Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
December 10, 2014
Town of Framingham
Downtown Framingham TOD Study
Prepared for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council
and the Town of Framingham
The Cecil Group with GPI
2DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
Pearl Street Scenario
Howard Street Scenario
Hollis Court Scenario
Transportation Options and Development Impact
Topics
Framingham Downtown Transportation Study
3DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Selected Test Sites
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
4DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Based on feedback from TOD Roundtable:
Smaller average unit size
950 SF per unit (previously 1,200 SF per unit)
Lower parking requirements
1 space per residential unit (previously 1.5 per unit)
Results in building height extending up to 5-stories
Increased residential unit counts
Increased redevelopment FAR
Updated Development Testing
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
5DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Pearl Street – Existing Parcels
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
Existing FAR = 0.88
6DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Pearl Street – Redevelopment Scenario
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
Note: scenario is hypothetical to test and depict the potential scale and character of
development. Redevelopment would require private and public actions to implement.
Proposed FAR = 1.71
(previously 200,000 GSF)
(previously 150 units)
(previously 1.54)
7DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Pearl Street – Potential Character Illustration
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
Note: scenario is hypothetical to test and depict the potential scale and character of
development. Redevelopment would require private and public actions to implement.
8DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Pearl Street – Observations and Discussion
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
Residential-focused redevelopment program to support downtown
activity, businesses and vitality
Approximately 230 residential units (previously 150)
Opportunity for enhanced pedestrian circulation from city-owned parking
structure to Concord St. and rail station
More consistent street wall, massing and scale supports downtown
character and sense of place
Overall scale of 4- to 5-story redevelopment respects adjacent context
Ongoing small scale infill development opportunities should be
encouraged and supported
9DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Howard Street – Existing Parcels and Buildings
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
Existing FAR = 0.74
10DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Howard Street – Redevelopment Scenario (surface parking)
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
FAR = 1.10(previously 64 units)
Note: scenario is hypothetical to test and depict the potential scale and character of
development. Redevelopment would require private and public actions to implement.
11DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Howard Street – Redevelopment Scenario (parking deck)
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
Note: scenario is hypothetical to test and depict the potential scale and character of
development. Redevelopment would require private and public actions to implement.
FAR = 1.59(previously 114,000 GSF)
(previously 82 units)
(previously 1.34)
12DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Howard Street – Potential Character Illustration
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
Note: scenario is hypothetical to test and depict the potential scale and character of
development. Redevelopment would require private and public actions to implement.
13DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Howard Street – Observations and Discussion
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
Mixed-use redevelopment program adds activity to Concord Street
Approximately 80 (previously 64) residential units with 12,000 sf of new
ground floor retail
Opportunity to frame the Downtown Common and add an open space
More consistent street wall, massing and scale supports downtown
character and sense of place on Concord and Howard Street
Overall scale of 4- to 5-story redevelopment with parking deck respects
adjacent context
14DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Hollis Court – Existing Parcels
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
Existing FAR = 0.42
15DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Hollis Court –Redevelopment Scenario
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
Note: scenario is hypothetical to test and depict the potential scale and character of
development. Redevelopment would require private and public actions to implement.
FAR = 1.26(previously 258,000 GSF)
(previously 157 units)
(previously 1.09)
16DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Hollis Court – Redevelopment Scenario
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
Note: scenario is hypothetical to test and depict the potential scale and character of
development. Redevelopment would require private and public actions to implement.
(Expand parking structure to support development)
17DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Hollis Court – Potential Character Illustration
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
Note: scenario is hypothetical to test and depict the potential scale and character of
development. Redevelopment would require private and public actions to implement.
18DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Hollis Court – Observations and Discussion
Update on Development Feasibility Analysis
Redevelopment program focused on mixed-use to add activity to Hollis
Hollis Court can be connected to Waverly independent of other street
configuration options
Shared parking structure at the center of the large block could be used to
support commuter rail and enable large scale redevelopment
Convenient location for commuter rail parking and pedestrian access to
consolidate and unlock land for other uses
5-story redevelopment adds density at central downtown location
19DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Hollis Court – Observations and Discussion
Transportation Options and Development Impact
X
Potential depression of Route 135
20DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Note: scenario is hypothetical to test and depict the potential scale and character of
development. Redevelopment would require private and public actions to implement.
