Natick Center Plan Forum #2

NATICK CENTER PLAN

Public Forum #2

February 10, 2016

Presentation

– Review of project

– Community feedback

– Vision

– Market analysis

– Zoning

– Connectivity

– Parking

Break-out groups

Report-out

review

½ mile “walk-shed”

TCAN Library

Major

employers:

2 milesModera

Residences

(40R)

Farmers

Market,

concerts, and

other

programming

MBTA Station

redesign

process

Town

Hall

Police /

Fire Dept

Natick Center

Cultural

District

P

PP

P

P

Proposed

developments

Recent

developments

RECOMMENDATIONS

How do you see Natick Center in 5, 10, 20 years?

What regulatory and other changes are needed to achieve the vision?

Given market realities, is the vision achievable?

How do we prioritize needed changes?

NATICK CENTER PLAN COMPONENTS

VISION

RECOMMENDATIONSLand use / zoning,

Transportation

MARKET ANALYSIS

IMPLEMENTATION Short / medium / long

term priorities

Preferences and demographics are aligning for

increasing demand of walkable neighborhoods

AGES 20-35

AGES 36-65

AGES 66+

76% of “millennials”want to live in a“transit-oriented”neighborhood*

Why Natick Center?

Transit access

Walkable environment

Restaurants and amenities

Multi-family residences

More affordable than some

neighboring communities

Proximity to Route 128 + Route 9

employers

*2015 Urban Land Institute Boston/New Englandand MassINC Polling

community

feedback

Focus group attendees...……..

T station visit comments……...

Forum attendees………………

Survey participants……………

Email sign-up list………………

Website visits………………….

Public Outreach

14

65

130

770

235

570

Where do you live? (n=95) Where do you live? (n=754)

Natick Center

Other parts ofNatick

Outside Natick

Forum participants Survey participants

56%34%

5%

41%56%

3%

95% were not atthe Forum

What is one thing you like about Natick Center?

0

50

100

150

200

250

Arts Station The Common andassociated

programming(esp Farmer's

Market)

Walkability Library Neighborhoodfeel /

architecture

Other

Survey

Forum

Other

Restaurants

More housing

More restaurants

Restaurants

Get rid of the angle parking

We need more parking

A parking garage

A parking garage

Actually, parking isn’t

that bad

Movie theater

Multifamily housing No new housing

What do people want to see in Natick Center?

Variety of restaurants

Restaurants with outdoor

seating

Higher quality

restaurants

55+ housing

Rail trailBike lanes Dog park Grocery store Playground

vision

Photo courtesy Jay Ball

Town Common

Farmers Mkt, Concerts,

Other Programming

Retail Stores

Small businesses

Arts

Restaurants

Unique elements “sense of place”

Everyday needsNatick Center residents

Other residents +

visitors Economic Development Programs + Strategies

Walkability (most important)

Multi-modal transportation

market analysis +

recommendations

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Grocery Store AdditionalRestaurants

Pubs/Bars Cafes/Bakeries Clothing Stores ProfessionalOffices

SpecialityRetail

Daily Needs

Survey

Forum

Small-medium size

• Higher quality• More diverse

(not pizza)Co

mm

on

th

emes

• Healthy options

• Open later

Craft breweryNo more

banks

• Hardware store

• Bike shop

Market Analysis

What types of businesses would you like to see

5 Minute Drive Time 10 Minute Drive Time 15 Minute Drive Time

5 Minute Walk Time 10 Minute Walk Time 15 Minute Walk Time

Market Analysis

Step 1: Determine retail trade area

Industry Summary

LOCAL

TRADE AREA

PRIMARY TRADE

AREA

10 min walk time 5 min drive time

Total Retail Trade and Food & Drink $(91,456,002) $29,736,817

Total Retail $(95,490,881) $1,296,718

Total Food & Drink $4,034,878 $28,440,099

Downtown and Mixed-Use Oriented Industry Groups

Furniture & Home Furnishings Stores -$1,396,508 -$387,862

Electronics & Appliance Stores $4,936,994 $17,301,409

Building Materials, Garden Equip. & Supply $2,848,147 $16,538,840

Food & Beverage Stores -$30,584,165 -$6,826,442

Health and Personal Care -$4,358,715 $6,803,712

Clothing & Clothing Accessories $4,138,253 $21,778,097

Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book and Music Stores $504,580 $3,935,270

