DOWNTOWN PEABODY BROWNFIELD REVITALIZATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT … Plan_Volume I... · DOWNTOWN PEABODY BROWNFIELD REVITALIZATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY OF PEABODY MAYOR

DOWNTOWN PEABODY BROWNFIELD REVITALIZATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN

CITY OF PEABODYMAYOR EDWARD A. BETTENCOURT, JR.

in association with:Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc.Community Opportunities Group, Inc.

Volume 1: April 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1

A. STUDY AREA .................................................................................................................................................. 1 B. ISSUES .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 C. ASSETS ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 D. GUIDING PRINCIPLES ....................................................................................................................................... 4

2. STUDY AREA PROFILE ............................................................................................................................. 6 A. EXISTING BUSINESSES ...................................................................................................................................... 6 B. URBAN DESIGN .............................................................................................................................................. 7 C. CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................... 17 D. PARKING DISTRIBUTION AND PATTERNS ............................................................................................................ 34 E. ZONING ...................................................................................................................................................... 42 F. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ...................................................................................................................... 44

3. MARKET ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................... 47 A. KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................................. 47 B. DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS ........................................................................................................................... 48 C. ECONOMIC INDICATORS ................................................................................................................................. 50 D. COMMERCIAL MARKET CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 54 E. HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 55 F. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS ..................................................................................................... 58 G. FOR-SALE MARKET CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 64 H. RENTER HOUSEHOLDS CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS ......................................................................................... 70 I. RENTAL MARKET CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 75

4. GOALS & BENCHMARKS ........................................................................................................................ 80 A. SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................. 80 B. LAND AND BUILDING USES ............................................................................................................................. 81 C. BUSINESS, SERVICES, AND EMPLOYMENT .......................................................................................................... 81 D. PARKING CAPACITY, DISTRIBUTION, PLACEMENT, AND USAGE .............................................................................. 81 E. ACCESS, CIRCULATION, CONNECTIVITY, AND STREET DESIGN ................................................................................ 82 F. WALKABILITY, VISITABILITY, AND STREET ACTIVATION ......................................................................................... 82 G. OPEN SPACES, CULTURAL ATTRIBUTES, CIVIC ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................... 83 H. PLANS, REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND INCENTIVES .............................................................................................. 83

5. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLAN ............................................................................................. 90 A. BUSINESS RETENTION AND DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 90 B. MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS............................................................................................... 93 C. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND CIRCULATION .................................................................................................... 97 D. PARKING IMPROVEMENTS AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 100 E. STREETSCAPE AND WALKABILITY IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................. 103 F. DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION .................................................................................... 112 G. REGULATIONS, POLICY AND DESIGN STANDARDS .............................................................................................. 113 H. ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAMS................................................................................................................. 114 I. PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND TRAILS .................................................................................................................. 120 J. COMMUNITY EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................ 120

6. PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................................................... 123 A. 78 MAIN STREET ....................................................................................................................................... 123 B. 2 WASHINGTON STREET .............................................................................................................................. 123

C. 166 MAIN STREET ..................................................................................................................................... 124 D. RIVERWALK ............................................................................................................................................... 124