FAR = 1.26(previously 258,000 GSF)
(previously 157 units)
(previously 1.09)
Hollis Court – Observations and Discussion
Transportation Options and Development Impact
21DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Hollis Court – Observations and Discussion
Transportation Options and Development Impact
22DOWNTOWN FRAMINGHAM TOD STUDY The Cecil Group | Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. December 10, 2014
Hollis Court – Observations and Discussion
Transportation Options and Development Impact
12/11/2014
1
Development Feasibility Analysis & Value Capture
AnalysisDowntown Framingham
Transit Oriented Development
December 10, 2014
Development Feasibility
revised 11/18/14 Pearl Street Howard Street Howard w/ deck Hollis CourtTotal building Area (GSF) 374,452 165,086 238,086 346,010 Retail (NSF) 0 34,427 34,427 56,231 Office (NSF) 11,299 23,471 32,111 0 Residential (NSF) 259,567 92,596 147,596 272,546 Residential (units) 227 81 129 238
Economic FeasibilityTotal Costs Acquisition $9,979,375 $8,019,625 $8,019,625 $9,923,250
Demolition $185,865 $127,495 $127,495 $297,405Renovation $1,894,740 $6,582,801 $6,582,801 $2,225,365New Construction $43,357,501 $11,461,993 $22,139,455 $49,826,497Parking $1,190,396 $693,988 $2,654,188 $1,744,297 TOTAL $56,607,877 $26,885,902 $39,523,564 $64,016,815
Total Revenues Office $1,694,880 $3,520,688 $4,816,688 $0Retail $0 $5,164,005 $5,164,005 $8,434,635Residential $54,049,233 $19,281,086 $30,733,630 $56,751,728 TOTAL $55,744,113 $27,965,779 $40,714,323 $65,186,363
NET Revenue ($863,764) $1,079,877 $1,190,758 $1,169,548Net as percent of total cost -1.53% 4.02% 3.01% 1.83%
Summary
12/11/2014
2
Value Capture Analysis• District Improvement Financing (DIF)
• Uses new incremental property tax to fund (via bond) public infrastructure
• TIF• Tax abatement (contract) agreement between developer
and Town to facilitate project and/or public improvements
• Urban Center Housing TIF
• Chapter 121A• Special purpose urban renewal corporation• Alternative tax agreements
• I-Cubed• State funded using incremental income and sales taxes
Economic Development & Industrial Corporation (EDIC)• Created by Chapter 124 of Acts & Resolves, 1995• EDIC has broad authority to
• Engage in urban renewal or community development projects
• Identify areas needing “clearance, conservation, and rehabilitation”
• Act as Town’s community development agent• Finance development projects • Borrow and lend money
12/11/2014
3
EDIC (cont’d)
• Under Chapter 124, Town has powers, too.• Specifically, the Town may:
• Pay for acquisition, development, and operating costs of community development projects conducted under an EDIC-approved plan
• Issue bonds for EDIC community development projects as “outside debt”, with 20-year repayment
• Effectively act as a mortgagee
Other Possibilities
• CDBG Section 108• HOME *can be used to leverage market-rate units• Urban Center Housing Tax Increment Financing
(UCH-TIF)• Other Tax Incentives (may require Special Act, e.g.,
Provincetown and Truro)
Town of Framingham Multi-Modal Improvements December 10, 2014
In association with:
Purpose – Multi-Modal Improvements
• Identify Steps to Advance Downtown Vision ▫ “Re-energized, Walkable, Mixed-Use Core”
Multi-Modal User Groups … Connections by all Modes
What does this mean for Downtown?
• Improvements that facilitate safe and efficient movement of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and vehicles to and through the Downtown. ▫ Specific Multi-Modal Improvements to Support
Identified Development Parcels
▫ Critical Mass
600’ of Curbing & Sidewalk - $60,000
New Crosswalk - $30,000
Sharrows - $11,000/Mile
Route 126 Improvements
• Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvements
• Enhancements to the corridor for pedestrians
Leaves gaps in pedestrian network for TOD parcels
Reconstruct Kendall St - $250,000
Bike Lanes on Waverly Street - $500,000
Waverly Street Crosswalk - $50,000
Critical Mass
Downtown Framingham Implementation Plan
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN DOWNTOWN What are the opportunities and challenges in Downtown?
Transportation & Public Spaces are KEY to creating a vibrant, active, and economically viable Downtown.
OPPORTUNITIES & ASSETS New Concord Street sidewalks and streetscape
Removal of Concord Street roundabout
Wide sidewalks – Potential for seating & plantings
Unique non-vehicle trail network opportunity
Abundance of existing parking
Enhanced MWRTA facility & routes
Farm Pond, Cushing Park, Town Common
CHALLENGES The project team has divided the Downtown into different areas on the following boards. These boards outline some of the unique transportation challenges. Let us know what you think. At the end, we ask you to prioritize how you would spend transportation dollars Downtown.
