Amity Street at University Drive Development Will Be Smaller Due to Rising Cost of Steel.  Planning Board Nears Agreement on Overlay District

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Planning Board, December 18, 2024

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

Present
Doug Marshall (Chair), Fred Hartwell, Jesse Mager, Johanna Neumann, Karin Winter, and Bruce Coldham. Absent Lawrence Kluttz.

Staff: Nate Malloy (Senior Planner), Pam Field-Sadler (Assistant).

Size of Mixed-use Development at Amity Street and University Drive Reduced
The two-building, 85 unit, 259 bed mixed-use development proposed by Barry Roberts for 422 Amity Street has been redesigned to a single building with 77 units, 224 beds and 12,200 square feet of non-residential space along University Drive. Tom Reidy of Bacon Wilson, attorney for the project, said the original plan included two buildings, with a section slated to be six-stories high, as will be allowed if the University Drive overlay zone passes. However, Reidy said, building codes require that a six-story building have steel construction, and the cost estimates for the steel were so high that the project became financially infeasible. Therefore, the total project size was reduced to a five-story wood construction building, 

Reidy said the number of parking spaces was reduced from 185 to 166. The covered spaces in the previous plan were eliminated. All parking will be surface parking. Planning Board member Johanna Neumann  asked about the possibility of extending the building further along University Drive to allow for more units, which would eliminate 12 parking spaces on University Drive and require a single access on Amity Street. Reidy said that plan would work if it were strictly a residential project, but he worried that it would be hard to find commercial tenants without providing parking on University Drive. He also speculated that eliminating the University Drive entrance would not comply with fire department regulations. However, he said, they would consider Neumann’s suggestion. 

Fred Hartwell asked what the plan was for the current tenants of the office building at 25 University Drive, which now houses Encharter Insurance, Ziomek Law, and Roberts’ office and is slated to be demolished as part of this project. Reidy replied that preliminary plans are to have the project be phased, so the tenants can remain until their new space is finished, and then the office building will be demolished.

According to Reidy, the Conservation Commission has finished its review of the project and was about to issue conditions for construction, but, because of the redesign, he asked the commission to wait until January to issue the conditions. He was confident that the new design would be acceptable to the Conservation Commission, since it actually increases the buffer with the wetlands to the west. The project will meet passive house standards as required by the town’s building code and will need to provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. As per Amherst’s inclusionary zoning bylaw, 12 percent of the units must be affordable to those making 80% or less of area mean income (AMI).

The public hearing on the project was continued until January 22, when the design will be further along.

University Drive Overlay Zone Nearing Final Version
The creation of an overlay zone on University Drive between Route 9 and Amity Street to allow more density through mixed-use buildings received input from the Town Council’s Community Resources Committee (CRC) at a public hearing on December 17. In that hearing, several questions were clarified. (For previous Planning Board discussions, see here and here and here.) 

A buffer zone for abutting residential areas, such as Charles Lane, was added, so that buildings within 150 feet of a residential district can be no more than three-stories. If a second building is constructed on a parcel behind the primary building, it must comply with the requirement that 75% of the street-facing façade be nonresidential if the overlay zoning is used, even if the second building has no frontage along University Drive. For the Big Y plaza, 100% of the street-facing ground floor must be retail. However, a developer could leverage regulations in both the overlay district and the underlying zoning requirements on the same parcel to build both a mixed-use building and an apartment building or office building. In that case, the second building would need to comply with the underlying zoning (limited business or office park) that limits apartment buildings to 24 units and sets dimensional limits for office buildings.

The overlay zone specifies generous setbacks of 20 feet on Northampton Road and Amity Street and 24 feet on University Drive to encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and it requires plantings and other amenities along the streetscape. Setbacks of 30 feet are required near residential zones on Northampton Road and Amity Street. Lot coverage maximum is 85%, and building coverage is 60%. A stepped-back sixth floor is allowed if the building height does not exceed 70 feet, but builders must meet high-rise construction standards if the structure is more than 69 feet. Design standards will be developed by the Planning staff for the overlay zone.

Although the proposed overlay district requirements include no minimum number of parking spaces, proposals need to include a parking utilization study and parking management plan as part of the requirement for a permit. Planner Nate Malloy said, “You don’t need to provide parking, but you need to prove to the board (Planning Board of Zoning Board of Appeals) that you don’t need it.” He said there are national standards for parking utilization studies which set requirements for residential and nonresidential construction. Amherst’s zoning bylaw requires 3.3 parking spaces for every 1000 square feet of retail space. EV chargers will be provided as per the town’s building code. New construction in the overlay zone will be approved by site plan reviewl.