APPENDIX: VOLUME 2

List of Tables

TABLE 2.1. MAIN STREET KEY BUILDING AND LOT CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................. 8 TABLE 2.2. DOWNTOWN BLOCK CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................... 10 TABLE 2.3. STREETS IN THE STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................... 17 TABLE 2.4. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC AT MASSDOT PERMANENT COUNTER STATIONS ................................. 30 TABLE 2.5. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ON MAIN STREET, OCTOBER 2013 ........................................................ 31 TABLE 2.6. DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA VEHICLE CRASHES (2008-2010) ......................................................... 32 TABLE 2.7 MBTA BUS TRANSIT SERVICE IN DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA ......................................................... 33 TABLE 2.8. PUBLIC OFF-STREET PARKING LOTS AND PRIMARY ON-STREET PARKING SPACES ....................... 37 TABLE 2.9. DOWNTOWN PUBLIC PARKING AVERAGE OCCUPANCY AND PERMITS, 2012 .............................. 38 TABLE 2.10 ZONING DENSITY AND DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS (2013) ...................................................... 43 TABLE 2.11. DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA BROWNFIELDS INVENTORY ............................................................. 44 TABLE 3.1. POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH ................................................................................... 49 TABLE 3.2. HOUSEHOLD AND PER CAPITA INCOME ....................................................................................... 49 TABLE 3.3. CHANGE IN EMPLOYER ESTABLISHMENTS BY INDUSTRY SECTOR, 2002-2012 .............................. 51 TABLE 3.4. 2020 POTENTIAL SPACE NEEDS BY SELECTED INDUSTRIAL SECTOR .............................................. 52 TABLE 3.5. LOCATION QUOTIENTS: PEABODY COMPARED WITH ESSEX COUNTY .......................................... 53 TABLE 3.6. COMMERCIAL LAND SALES .......................................................................................................... 55 TABLE 3.7. HOUSING SUPPLY AND CHARACTERISTICS (2000, 2010) .............................................................. 56 TABLE 3.8. BUILDING PERMITS BY TYPE OF STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION COST .................................... 57 TABLE 3.9. RECENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA ................................................ 57 TABLE 3.10. HOMEOWNERS BY AGE COHORT, PEABODY AND DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA ........................... 59 TABLE 3.11. HOMEOWNERS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME .................................................................................. 60 TABLE 3.12. NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN HOMEOWNERSHIP UNITS .............................................................. 61 TABLE 3.13. HOMEOWNERS BY BUILDING TYPE ............................................................................................ 62 TABLE 3.14. HOMEOWNERS BY MOVE-IN YEAR ............................................................................................ 64 TABLE 3.15. FORECLOSURE TRENDS IN PEABODY .......................................................................................... 66 TABLE 3.16. PEABODY AND DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA CONDOMINIUM SALES ........................................... 67 TABLE 3.17. CHARACTERISTICS OF POST-2003 DOWNTOWN CONDOMINIUM SALES .................................... 68 TABLE 3.18. RENTERS BY AGE COHORT, PEABODY AND DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA ..................................... 70 TABLE 3.19. RENTERS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME ............................................................................................ 72 TABLE 3.20. RENTER-OCCUPIED UNITS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS ............................................................. 73 TABLE 3.21. RENTER-OCCUPIED UNITS BY GROSS RENT, PEABODY AND DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA ............ 74 TABLE 3.22. RENTERS BY MOVE-IN YEAR....................................................................................................... 75 TABLE 3.23. APARTMENT CHARACTERISTICS, COMPARISON DEVELOPMENTS .............................................. 77 TABLE 3.24. SUMMARY OF ASKING RENTS FOR LISTED APARTMENTS IN PEABODY (2013) ........................... 78 TABLE 4.1. SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS ...................................................................................................... 84 TABLE 5.1 RECOMMENDED FUTURE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE DOWNTOWN STUDY AREA .... 104

Introduction / 1

1. INTRODUCTION In 2012, the City of Peabody commissioned a study of the downtown area in order to identify development barriers and opportunities, plan for revitalization, and inspire reinvestment. Peabody’s decision to create a Downtown Economic Development Plan came at the heels of four closely related planning efforts: The Peabody-Salem Brownfields Coalition Program, sponsored by the Metropolitan

Area Planning Council (MAPC);

The Phase I Flood Mitigation Program, which Peabody planned and designed with funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA);

The realignment and beautification of Peabody’s Main Street; and

City Hall’s partnership with Salem State University to update the 2002 Peabody Master Plan.

To fund this plan, the City applied for and received a brownfields district planning grant from MassDevelopment and hired a consulting team led by RKG Associates, Inc. RKG’s team included transportation planners from Howard/Stein-Hudson, Inc., and planning and community development specialists from Community Opportunities Group, Inc.

A. STUDY AREA The Downtown Study Area includes approximately 80 acres bounded by Walnut Street, Howley Street, Main Street, and Peabody Square (Fig. 1.1). For purposes of this plan, the study area has been divided into three subdistricts with a combined total of twenty-four blocks. Since the blocks are small, they allow for a fairly refined analysis of the study area’s physical and economic characteristics.

Main Street and Peabody Square (Blocks 1 – 11, 16, and 17) - Main Street and Peabody Square is the traditional central business district and civic center of the City as well as the primary focus of this economic development plan in terms of promoting mixed use and business development.

North River and Railroad Area (Blocks 12 – 15) - The North River and Railroad Area is a historically industrial district that features several former tannery sites, which relied on the river and rail for power and transportation. Today this area includes several

Downtown Peabody, Main St. at Washington St.

1

Introduction / 2

brownfield sites and underutilized properties that have potential for public transportation, pathways, open space, flood mitigation, and limited redevelopment.

Walnut Street Corridor (Blocks 18 – 24) - The Walnut Street Corridor is a transitional area between the neighborhoods to the north and the industrial properties along the river. It includes a diverse mix of neighborhood-based commercial uses, lower cost industrial space, higher density residential developments, and several religious and civic uses.