Downtown Framingham Implementation Plan
TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES IN DOWNTOWN
District 1
Sub-district Map Key
Barrier to Farm Pond
Under Utilized Parking
Rail Crossing
Welcome Transit Use
Complete Streets
Downtown Framingham Implementation Plan
TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES IN DOWNTOWN
District 2
Sub-district Map Key
Accessibility
Accommodate all Users
Placemaking
Residential Opportunity
Infill Development
Downtown Framingham Implementation Plan
TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES IN DOWNTOWN
District 3
Sub-district Map Key
Community Use
Residential Rail Use
Bicycle Accommodations
Pedestrian Corridors
Congestion
Downtown Framingham Implementation Plan
TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES IN DOWNTOWN
District 4
Sub-district Map Key
Barrier to Farm Pond
Under Utilized Parking
Rail Crossing
Accommodating Transit
Complete Streets
Town-wide Transportation Context
• 11 at-grade rail crossing in Town
• Physical Barriers • Mass Pike (I-90), Route 9 • Rail Lines • Reservoirs, Rivers and Brooks
Downtown Framingham Implementation Plan
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN DOWNTOWN
What is your top priority for Downtown?
Sidewalks, crosswalks, lighting & public areas
Expand access to public transit
Bicycle connections linking Downtown to surrounding neighborhoods and towns
Reduce Traffic Congestion
Better Parking Management
Open access to Farm Pond
Downtown Framingham Implementation Plan
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN DOWNTOWN
What is your top priority for Downtown?
26% Sidewalks, crosswalks, lighting & public areas
7% Expand access to public transit
10% Bicycle connections linking Downtown to surrounding neighborhoods and towns
28% Reduce Traffic Congestion
6% Better Parking Management
23% Open access to Farm Pond
7.3 Miles of roadway
$500/ft to reconstruct
Incudes roadway, curbing, sidewalk, drainage and streetscape
Total - ~$20 M
Alternative - Depress Route 126
…depressing Route 126 under Route 135 would adversely impact the Downtown
environment...
Alternative - Depress Route 135
…depressing Route 135 under Route 126 would enhancing pedestrian connections
within Downtown...
Alternative – East (Bishop) Bypass
…an overpass at Bishop cripples the pedestrian fabric of this corridor...
Alternative – West Bypass
…Unfeasible expense for infrastructure...
12/11/2014
1
Downtown Framingham and Transit-Oriented Development
Roundtable Number 7December 10, 2014
Downtown Framingham TOD StudyZoning Analysis & Recommendations
12/11/2014
2
Recap: 5 Study Area Zoning Districts
• Central Business District (CB)*• Business (B)• General Residence (G)• Manufacturing (M)• Office/Professional (P)
*Majority of analysis to date has focused on the CB district.
Downtown Zoning Districts
12/11/2014
3
Recap: Allowed Uses• Wide range of commercial uses.
– Most retail– Professional or administrative offices– Health clubs– Artisans, artist studios– Lodge, club or private non-profit social or fraternal
organization– Trade, professional or other school
• Some residential• Many typical uses not allowed, as of right or by
Special Permit.
Recap: Multi-Family Residential• New construction multifamily-only residential
NOT allowed anywhere even by Special Permit.
• Multi-family ALLOWED by Special Permit only in:– CB District as part of Mixed-Use– Historic Reuse – but limited to condominiums– Conversion of single-family to multi-family– As part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
12/11/2014
4
Recap: Special Permits • Structures over 8,000 SF require a Special
Permit.• Restaurants require a Special Permit.
– 8,000 SF or under: ZBA– 8,000 SF and over: PB
• Mixed-Use development requires a Special Permit
• Administrative, professional offices and bank branches under 8,000 in the Office/Professional District.
Recap: Site Plan Review
• Required of any new structure/structures– Only exception: Residential with <5 new parking
spaces (e.g. Single Family)
• Requirements: – Review of detailed site plan and other documents– Development Impact Statement– Timing: Up to 155 days.
12/11/2014
5
Recap: Zoning Overview Summary
• Zoning By-Law is quite restrictive in the downtown– Multi-family not allowed by right– Onerous Special Permit process
• Restaurants (any)• Any structure over 8,000 SF
– All new construction requires a Site Plan Review• Includes Development Impact Assessment
Public Input: Open House Findings
12/11/2014
6
Station 1: Business/Retail Demand Zoning Considerations
What type of businesses would you like to see more of?• Additional restaurants: 54• Cafes bakeries, coffee shops: 51• Small pubs, bars and wine bars:
35• Small to medium sized grocer: 35• Artist space, galleries,
performance space: 58• Professional offices: 23• Clothing/general retail: 33• Daily needs/services: 18
Zoning Station: What zoning changes would be supported?