Planning Board member Jesse Mager asked if there was a way to incentivize new buildings to provide affordable commercial spaces for small businesses. Malloy said that was not really a zoning issue. The Town Manager and/or the town assessor can give tax incentives to developers for certain uses. Malloy suggested that this issue be discussed by the CRC. 

Bruce Coldham spoke for increasing the affordability of any required subsidized units as required by the inclusionary zoning bylaw, perhaps extending the affordability standard from 80% to 150% of area mean income for such units. However, Malloy stated that any affordability requirements over 80% AMI would need to be administered by the town, because the state defines low-income as 80% AMI. Planning Board chair Doug Marshall said he would not support any increased requirements as he feels there should be a low barrier for utilization of the overlay units. Mager said he hoped the new units on University Drive would free up housing elsewhere in town.

The CRC will continue its discussion on the overlay bylaw in January. The Planning Board will resume its discussion on January 8. Both bodies will make recommendations to the full council, which must pass a bylaw by a two-thirds margin.

Revision of Accessory Dwelling Unit Bylaw Still in Flux
Malloy said that the state is offering webinars to clarify the new requirements for Accessory Dwelling units (ADUs) as mandated by the recently passed housing law. He felt that Amherst should wait to finalize its revised bylaw until the state guidelines are clearer. The state has opened a comment period for municipalities to ask questions about the new law until January 10.

Marshall wanted to know if the town can limit the number of students in an ADU. Coldham pointed out that Amherst is unique in the state—a small town with a large university. He hoped Amherst’s representatives could advocate for measures that would mitigate the extra pressure of the need for student housing on neighborhoods. Karin Winter agreed that now is the time to raise these issues and let legislators know that their laws, although well-intentioned, may not be complete or may have unintentional consequences. CRC Chair Pam Rooney (District 4) agreed and suggested that the Planning Board advocate for a three-person occupancy limit in an ADU. 

Neumann said she strongly opposed the Planning Board taking a stand on the need for exceptions to the state law. She stated, “I don’t think we’re unique, and honestly, I think it’s a bad look, like we’ve added [only] 3,000 housing units in this town in the past 40 years. There’s a clear demand for more. So, if individual people want to engage in that process, great; but I don’t think we as a board should do it.”

Marshall said he doesn’t think it is inappropriate for the Planning Board to comment on legislation, but agreed with Neumann that “it’s not a good look for us to be complaining that it’s going to be a problem because we haven’t built enough housing in the last 40 years. I’m not sure we’re going to get very much sympathy.”

CRC member Jennifer Taub felt differently. She stated, ”I think it’s totally appropriate for the Amherst Planning Board to offer comment on a state regulation that I think unintentionally could have serious adverse impacts for the livability of the town of Amherst.“ She said that State Representative Mindy Domb came to the last District  4 meeting and said that she advocated for university towns like Amherst to be exempted for all the reasons and adverse impacts mentioned. 

Mager agreed that the board didn’t need to make a formal statement if not all members agree, “But,” he continued, “I also don’t want Amherst to look like Austin. That’s certainly why I’m on the Planning Board. If we disagree, that’s what votes are for, but I do think it’s appropriate to push and do whatever we can. What’s the look we’re worried about? Who’s going to say, “Amherst, they’re so lame because they tried to do what they thought was right for their planning.’ ”

Malloy suggested that Planning Board members submit their questions and comments to the Planning staff, who are working to submit comments on the ADU bylaw to the state during the comment period. The town will work to refine the bylaw when there is more clarity regarding the state stipulations. 

Housing Production Plan Progress
Malloy announced that the consultant is still working on the housing needs assessment for the updated Housing Production Plan. Barrett Consulting has received 430 survey submissions, and will hold a public meeting in early January to help generate ideas for goals and strategies to create more housing. Malloy said that 53% of Amherst’s population is between the ages of 18 and 24, while in the state as a whole, it is only 10.1%, meaning Amherst’s housing needs differ from those of other towns. 

Malloy noted that several of the apartment complexes in town are at an age where they may need some capital improvements, and that would be an opportunity to adjust the zoning to allow for more density in those developments. However, Coldham opined that the North Village complex, which is UMass family housing, was a “rather pedestrian new one and two-story development that was totally redeveloped for another pedestrian one and two-story development. It was a huge opportunity lost. It seems that we should really try to take advantage of these places where much higher density housing could be done with very little adverse impact.”

New Public Comment Section Coming to Planning Board Web Page
Planning Department Assistant Pam Field Sadler said she is working on a way to collect and publish comments sent to the Planning Board similar to how comments submitted to the Town Council are posted on its web page. She said the Planning Board comment section will go live in January with a placeholder on the Planning Board web page. Personal information, such as email addresses, will be redacted.