B. ISSUES

1. Location Though it has the basic ingredients of a central business district, Downtown Peabody is not “central” to the rest of the city. Situated adjacent to the Peabody-Salem border on the east edge of town, Downtown Peabody is an attractive but economically struggling commercial area with many vacancies and weak property values. It has an eclectic collection of buildings, many of which are yearning for upkeep. Long-time businesses and stable new businesses co-exist in the downtown area, yet considerable turnover has occurred, too. The prevalence of contaminated properties bespeaks Downtown Peabody’s heyday as a mecca for the leather tanning industry. A mile to the east lies Salem’s downtown, a stronger city center with businesses and multifamily housing comingled with public and institutional uses. Peabody’s Centennial Park, a large office-industrial compound off Route 128, occupies a 307-acre site three miles west of the downtown area, and less than two miles away, roughly northwest, is the 108-acre North Shore Mall. Pulaski Street hosts an older industrial park about a mile due north of downtown, too. In short, Downtown Peabody has some major activity centers nearby, yet in “on-the- ground” terms, they are not as close as they seem.

2. Traffic Getting around Peabody can be pretty difficult. Interstate Route 95, U.S. Route 1, and Route 128, all running north-south through Peabody, effectively split the City into four distinct zones with strikingly different and use patterns. They include West Peabody, a suburban residential community composed primarily of single-family homes; the central section, which includes Centennial Park, the Mall, other “large footprint” sites, and some housing development; South Peabody, also suburban and residentially developed, but at a somewhat higher density than West Peabody; and the northeast quadrant, the City’s historic and most densely settled section, including Downtown Peabody. Like so many communities that have been spliced by regional highways, Peabody has little in the way of uninterrupted crossroads. Lowell Street, the gateway to the downtown area, is the only continuous east-west road in Peabody. Not surprisingly, traffic on Lowell Street can be severely congested during the morning and evening peak travel periods.

2

Introduction / 3

3. Environmental Hazards Downtown Peabody has other challenges besides access constraints. Its weak market values are driven, at least in part, by the 100-year floodplain of the North River, which includes much of the downtown area. Though dramatized by the Boston news media, Downtown’s flooding problems have affected local businesses and will affect the long-term viability of flood-prone areas for business development and new investment. During the study period for this plan, the City decided to cancel a planned $20 million mitigation project that would have controlled approximately 80 percent of the downtown area’s flooding from the North River and its tributaries. This has implications for future development along corridors such as Walnut Street, situated almost entirely in the floodplain. The North River is the largest fresh water tributary to Salem Sound and its basin is a large urban watershed. The river begins below the site of a former commercial building on Wallis Street in Peabody and flows channelized to the Peabody-Salem border, where it becomes tidal. It widens at Salem Sound and merges with the Danvers River. Historically, the North River formed the heart of a thriving industrial corridor. Mills, leather tanneries, and factories operated along its banks, and river water was used for industrial processing and disposal. The river was channelized during the nineteenth century to accommodate railroad tracks along its banks. The railroad and right-of-way still exist, supporting infrequent passage by freight rail trains. As the industries declined and eventually disappeared, the North River corridor was left with large vacant parcels of underutilized, potentially contaminated land in Peabody and neighboring Salem.1

4. Other Constraints Another constraint that affects Downtown Peabody’s economic health is the limited amount of market-rate housing in adjacent neighborhoods. The makeup of the population in these neighborhoods has a direct impact on the business mix on and near Main Street, for they comprise the trade area for most of Downtown Peabody’s businesses. Furthermore, the largest institutional use in the study area – the courthouse – contributes very little to Downtown’s economy because access and egress are limited to the rear of the building, oriented toward a parking lot.

1 From Weston & Sampson, Inc., for MAPC Brownfields Coalition Grant Cities of Peabody and Salem, Riverwalk Visioning Study Summary Report (March 2013).

Flooding in Peabody Square, March 2010.

3

Introduction / 4

C. ASSETS Downtown Peabody’s well-being is hindered by several obstacles – physical, demographic, and policy-based – yet it has critical assets that bode well for the possibility of revitalization. They are:

The presence of some stable, long-time businesses and the energy and enthusiasm of some newer businesses as well.

Dedicated private organizations that are working to secure a more prosperous downtown, notably the Peabody Downtown Association (PDA) and the Peabody Area Chamber of Commerce (PACC).

The City’s Community Development Office, which has the professional capacity to assemble and provide community development resources for downtown development.

The City’s recent investment of state grant funds in carrying out street and sidewalk improvements on Main Street.

