Planning Board Approves North Amherst Library Addition. Hearing Scheduled For Proposed Downtown Construction Moratorium
Architect's rendering of design of North Amherst Library renovation. Photo: Amherst Planning Department
The meeting was held via Zoom. A recording of the April 21 meeting can be viewed here.
Present Members: Jack Jemsek (Chair), Maria Chao, Thom Long, Andrew MacDougall, Doug Marshall, Janet McGowan, and Johanna Neumann. Staff: Chris Brestrup, Planning Director, Rob Morra, Building Commissioner, Pam Field Sadler, Administrative Assistant
North Amherst Library
The Planning Board continued the Public Hearing on the proposed addition to the North Amherst Library from March 17 and April 7. Architects Michael Liu of Berkshire Design and Chris Farley of Kuhn, Riddle addressed the concerns raised by the Planning Board, Design Review Board, (DRB), and Disability Access Advisory Committee (DAAC). The addition is being financed by an anonymous donor.
In response to concerns about the lighting in the parking lot, the new design moves the two pole lights farther from the entrance to provide more light to a greater area of the parking lot and sidewalks. There are recessed lights in the covered entrance to the building and backlighting for the proposed sign. Neumann questioned the adequacy of lighting around the bicycle racks, to which Liu stated that the lighting meets minimum requirements but the bicycle racks could be reoriented to increase their visibility. When McGowan asked if the pole lights were dark-sky compliant, Liu said that the LED bulbs and reflectors make them compliant with dark sky guidelines, and that he will check with the town about the possibility of dimming the lights or turning some off after hours.
The proposed sign will have individual letters, each backlit, specifying “North Amherst Library.” The DRB wanted assurance that the roof of the new addition can support solar panels. They also were concerned that the river birch tree planned for near the building will grow too tall, so the architects have replaced it with a serviceberry tree that will grow to a maximum height of 12 to 14 feet. Responding to questions about building and trim colors, the designers said the final selection of paint colors will be made during construction, possibly in conjunction with repainting the existing library, and that they realize they will have to come back to the Planning Board when the colors are chosen.
Both the DRB and Planning Board had wanted a better treatment for the north end of the parking lot, near the now-closed gas station, and had suggested a vegetative border or rain garden. However, the designers said that the Town plans to redesign the streets in the area in the next couple of years, so it does not pay to devote attention to this area at this time, only to have it torn up with the subsequent construction.
The DRB and DAAC wanted the designers to explore the feasibility of keeping the existing entrance to the library on the south side of the building. This would require a variance to the Americans for Disability Act.
The DAAC suggested placing a bell at the lift chair to notify the librarians that it was being used. They also wanted a generator to operate the lift chair in the event of a power failure. This will be incorporated if the building code and budget permit.
Other concerns of the DAAC were to widen the hallway to the restrooms to better accommodate wheelchairs, and to use the vestibule of the south entrance as a place of refuge for those who cannot exit the buildings on their own to wait until emergency services can evacuate them in the event of an emergency. They also suggested two hearing aid systems for the meeting room.
The site plan review passed with the standard conditions in Article 11.24 of the Zoning Bylaw, 6-0 (Neumann was absent for this part of the meeting). Marshall voiced that he would rather these standard conditions be allowed to be approved without reading each one for each site plan review. The Building Commissioner will look into changing the requirement to read each condition.
It is unclear if the library will remain open during the construction, but if it is, there will be no on-site parking.
Updated Design For Bangs Center Ramp
Marshall and Morra visited the site for the proposed ramp from the Boltwood parking lot to the Musante Health Center in the Bangs Center. They refined the design presented and approved 6-1 at the April 7, 2021 meeting. The revised plan has a 90-degree turn in the ramp so that it aligns with the existing sidewalk at the Bangs Center. The large London Plane tree will be saved, but many of the other trees, mostly white pines and lindens, will need to be removed. The existing stairway and retaining wall will also be rebuilt. In response to a question from MacDougall, Morra said that the ramp would not be wide enough for two wheelchairs to pass, but would accommodate a pedestrian and wheelchair side-by-side.
Morra said he plans to put the project out to bid within the next week to comply with the time constraints of the $193,000 state grant from the Safe Streets Program, which requires that the ramp be mostly completed by the end of May.
Proposed Temporary Building Moratorium
Christine Brestrup said that a public petition proposes a six-month moratorium on building permits for projects containing three or more dwelling units in the downtown, limited business, and general residence districts in order to allow zoning amendments now being considered to be adopted. Since the moratorium is an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw, a public hearing is required. The hearing, with the Planning Board and Community Resources Committee (CRC) of the Town Council, is scheduled for Wednesday, May 19 at 8 p.m. Both the Planning Board and CRC must then vote on whether to refer the article to the whole Town Council. Because there will be a public hearing, Brestrup said that the Planning Board would not take public comment at this meeting. This discussion was to allow Board members to ask clarifying questions and voice their opinions.