QUESTIONS• Should mixed-use and
multifamily be allowed by right in Downtown?– Yes: 86%– No: 14%
• Should downtown zoning include design guidelines regulating types of materials used, location of entrances, and signage, etc.– Yes: 91%– No: 9%
12/11/2014
7
QUESTIONS• Should parking requirements
be more flexible or reduced in Downtown to make development more feasible?– Yes: 92%– No: 8%
• Should restaurants be allowed by right in Downtown?– Yes: 93%– No: 7%
Zoning Station: What zoning changes would be supported?
Visual Preference• Participants selected
images.• What appealed to
them?
12/11/2014
8
Visual Preference: Comments“Buildings have colonial facades. Wide streets. Gathering places.”
“I like downtown cafes.”
“Inviting atmosphere with traditional character.”
“Inviting.”
Visual Preference: Comments“Enhancement of current character.”
“Inviting, attractive design and scale.”
“Condos on second, third…floors.”
“Make downtown vital in all ways.”
“Visually attractive living spaces. Balconies appealing.
12/11/2014
9
Visual Preference: Comments“I like how the top floor steps back to make the building less looming from street – more visually appealing.”
“I would like to see nice condos above retail/commercial, brick sidewalks, and alleys would be nice.”
“Notice, no ugly signs, wide sidewalks. The solidity of nice brick and scale.”
“Outdoor cafes. Destinations.”
Visual Preference: Comments“Lots of brick and stone architectural materials.”
“Fun places to eat, drink, socialize.”
“Retail on street. Residences above.”
“Perfect, but not the J. Crew.”
12/11/2014
10
Visual Preference: Comments“Modern”
“Create a vibrant and modern downtown.”
Development scale/feasibility informs zoning
What makes development feasible?• Height: 4-5 stories• Densities: 36-40 units/acre
– smaller units, 950sf avg
• Parking: 1 space per unit – Vary by number of bedrooms
12/11/2014
11
Zoning Recommendations
1. Keep current zoning
2. Revise CBD1. Size of district2. Allowable uses
3. Zoning overlay district1. No need to change any underlying zoning2. Overlay would allow additional uses as of right or by
Special Permit not allowed in underlying zoning
Zoning Options
12/11/2014
12
Future Zoning District
Recommendations:Allow more housing as of right
• Allow multifamily development by right– Site plan and design review still required– Incorporate design standards into bylaw– Allow 3-BR units
• Allow mixed-use development by right• Only require a Special Permit for large projects
– Example 1: 4 stories and under by right, 5-6 by special permit
– Example 2: Projects under 50,000sf by right, over by Special Permit
12/11/2014
13
Recommendation:Create downtown site plan and design review. • Downtown site considerations different than auto-oriented
corridors. Should have a separate process.– Setbacks - streetwall– Parking– Massing– Open space
• Incorporate design standards into the bylaw– Building articulation– Roof form/mechanical screening– Entrance locations– External materials (e.g. brick, stone, pre-cast concrete, etc.)– Transparent windows (e.g. 50% of street facing ground floor
commercial)• Develop accompanying design guidelines
– Examples of preferred design
Recommendations:Lower and flexible parking requirements
• Residential– Lower required parking
• Studio Apts: 0.5 space• 1BR Apts: 1 space• 2-3 BR: 1.5 spaces• Reduce requirements by increasing radius for qualifying off-street
parking facilities• Consider eliminating commercial parking requirements
for smaller projects/uses– Many communities do not require parking for
retail/restaurant/office uses• Encourage shared parking
– Surface and structured
12/11/2014
14
Recommendations:Other Considerations
• Inclusionary Zoning– Require percentage of units to be affordable
• Density bonuses– Affordable housing density bonus
• 10% affordable units, up to 6 stories (70’)
– Parcel assembly • Example: 1 acre or more, up to 6 stories (70’)
QUESTIONS
• Overlay or CBD changes?• What are the appropriate heights and
densities?• Parking flexibility?• Affordable housing component?• Density bonus as an incentive?
12/11/2014
15
Next Steps
• Define district boundaries• Overlay or Enlarge CBD• Draft Zoning Text
– Planning Board, Standing Committee on Planning and Zoning, Board of Selectmen
– Public Hearing
• Final Zoning Text• Town Meeting