Miscellaneous Store Retailers -$2,196,610 $1,818,016

Food Services & Drinking Places $4,034,878 $28,440,099

Market Analysis

= retail gap and potential opportunities for more retail = surplus of sales within the trade area

Step 2: Analyze Retail Spending Gaps/ Surpluses

Market Analysis

= retail gap and potential opportunities for more retail = surplus of sales within the trade area

Step 3: Translate Spending into Potential Stores

• Based on “capture rate” of potential spending• Includes potential office worker spending• Caveat 1: This is the Primary Trade Area, which is beyond Natick Center specifically• Caveat 2: This is potential demand – other factors help determine whether a business is

viable

Total Stores 20

Retail 11

Food + Drink 9

50,000Approximate additional supportable retail sq’

Step 4: Examine Office Potential for in Workforce Investment AreaMetro South/West Area Projected Employment

Industry Employment 2012

Projected

Employment 2022

Change

Level

Change

Percent

Information 25,886 27,099 1,213 4.70%

Publishing Industries (except Internet) 15,413 15,241 -172 -1.10%

Telecommunications 3,270 3,029 -241 -7.40%

Data Processing, Hosting and Related Services 1,772 1,798 26 1.50%

Finance and Insurance 20,358 21,535 1,177 5.80%

Credit Intermediation and Related Activities 5,902 6,340 438 7.40%

Insurance Carriers and Related Activities 8,863 9,337 474 5.30%

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 7,207 7,653 446 6.20%

Real Estate 5,682 5,988 306 5.40%

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 64,541 79,289 14,748 22.90%

Management of Companies and Enterprises 23,152 24,745 1,593 6.90%

Administrative/Support/Waste

Management/Remediation 31,308 32,242 934 3.00%

Administrative and Support Services 30,140 31,199 1,059 3.50%

Waste Management and Remediation Service 1,168 1,043 -125 -10.70%

Educational Services 55,089 60,140 5,051 9.20%

Health Care and Social Assistance 61,647 75,190 13,543 22.00%

TOTAL 289,188 327,893 38,705 13.38%

Market Analysis

Market Analysis

Step 5: Examine Office potential in Natick Center

Natick Center is not going to attract major employers

Potential to several support 20-40 person firms and more local businesses

Natick Coworking space

Step 6: Review recent residential building permits

32 29 24 2666

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Single-Family Multi-Family

Market Analysis

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Single Family Condo All

Market Analysis

Step 7: Examine trends for home prices (median sales price)

1 ) Expand the Retail / Residential Market

Increase Residential Density

Marketing campaigns targeted at Commuter Rail passengers

Market AnalysisRecommendations


Small grocery store (approximately 10,000 sq’)-- Needs approximately 2,500 households

Each icon represents 100 households-- Assumes $135 / week on groceries-- Natick Center has approximately 1,800 households-- Needs minimum 700 additional households *

*This is minimum as not all existing households will change to new grocery store. As with other retail/office needs, other factors will go into whether a grocery store will choose to locate in Natick Center.

Grocery store example

2) Market Downtown Natick to attract interest from developers, commercial establishments & potential customers

Create cohesive brand & marketing materials for downtown Natick

Identify and recruit restaurants & retail stores that may be interested in opening in downtown Natick

Provide Retail Incentives Programs to attract retailers

Work with real estate brokers

Utilize town website to post Economic Development resources


3) Work with Existing Property Owners to Improve Properties

Façade & Sign Improvement Programs

Block by Block Strategies

Workshops & Resources

Source: Beverly Main Streets


4) Support existing local businesses

Work with current retailers to implement Retail Best Practices

Collaborate to plan additional events that attract new customers downtown

Encourage businesses to take advantage of existing resources


5) Ensure permitting and procedures are business friendly

• Create a streamlined permitting process for opening a business

• Create a Natick Business Guide

• Consider more flexibility in liquor licenses

Source: Town of Dedham


recommendations

zoning

Zoning: Existing

Zoning: Visual Preference and Mapping Exercise

Top 5 Residential choices (Forum + Survey combined)

