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

TCAN Library
Major
employers:
2 miles
Modera
Residences
(40R)
Farmers
Market,
concerts, and
other
programming
MBTA Station
redesign
process
Town
Hall
Police /
Fire Dept
Natick Center
Cultural
District
P
P
P
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
RECOMMENDATIONS
Land 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 England
and MassINC Polling

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 of
Natick
Outside Natick
Forum participants Survey participants
56%34%
5%
41%56%
3%
95%
were not at
the Forum

What is one thing you like about Natick Center?
0
50
100
150
200
250
Arts Station The Common and
associated
programming
(esp Farmer's
Market)
Walkability Library Neighborhood
feel /
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 trail
Bike 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 Additional
Restaurants
Pubs/Bars Cafes/Bakeries Clothing Stores Professional
Offices
Speciality
Retail
Daily Needs
Survey
Forum
Small-
medium size
• Higher quality
• More diverse
(not pizza)
Commonthemes
• Healthy
options
• Open later
Craft brewery
No 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
50,000
Approximate additional
supportable retail sq’

Step 4: Examine Office Potential for in Workforce Investment Area
Metro 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 26
66
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 Analysis
Recommendations

Market Analysis
Recommendations
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
Market Analysis
Recommendations

3) Work with Existing Property Owners to Improve Properties
 Façade & Sign Improvement Programs
 Block by Block Strategies
 Workshops & Resources
Source: Beverly Main Streets
Market Analysis
Recommendations

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
Market Analysis
Recommendations

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
Market Analysis
Recommendations

Zoning: Visual Preference and Mapping Exercise
Top 5 Residential choices (Forum + Survey combined)
Residential above retail
• Streetscape and seating
• 3 story
• 358 votes
• Wide sidewalks
• 3.5 story
• 315 votes
Modest scale homes
• 2-3 story
• 298 votes
• 4 story
• 225 votes
Modest scale homes
• 2-3 story
• 233 votes

Top 5 Retail/Commercial choices (Forum + Survey combined)
• 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
• 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
3
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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
1
10
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
13
17
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

Zoning
Build-out analysis
Example
 Many participants like the “feel” of the Clarke Building
 60% lot coverage
 3-4 stories / ~55’ height
 Building meets lot line

Zoning
Build-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)
Zoning
Summary Points

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

Zoning
Recommendations
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
Zoning
Recommendations

Zoning
Recommendations
Changes to DMU
3) 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
Zoning
Recommendations

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
Zoning
Recommendations

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
Zoning
Recommendations

 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

Traffic Calming

Recommendations
 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: Bicycle
Recommendations
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 Rt
27, south of Center

Connectivity: Intersections + Roadways
Recommendations
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
Background
Station accessibility has been a longstanding goal of the Town
Fall 2012 Natick Town Meeting appropriated $80,000 for a feasibility study
and conceptual development of a new Natick MBTA Station
2014 McMahon Associates provided design concepts
Recommendations
Continue working with MBTA on station redesign and securing funding
Ensure that accessibility is a key component
Examine feasibility of direct connection to Rail Trail

Parking: Natick Center
Overview
Parking has been studied for years
Results of recent study indicate Natick Center as a
whole has adequate parking today:*
Parking supply appears to be appropriate and
adequate for short term
Some blocks within the downtown are at capacity,
but parking exists within 1-2 blocks of these
locations
The supply of parking exceeds current demand
HOWEVER
Many Forum + Survey participants think parking in
Natick Center is a problem
Future 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 Center
Recommendations
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 Street
Overview
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’
side
walk
Parking Travel
lane
Travel
lane
Parking side
walk
78’ Right of Way* * Measurements are
estimates and not to scale
42
spaces
Dangerous
for cyclists +
motorists
Long
crossing
distance
Alternatives

Reverse Angle
8’ 16’ 15’ 15’ 16’ 8’
Side
walk
Parking Travel
lane
Travel
lane
Parking side
walk
Maintains
42 spaces
Improved
safety for
cyclists +
motorists
Same
crossing
distance
Loading/
unloading
on sidewalk
Concern
among some
residents of
ease of
parking
Alternatives

Reverse Angle
8’ 16’ 10.5’ 10.5’ 16’ 8’
Side
walk
Parking Travel
lane
Travel
lane
Parking side
walk
Inclusion of
bike lanes
adds further
safety
Alternatives
Bike
lane
Bike
lane
5’ 5’

Reverse Angle with Curb Bump Outs
Same benefits as
previous but
pedestrian crossing
distance shortened
approximately 15’
Alternatives
8’ 16’ 10.5’ 10.5’ 16’ 8’
Side
walk
Parking Travel
lane
Travel
lane
Parking side
walk
Bike
lane
Bike
lane
5’ 5’

Parallel (no bike lanes)
21’ 7’ 11’ 11’ 7’ 21’
sidewalk Parking Travel
lane
Travel
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
Alternatives

Parallel (with Bike Lanes)
16’ 7’ 11’ 11’ 7’ 16’
sidewalk Parking Travel
lane
Travel
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.
Alternatives

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 sidewalks
Convert 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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Natick Center Plan Forum #2

Similar to Natick Center Plan Forum #2 (20)

More from Metropolitan Area Planning Council

More from Metropolitan Area Planning Council (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Natick Center Plan Forum #2