Visions for Housing on University Drive
University Drive looking north toward UMass. Photo: Amherst Planning Board
Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Planning Board, January 31, 2024
By Maura Keene
This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded. It can be viewed here.
Present
Doug Marshall (Chair), Bruce Coldham, Fred Hartwell, Jesse Mager, Janet McGowan, Johanna Neumann, and Karin Winter.
Staff: Chris Brestrup (Planning Director), Nate Malloy (Senior Planner), Dave Ziomek (Assistant Town Manager, Director of Conservation and Development), and Pam Field Sadler (Assistant)
Discussion Continues Regarding Overlay Zone for Housing on University Drive
The Planning Board continued its discussion from November 29 about creating an overlay district along University Drive to encourage the creation of more housing in town. This idea grew out of several in-person meetings of the Planning Board that were devoted to housing. Out of the discussions, it was decided that University Drive, with its proximity to UMass and its relatively low density of housing, was the most promising area of town to rezone for more housing.
Planning Board member Bruce Coldham submitted an email summarizing the points that were agreed upon by consensus at the previous meeting and another set of points still needing to be determined. The consensus points were:
- Preference for mixed-use buildings, requiring commercial/retail space on the first floor facing and along the main thoroughfare.
- The zone should be open to multiple housing types, not restricted to student housing. Ground floor units should have outdoor space at the rear or courtyards.
- Eliminate the service road.
- Parking behind buildings, moving the building setback closer to the thoroughfare.
- Allow five stories, or building height of 55 feet.
- Allow a minimum parking requirement of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
- Adopt inclusionary zoning, without a requirement that affordable units be dispersed throughout the development.
- Include design guidelines.
Planner Nate Malloy hoped that the design guidelines to be developed for the downtown by consultants Dodson and Flinker could also be applied to this area. Suggestions were made to set back the first and top floors to create covered entrances and upper floor terraces, to have closely spaced entrances to encourage small shops, and to break up facades with design elements, such as change of materials or architectural details.
The Planning Board voted 2-4-1 against extending the prospective overlay zone to the south side of Route 9 (Johanna Neumann and Doug Marshall voted yes, and Coldham abstained). Hawkins Meadow apartments and the auto repair shop nearby were excluded from the district, as was the one residential property north of Amity Street on the west side of University Drive. Neumann maintained, “We want to add housing and increase vitality in this part of town, and the smaller we make it, the fewer opportunities we create to do that.” She suggested extending the boundary of the district to the roundabout at Snell Street.
Janet McGowan, Jesse Mager, and Planning Director Chris Brestrup disagreed. Mager said, “If I drive up the hill [on Route 9] and enter Amherst at the main intersection versus entering Amherst from the north or from UMass, it’s a very different experience, and I would like to keep the character of coming in from Northampton Road — a lower scale, smaller town. I would not be in favor of having a Kendrick Place-type building on every corner as what your first impression of town is.” McGowan said, “When I drive through Hadley and Route 9, I find it unbelievably depressing. It’s all this strip development. And then, when I hit that intersection [at University Drive] and go up the hill, I start feeling good. You’re back in New England.” Brestrup agreed, saying, “Whatever happens to those little houses, I don’t know in the future, but I think it’s really a lovely way of entering Amherst.”
The board declined to put a cap on the number of units or types of units in each development, leaving those decisions up to the developer. Malloy also wanted to leave the amount of parking up to the developer (other than a minimum of half a parking space per unit), on the premise that the developer would want to provide the right amount of parking to make their units attractive to their prospective renters. Marshall suggested that the nonresidential space extend at least 30 feet deep on the first floor of the building along University Drive. Coldham felt that between 50 and 75% of the first floor should be commercial.
Malloy said he would calculate how much retail, commercial, and office space currently exists on University Drive. Board members discussed how to incentivize developers to make the commercial spaces affordable and interesting. With the proximity to UMass, McGowan was confident that businesses would locate to the area.
McGowan suggested that the town talk to the planners at UMass about the town’s plans to get some information on what they think students want. Coldham hoped that the mix of housing types in the overlay district would encourage some small houses for families there.
Pam Rooney, Janet Keller, and Susannah Muspratt spoke in favor of the overlay plan, but Muspratt recommended that the town use it as an impetus for UMass to develop more student housing [link]. Using the suggestions offered at this meeting, Malloy will further refine the concepts and details for the proposed zone and bring them for discussion to a future Planning Board meeting.
Read more: Letter: University Drive Is Well Suited for Housing Expansion. Let’s Do It Well by Suzannah Muspratt
Read more: Letter: The Proposed University Drive Overlay Zone: Boundaries, Building Design, Flood Control, Setbacks, Landscape Design, Outdoor Gathering Spaces by Janet Keller
Hickory Ridge Accessible Trails Gain Approval
The town plans to construct two accessible paths with bridges, shade structures, and parking at the Hickory Ridge site. At the December 20 Planning Board meeting, the board asked for more information about whether the parking lot design was adequate to permit emergency vehicles to enter and leave the site. In the current plan, the entrance to the parking lot for the trails will be east of the current main entrance, near the clubhouse, and will be narrower, with a steeper grade, than the current entrance.
According to Assistant Town Manager Dave Ziomek, the fire department did a site visit and concluded that ambulance and fire vehicles can access the site, and that the turning radius is adequate for them to maneuver. Emergency vehicles can also use the parking lot next to the clubhouse if needed, although that area will be cordoned off from public use. The town plans to demolish the clubhouse eventually, he said; It is in poor condition, although the fire department is using it for training now.
The updated designs include more bicycle parking and the vegetated islands in the parking lot will remain.
Much of the Planning Board discussion centered on the signage proposed for the site because the kiosks and signs will most likely exceed the maximum size allowed in a residential zone. Ziomek said there would be a mixture of information kiosks and interpretive signs, similar to those at the Sweet Alice site, although the exact number and placement has not been determined. The Planning Board did not feel that the town needed to come back to the board to present the final sign plans. The site plan was approved unanimously.
The project will need a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the shade structures, boardwalk, and bridges being constructed in the floodplain conservancy district. Construction of the accessible paths is set to begin this summer with money from the PARC (Parkland Acquisitions and Renovations for Communities) and Community Development Block Grants.
Ziomek added that construction of the solar array at the site is expected to resume shortly. The solar developer had to return to the Conservation Commission because its previous permits had expired. Once new permits are issued, the company can clear the trees that were felled several months ago and begin constructing the solar panels.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:34. The Planning Board will next meet on February 7.
I think it’s a real missed opportunity if this plan goes through vs rezoning and a refocus on making this a light-industrial zone is places. This could be an incubator zone for UMass profs and students — and perhaps slow the brain drain that happens every year as all wicked smart grads leave WM for other places. We should be trying to capture some of these smarts — for economic development and as a way to reduce the ever-growing property tax burden on residents (and on renters, in effect, as costs get passed down to them). Enough with residential units that just end up being for UMass students!
Interesting idea Jim. Perhaps the area could be for both–change the underlying zoning (which is confused and disjointed) to allow for light-industrial and denser mixed use buildings and see that the market does. For reasons I’ve never understood the PRP zoning to the south of University Drive is all apartments and condos, not private research park. We don’t want Amherst to turn into UMassville, so definitely UMass needs to be pressured to build the much needed on-campus housing for its students. You know there’s demand for on-campus housing when students are protesting for more dorms to the administration.