Residential above retail• Streetscape and seating • 3 story• 358 votes

Residential above retail• Wide sidewalks• 3.5 story• 315 votes

Modest scale homes• 2-3 story• 298 votes

Residential above retail• 4 story• 225 votes

Modest scale homes• 2-3 story• 233 votes


Top 5 Retail/Commercial choices (Forum + Survey combined)

Residential above retail• Building meets lot line• 2 story• 355 votes

Residential above retail*• Traditional architecture• 4-5 story• 374 votes

Commercial above retail• Traditional architecture• 4 story• 343 votes

Residential above retail• 2.5 story• 271 votes

Commercial above retail• 3.5 story• 299 votes

*This building was mislabeled as its existing use is commercial above retail; however, participants voted under the assumption that it is residential above retail.

1

32

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

12

13

14



SECTION 1

Photo Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Total

Residential 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 15

Retail/Commercial 6 6 2 2 1 1 18

SECTION 2


Residential 1 1 2

Retail/Commercial 2 1 2 5

SECTION 3


Residential 1 2 1 2 6

Retail/Commercial 2 1 2 1 3 1 10

SECTION 4


Residential 3 1 4

Retail/Commercial 5 4 6 2 1 1 1 20

SECTION 5


Residential 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 9


SECTION 6


Residential 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 1 5 19



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

[A sample: Section 6]

Retail/Commercial

110

Residential

12 19

Blocks between E Central and South Ave. Most votes for larger scale ground floor retail with housing above. Also ground floor retail with office above. Several votes for other housing typologies.

Residential Retail/Commercial


[A sample: Section 18]

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Retail/Commercial

Residential

4

1317

16

17

14

Area bounded by Spring, Summer, and tracks with parking lots, multi family homes, automotive, and retail. Most votes for residential above ground floor retail, also mixed use office/retail. 4 stories is most popular response.

Residential Retail/Commercial

ZoningBuild-out analysis

Example

Many participants like the “feel” of the Clarke Building

60% lot coverage

3-4 stories / ~55’ height

Building meets lot line

ZoningBuild-out analysis

Example (continued)

Under existing zoning, if a parcel in the DM is redeveloped:

50’ height

Retail

Office

• 30,000 sq’ lot• 20,000 sq’ building• 17% lot coverage• 54 required spaces

(approx. gross 23,000 sq’)

15’ front setback

20’ rear setback

0’ side setback

Height and scale of existing zoning is line with what people want

Design should foster walkable neighborhood

Interested in variety of architectural standards but should be high quality; generally, allow for more contemporary architecture outside core of downtown, especially along train line

Mix of uses throughout much of Natick Center

Focus on residential above retail

Commercial activities still important

Maintain modest homes around Center (i.e., avoid McMansion-ization)

ZoningSummary Points

Expansion of DMU and HOOP: Phasing will allow Town to assess changes

ZoningRecommendations

Proposed DM (near term)

Proposed DM (longer term)

Proposed HOOP (near term)

Proposed HOOP (longer term)

Existing DMU

Existing HOOPs

Changes to DMU:

1) Ensure better transition to Residential

Participants want to maintain existing heights of downtown

If within 50’ of RG District, limit building height to height of nearest existing residential structure

This will ensure a better transition between districts



Section view

Changes to DMU

2) Make adjustments to reflect community preferences Raise lot coverage from 60 to 80%. (Current buildings range from 55-100%)

Allow open space payment in lieu (similar to HOOP District)

Building must occupy at least 75% of frontage (so parking is in back)

Allow as-of-right housing for existing buildings with ground-floor retail

Change definition of “Height” to be measured at top of ceiling, which will allow for gables and other architectural elements as opposed to only flat