Brestrup said the moratorium does not prohibit the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) from reviewing and approving proposed projects, but does prevent the Building Commissioner from issuing building permits. Thus, given the length of time it usually takes to approve large projects, the moratorium is unlikely to interfere with construction timelines, but developers will have to comply with zoning amendments (e.g. design guidelines or inclusionary zoning regulations) that are proposed and subsequently passed before their projects are approved. The proposed Archipelago project for 11 East Pleasant Street is scheduled for a public hearing at the May 5 Planning Board meeting.
MacDougall asked what the driving concern addressed by the moratorium is: design concerns, lack of vibrant retail downtown, or too much expensive student housing? Long said he has been reviewing the public comments submitted to the Planning Board and CRC, and that there is no overriding concern, but a broad range of topics are raised, many of which would not be addressed by the moratorium.
McGowan said that the town is proposing to spend $100,000 to hire a design consultant for the downtown, but without the moratorium, it might be too late to apply their recommendations to projects currently being proposed. Marshall wondered why the moratorium is being introduced now if so many people are unhappy with One East Pleasant Street and Kendrick Place, which were completed several years ago. He asked why a moratorium was not raised earlier.
Chao said, although the Board only received three emails against the moratorium( from the developers Cinda Jones and Barry Roberts and Professor Sanjay Nawaikha),she appreciates, “ the emails from the working class, the people who are keeping things running. That perspective is a minority in terms of the voices we hear. I wish we heard more from them, but they’re all so busy working that they don’t have time to come to these meetings or to keep up with everything in “The Daily Hampshire Gazette” or on the Town website.”
Although public comment about the moratorium was not taken at the meeting, Suzannah Muspratt and Ira Bryck did speak at the beginning of the meeting during the time allotted for general public comment. Muspratt urged that all of the goals of the Master Plan, not only density, be taken into account when thinking about changing the town center. She said it is also important to preserve quality of life, and incorporate public art and climate mitigation , as well as other goals of the plan. Bryck also said it is important to consider the best uses for downtown for coming generations, and to take a pause before approving projects that will take the town down the wrong road.
The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. The next meeting is May 5 at 6:30 p.m.
I wanted to make it clear that, at least in the 30 years I have been living on Meadow Street, that the North Amherst Library has never (ever) had parking. No parking at all.
No bathroom. No parking.
I would also like to make it clear that the North Amherst library was the first library in Amherst, and it continues to have robust circulation.
Sarah Swartz
My previous comment simply meant that we will be okay in North Amherst if we don’t have parking at the library while the addition is built.
Sarah Swartz
To the planning board members who are asking what the “driving” or “overriding” concerns are of those people advocating a 6-month pause for better planning, and questioning whether the moratorium is the proper cure:
You are correct to say there are several (not one) negative effects from the kind of projects being proposed and completed, and that our big concern is that more of those projects will drive more of those several negative effects. A moratorium will provide the opportunity for the public input that is a cornerstone of our master plan, and also of the theory of Smart Growth, and also a cornerstone of representative government.
To another planning board member who says we should consider the emails that weren’t written by those who are “too busy working” to keep up with the news or participate in meetings: the people who are writing and participating also have busy lives, many are still working (ie: me), have trouble knowing at which meetings proposals will turn into decisions. If the town would have a more strategic, fair, effective way to tap into the wisdom of the public they serve, we would all benefit.
Amherst community members who are clearly saying they want a downtown that is attractive and useful, and neighborhoods that aren’t overcrowded, are not NIMBYs or old people in need of a hobby.
It didn’t make it into the news when the planning director explained that the CRC, a subset of the town council, would be largely assuming the functions of the planning board, further consolidating power in Amherst. I’m surprised (and not surprised) that no planning board member commented about the dysfunctionality of that move, happening now. You may soon find yourself on the other end of the zoom call.
We complainers are people who think that there is not enough clarity, not enough transparency, not enough fair process, not enough collaborative and innovative thinking happening among those in power here. The sad part is that it seems by design.
I’d gladly spend fewer evenings involved in town meetings on zoom, if I felt our town government was, as our motto goes, “Open to the MAX!”
Your neighbor,
Ira Bryck
Ps: I would so prefer to spend some time in a constructive, collegial, innovative process, with openness and shared vision, rather than this contentious debate. It behooves the town leadership to improve this. It is discouraging to be characterized as toxic because you have ideas and perspectives to share.