Downtown’s dense land use patterns, which speak volumes to the area’s history as a nineteenth century industrial community. Map 1.2 illustrates Downtown Peabody’s traditional patterns, with the orderly row of commercial, civic, and mixed use buildings lining the sidewalk along Main Street; the larger footprint industrial buildings between Walnut Street and the North River and Railroad track; and the small but dense footprints of the traditional neighborhoods that connect to downtown from the north and south.

D. GUIDING PRINCIPLES This Downtown Economic Development Plan illustrates and describes existing and potential land uses, infrastructure improvements, natural and man-made attributes, parking and streetscape enhancements, design preferences, and market opportunities in Downtown Peabody. It focuses on strengthening downtown by working with property owners, business owners, and developers on projects that expand businesses, fill market niches, and broaden the mix of uses. The Plan is guided by nine principles: Strengthen the City’s organizaitonal capacity and political will to carry out a

comprehensive, long-term program of downtown revitalization.

Focus on improving the quality of the Downtown experience for commuters, visitors and residents alike.

Improvements on Main St., including bump-outs and crosswalk overlays.

4

Introduction / 5

Explore ways to attract new businesses to Downtown Peabody by providing incentives for entrepreneurs and start-ups with potential to create a regional draw and serve local customers.

Take proactive steps to retain and attract new entrepreneurs to fill empty storefronts and build a “critical mass” that will help Downtown Peabody take advantage of the economy as it improves.

Explore options to motivate property owners, particularly along Main Street, who have not been actively involved in promoting business development.

Recruit and entice successful retailers from within the region and entrepreneurs to open stores that will bring energy and interest to their block and enliven the downtown area.

Actively encourage more housing and mixed-use redevelopment projects to eliminate vacant, underutilized properties that create a perception of blight.

Integrate more open space, recreational amenities, and civic gathering areas to connect the Downtown Peabody and surrounding neighborhoods and create a draw to the district.

Use the internet and social media to get the word out about all that Downtown Peabody has to offer.

5

Study Area Profile / 6

2. STUDY AREA PROFILE Chapter 2 evaluates the Downtown Study Area in terms of existing business development, settlement patterns, property use and ownership trends, infrastructure conditions, land use regulations, and recent, on-going, and future planning and economic development initiatives. This evaluation is essential for understanding the area’s economic potential, preferred uses, building and land use limitations, parking and infrastructure needs, and other challenges and opportunities. It also creates the foundation for the brownfield redevelopment plans, capital improvements, and business development strategies that most effectively tap Downtown Peabody’s potential while being consistent with the City’s overall land use and community development objectives. As part of this existing conditions assessment, the RKG Team assisted City staff and the Advisory Committee with conducting three public workshops, surveys, and walking tours of the Downtown Study Area. The consultants identified, photographed, mapped, and documented the unique characteristics of Peabody’s central business district and its relationship to surrounding neighborhoods. The Downtown Study Area maps prepared for this plan highlight key characteristics such as development patterns, historic and cultural landmarks, distinctive physical features, landscaping and vegetation patterns, vehicle and pedestrian circulation patterns, parking distribution, lighting, signage, and potential infill development and building renovation and infill sites.

A. EXISTING BUSINESSES Available data show that approximately 260 business, non-profit, and government establishments operate in the Downtown Study Area, employing anywhere from one person to one hundred people. Just over half of downtown’s employers have only one to four people on payroll. Many of these small establishments are one-person (self-employed) businesses that are never counted in the official roster of local employer establishments.2 Still, the combined employment of all downtown-area establishments is approximately 1,500. Although Downtown Peabody has many new businesses, including many that struggle, there are some long-standing concerns as well. Along the downtown “core,” i.e., Main Street and Peabody Square, the City has an eclectic mix of some retail stores, personal and business services establishments, government agencies, banks, some food service establishments, business or professional offices (realtors, attorneys, and so forth), and fraternal or charitable organizations. Outside the “core,” on Walnut Street, there is an assortment of small manufacturing companies, auto repair shops, trade contractors, food service establishments,

2 Establishment counts for the Downtown Study Area are based on two sources: an inventory provided by the Peabody Area Chamber of Commerce and a database obtained from InfoUSA. Traditional employment base statistics reported by state and federal agencies – such as those found in Chapter 3 for the City as a whole - rely on data from establishments that have to provide unemployment insurance. Several types of employers are exempt from unemployment insurance requirements, including self-employed individuals with no employees (sole proprietors).