Changes to DMU3) Make adjustments to parking provisions

Examine parking ratios to be in line with a walkable, transit-oriented neighborhood

Requirements are currently higher than in other districts

Make changes to requirements, based in part on results of upcoming proposals for potential garage(s)

Allow for shared parking provisions

Currently parking must be located within 300’ of building; this regulation should be relaxed

Affordable Housing – Changes to HOOP

Reduce minimum lot size from 15,000 to 11,000 sq’ Allows development of larger parcels in proposed overlay areas

Still encourages consolidation of small parcels

Raise maximum lot coverage from 40% to 60% Creates better transition between Residential and DM districts

Allows flexibility for better design

Parking requirements still need to be met

Adjust formula of Bonus use to “Gross Area divided by 1,200 ” from 1,500 Allows slightly increased number of units

E.g., 11,000 sq’ parcel could have 9 units instead of 7

Allow by Special Permit additional uses Café, dry cleaner, etc


Affordable housing – Inclusionary Zoning

• Create Inclusionary Zoning by-law

• Would replace IHOP

• Lower threshold than IHOP

• “Payment in lieu of” option

• Continue to ensure preserve existing affordable housing in perpetuity


Residential General (RG) District

Community wants to maintain modest, starter homes in Natick Center

Most lots are smaller than req. minimum

If a lot is up for development, goes to ZBA which determines whether there is adverse impact

Assess options:

Monitor situation and making zoning changes as needed

ZBA could potentially consider scale + quality in making determination

Consider bylaw for allowing accessory-dwelling unit allowance and/or family suite provisions


recommendations

connectivity

Overall, well connected neighborhood

Participants feel it is “walkable”

Sidewalk coverage is very good

Some problem intersections and cut-through streets

Connectivity: Pedestrian

Brick buffer between walking area and street

Wide sidewalks in good condition

Curb neck-out reduces pedestrian crossing distance

ADA accessible

Pedestrian scale lighting

High visibility crosswalks(but not optimal material)

Flashing crossing beacon increases

safety

Trees provide shade and

comfort

Wide sidewalk; parking as buffer

Building meets sidewalk for improved ped. experience

Overhead wiring is less desirable

Deep setback with blank wall

Grass buffer between walking area and street

Narrower sidewalks appropriate for

residential side street

Lack of sidewalk adjacent to auto-centric land use

Connectivity: Pedestrian

Connectivity: PedestrianTraffic Calming

Connectivity: PedestrianRecommendations

Ensure sidewalks remain in good condition

Reduce curb cuts as development occurs

Traffic calming measures on cut-through streets

Examine additional residential streets throughout Center (e.g., Plain Street)

Chester Street lacks right of way for sidewalks

Install speed humps:

Relatively inexpensive (approximately $2,100 each)

Appropriate for residential streets

Speed of approximate 20 mph; shown to decrease speed on street by 20-25%

Examine snow removal procedures

Improve safety at identified intersections (see following section)

Connectivity: BicycleRecommendations

Bike lanes Rt 27,north of Center, included in reconstruction plans(FY2019 TIP)

Bike parking at station (implement near term even if part of long-term station redesign)

Reconfigure angle-in parking (see Parking section)

Secure funding and construct Rail Trail; examine options to bring to station at grade

Consider bike lanes on Rt 135 using existing curb-to-curb space(7’ parking, 4.5’ bike lanes, 10.5 travel lanes)

Longer term examine reconstruction options to include bicycle lanes on Rt27, south of Center

Connectivity: Intersections + RoadwaysRecommendations

Reconstruct Marion Street Bridge to reduce

Center congestion

Continue redesign efforts for Rt 27 / Cottage St intersection

-Crosswalk at Pond Street-“Don’t block intersection” box-Perform further analysis in coordination with Main Street

Reduce curb radii:• North Ave (north side)• North Ave (south side)• Middlesex Ave (north side)

