GREENFIELD — The Planning Board unanimously approved its new downtown design guidelines, along with zoning changes to include references to them, on Thursday night.
The guidelines and proposed amendment to the city’s zoning code, stating the guidelines are applicable in the Central Commercial District, will now go to City Council for approval before they can be used in assisting developers and city staff in planning how future construction projects in Greenfield should look.
“The guidelines promote high-quality site and building design that is responsive to Greenfield’s unique contextual setting, regardless of whether development is privately or publicly funded or located on public or private property,” the document states. “They are intended to assist residents, developers, decision-makers and city staff by providing a clear and consistent framework for development review.”
The document, which is included in the board’s packet on the city website, includes sections on architectural design, materials and colors, pedestrian amenities and more. It outlines examples of what city staff, boards and permitting authorities are looking for in projects, such as the inclusion of shade trees, lighting options that reduce light pollution, and durable materials that are traditionally found in downtown Greenfield and similar New England communities, including brick, stone, masonry and wood.
Planning Board Chair Jeff Sauser said he took the draft guidelines to the Economic Development Committee, Zoning Board of Appeals and Greenfield Business Association for feedback, and based on that feedback recommended the board make a few changes to its draft before approving the final document.
“The GBA was very supportive of the document,” Sauser said. “They were excited about Greenfield taking this kind of thing seriously, and we talked about how it’s important the city demonstrate to businesses that we are stewards of our city, and we have standards and we are going to hold new development to those standards.”
Sauser said the GBA wanted to find ways to incorporate public art into the city, and suggested the guidelines encourage developers to include murals, interactive displays and community bulletin boards in their plans. The association also suggested consideration of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations.
“One interesting comment, and I forget which business it was, but the person has an electric car and he said when he visits places, he’ll pick neighborhoods and cities to stop in based on whether or not they have EV chargers, and whether or not those EV chargers are near something he might want to go do,” Sauser said. “And so he’ll park at an EV charger and just walk around waiting for his car to charge and inevitably spending money in the meantime.”
Sauser asked the rest of the Planning Board if the document should include language promoting the inclusion of EV chargers in spaces that encourage people to visit downtown businesses. Board members seemed in favor of having more EV-friendly spaces in Greenfield, but questioned the logistics.
Board members said they do not want to see EV chargers taking up valuable street parking spaces, and noted it might be a difficult sell to tell businesses and developers looking to build in Greenfield that their designs should place EV chargers in locations that would incentivize people to then go to other businesses. Eventually, the board agreed to simply add that developers should consider access to EV charging.
Greenfield resident Al Norman suggested the board consider adding requirements for public restrooms to the guidelines, which received mixed feedback from board members.
“I was taking a guy in a wheelchair the other day to the mall on the west side of town. We were in a retail store, and this poor guy has to pee a lot. So we took him up to try to find a bathroom, and the salespeople said, ‘Sorry, we don’t have any public restrooms,'” Norman said. “So I had to wheel him back out and go next door to a business that actually did have a public restroom. … I understand it’s a cost issue for them, but if you look at the people who are downtown these days, it’s a lot of elderly people.”
Vice Chair George Touloumtzis said public bathrooms would fit under the category of public amenities and accessibility, and he would be in favor of adding a public restroom suggestion to the downtown design guidelines.
“The idea of public, accessible bathrooms being encouraged would seem to fit within that somewhere because that does help people be comfortable and to stay longer downtown,” Touloumtzis said. “I could see that perhaps it’s a good idea.”
Alternate member Erica Rioux Gees said requiring public restrooms might be difficult, as businesses traditionally just have bathrooms for customers and patrons, and not for all members of the public.
Sauser added that bathrooms are more of an interior use element of building designs, and the guidelines are more focused on exterior and architectural elements. He suggested instead that the guidelines require signs on a building’s exterior alerting the public to any amenities such as bathrooms, much to the chagrin of member Victor Moschella.
“You want every building on the street to have a public bathroom sign? We don’t really want that, do we?” Moschella said.
The board ultimately did not make any bathroom-related changes to the document.
Following the adjustments to the draft, the board voted to approve the guidelines and to request that City Council amend the city zoning code to state that projects in the Central Commercial District should be consistent with the design guidelines.
