street be limited to three stories.
Jennifer Taub asked about encouraging lower rents for commercial tenants in exchange for the sixth floor of apartments allowed. She hoped this would allow some of the smaller businesses to remain on University Drive, noting that none of the Carriage Shop businesses displaced when One East Pleasant was built could afford to reopen in town. She also wondered if some of the units could be made affordable to those earning 100% to 150% of area mean income, but Malloy said those income limits would need to be monitored by the town, since the state only has guidelines for those earning 80% or less.
The Community Resources Committee decided to continue the discussion until its December 17 meeting to resolve some of the issues raised. The Planning Board continues its hearing on December 4. When the hearings are concluded, both bodies will make a recommendation to the Town Council. Zoning amendments require a two-thirds majority (nine councilors) to pass.
The interactions from the Planning Board and Staff ,sound like a card game. I will give you this , but the developers are no longer are asking for that , just approve it, and we will see how it goes .
The unintended consequences are significant . Just like the precedent set of a dormitory in downtown . SLOW DOWN planing board and staff . Produce data to the public, of the need for additional commercial space and student housing , and why the town needs to be in the business of accommodating big box student housing .development.
Why is the Planning Board and Planning Department not figuring out?
• actual numbers of UMass students living in town
• actual supply and demand data, for now and in future scenarios, considering the “demographic cliff” predicted by UMass president Marty Meehan and many other higher ed experts
• actual future state of University Drive, if all that new construction happens in a wetland and in a climate crisis
• actual potential to attract businesses both students and year round residents want and need, if the right effort is made
• breaking down the finances, for a building on university drive, to see if a respectable Return on Investment can be achieved without overdevelopment, lack of parking, turning University Drive into a huge student slum without parking, quiet enjoyment, walkable businesses, something for families, retirees, etc
It feels to me that what we are producing out of the planning board and department has an astounding lack of protecting what attracted people here for generations, and more giving away everything to people who want to jump on a trend that will leave us worse off in the future.
Additionally ,provide the number of Net New units added in the last years .
Aspen Heights, Kendrick ,Spring Street, Eleven East,Olympia, Salem Place , etc. etc …
Demand for student housing is not infinite .
It is being pushed to a very uncertain future with additional units added .
Show the residents the numbers that give you such confidence ,this Zoning amendment should not be supported .
Well said, Ira: the current scene resembles a stampede of lemmings to – and over – a cliff!
Whatever ends up happening, the Town MUST REQUIRE PARKING SPECIFIC TO THE HOUSING. Otherwise, those residents will use the CVS and big y lot and there will be no place for park and ride during events!
We should also be asking Crosspoint Associates if they are considering erecting solar canopies in their lot. They not only create energy but also shade for those increasingly hot summer days which are a health risk, especially for elders and the very young. There were trees in that lot but all were cut down and never replaced. They at least provided a little shade for the handicap parking spaces. At the VERY LEAST they should be replaced.