Pedestrian beacon at Lincoln Street

Connectivity: MBTA Station

The station and access to Boston cited as one of the top assets in Natick Center

BackgroundStation accessibility has been a longstanding goal of the TownFall 2012 Natick Town Meeting appropriated $80,000 for a feasibility study

and conceptual development of a new Natick MBTA Station2014 McMahon Associates provided design concepts

RecommendationsContinue working with MBTA on station redesign and securing fundingEnsure that accessibility is a key componentExamine feasibility of direct connection to Rail Trail

recommendations

parking

Parking: Natick CenterOverview

Parking has been studied for yearsResults of recent study indicate Natick Center as a

whole has adequate parking today:*Parking supply appears to be appropriate and

adequate for short termSome blocks within the downtown are at capacity,

but parking exists within 1-2 blocks of these locations

The supply of parking exceeds current demand

HOWEVERMany Forum + Survey participants think parking in

Natick Center is a problemFuture development may eventually require structured

parking

*Downtown Parking Strategy for Natick Town Center: Evaluations and Recommendations. Cecil Group with Nelson / Nygaard Consulting Associates, 2013

Parking: Natick CenterRecommendations

Continue focus on “parking management”

Implementation has begun with new rates and permit zones

Install way-finding to make existing lots easier to find

Review proposals from recent RFI for potential structured parking facility on two existing lots

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Existing angle in Reverse angle Parallel

Forum Survey

Parking: Main StreetOverview

Preferred Main Street Parking Alternative

88% of Forum participants (n=44)and 68% of Survey participants (n=650) would like a change

Existing Conditions

8’ 16’ 15’ 15’ 16’ 8’sidewalk

Parking Travel lane

Travel lane

Parking sidewalk

78’ Right of Way* * Measurements are estimates and not to scale

42 spaces

Dangerous for cyclists +

motorists

Long crossing distance

Parking: Main StreetAlternatives

Reverse Angle

8’ 16’ 15’ 15’ 16’ 8’Sidewalk

Parking Travel lane

Travel lane

Parking sidewalk


Maintains 42 spaces

Improved safety for cyclists + motorists

Same crossing distance

Loading/ unloading

on sidewalk

Concern among some residents of

ease of parking


Reverse Angle

8’ 16’ 10.5’ 10.5’ 16’ 8’Sidewalk

Parking Travel lane

Travel lane

Parking sidewalk


Inclusion of bike lanes

adds further safety


Bike lane

Bike lane

5’ 5’

Reverse Angle with Curb Bump Outs


Same benefits as previous but

pedestrian crossing distance shortened approximately 15’


8’ 16’ 10.5’ 10.5’ 16’ 8’Sidewalk

Parking Travel lane

Travel lane

Parking sidewalk

Bike lane

Bike lane

5’ 5’

Parallel (no bike lanes)

21’ 7’ 11’ 11’ 7’ 21’sidewalk Parking Travel

laneTravel lane

Parking sidewalk


Far wider sidewalks

Narrower travel lanes calm traffic

(without impacting flow)

31 parking spaces (i.e., loss of 11)

Safer for motorists + an improvement

for cyclists

Much reduced pedestrian

crossing distance


Parallel (with Bike Lanes)

16’ 7’ 11’ 11’ 7’ 16’sidewalk Parking Travel

laneTravel lane

Parking sidewalk


Bike lane

5’Bike lane

5’

Bike lanes greatly improve comfort

+ safety

Sidewalks less wide than previous but ample room for

seating, etc.


Parking: Main Street

Recommendations

Near term: Install curb extensions to improve pedestrian safety

(approximately $10-12K each)Pilot reverse angle parking

Can be “tested” inexpensively as a pilot using paint*

Medium term: Determine whether loss of parking spaces can be replaced Invest in design for widened sidewalksConvert to parallel parking Stripe bicycle lanes

*As opposed to the more durable but expensive thermoplastic

Breakout Groups

– Breakout Groups to discuss

recommendations

DRAFT Report

– Post for comments

Finalize Report

– Present to Board of Selectmen

Stay up to date: http://www.mapc.org/natickcenterplan

Next Steps

Natick Center Plan Forum #2

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of Natick Center Plan Forum #2