6


and various personal and business service providers. In between – in the area this plan refers to as the Railway/North River Subdistrict – there is a relatively low-density arrangement of contractors, printing and graphics businesses, auto repair facilities, and miscellaneous other businesses. A detailed inventory of Downtown Study Area businesses can be found in Appendix A (see Volume 2). During an informal survey conducted at the end of July 2013, many downtown-area entrepreneurs described business conditions as poor, citing road work,3 the general state of the economy, and competition as their main barriers to business success. Almost all of the business owners described their customer base as primarily if not exclusively Peabody residents. They also said resolving the flooding problem should be the top priority for improving business conditions on Main Street – a response that came from businesses both in and outside of the flood impact area. Still, despite the concerns many of downtown’s business owners expressed, almost all said they had no plans to relocate to some other business district. The few who said they were considering it cited limited parking and declining customer base, but the advantages of low rents for downtown space seemed to outweigh the negatives for most of the business owners who agreed to be interviewed.

B. URBAN DESIGN The RKG Team prepared property inventories and trends using available geographic information and property records along with on-site observations. The inventory databases contain several property characteristics, e.g., ownership, general conditions, current uses, average dimensions (lot size, setbacks, height, square feet, coverage, frontage, floor area ratio (FAR)), vacancies, business tenants, and other on-site features such as parking, pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and general architectural styles. The database is used to describe physical and economic constraints and opportunities throughout the Downtown Study Area.4 The results of this evaluation have been organized into a “placemaking audit” of the downtown area. A placemaking audit defines the characteristics, indicators, and criteria that are essential to creating an economically viable historic mixed-use district. These characteristics include:

Traditional settlement patterns, development, and design;

Compatible and complimentary building designs and property uses;

Essential and desirable businesses and services;

Excellent access and connectivity for different modes of travel;

Safe and attractive pedestrian environment;

3 The Main Street Reconstruction Project had just been completed prior to the survey. 4 See Appendix for database details.

7


Attractive streetscapes and active uses of sidewalks;

Well distributed and managed parking supply;

Well integrated and utilized open spaces and civic gathering places;

Strong relationship between the public and private realm; and

Context-based plans, programs, policies, regulations, and incentives.

The assessment of these characteristics in Downtown Peabody is included in the following sections.

1. Key Settlement Patterns and Development Characteristics Successful historic downtown districts commonly have the following general settlement and design characteristics which can also be considered economic vitality baseline criteria:

Tight settlement patterns;

Building functional and architectural compatibility;

Moderate block size with lengths and widths that are at comfortable pedestrian scale;

Street wall/street enclosure (the ratio of building height to street width) that provides a comfortable pedestrian environment; and

Strong terminal vistas.

TRADITIONAL SETTLEMENT PATTERNS. Tight settlement patterns are a key indicator for good walkability and successful retail in traditional downtowns and neighborhoods. They can generally be determined by measuring key building placement dimensions such as a short setbacks, and high ratios of building coverage to land area, frontage occupation by buildings and floor area ratios. Table 2.1 indicates that the Main Street achieves a tight settlement patterns based on these building placement measurements which is significantly higher than other commercial districts in the community.

2.1. Main Street Key Building and Lot Characteristics Key Characteristics Average Median Lot Size (SF) 12,831 7,492 Lot Frontage 82 65 Lot Depth 139 115 Building Year Built 1911 1900 # of Building Per Lot 1.3 1.0 Primary Building GFA (SF) 10,391 7,621

Primary Building Gross Rentable Area (SF) 8,023 5,872 Primary Building Height (FT) 31 30 Primary Building Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.2 1.1 Primary Building Width at Frontage (FT) 53 42

8


2.1. Main Street Key Building and Lot Characteristics Key Characteristics Average Median Primary Building Front Setback (FT) 12 3

Primary Building Depth (FT) 74 66 Primary Building No of Storefronts 2 1 Primary Building Frontage Occupation within 30 Feet (%) 69% 71% Building Stories 2.3 2.3 Source: City of Peabody Assessor’s Parcel Database and Parcel Maps.

Downtown Peabody is characterized by a diverse mosaic of buildings and uses. The dense land use patterns in Downtown Peabody speak volumes to its history as a 19th century industrial community. The ground figure map (Fig. 2.1) clearly illustrates the traditional patterns with the orderly row of commercial, civic and mixed use building lining the sidewalk along Main Street; the larger footprint industrial buildings between Walnut Street and the North River and Railroad track; and the small but dense footprints of the traditional neighborhoods that connect to downtown from the north and south.

Most of the historic settlement patterns in Downtown Peabody remain intact today. In particular, the Main Street subdistrict is still a grand commercial avenue lined with elegant two- to four-story buildings. While it was not laid out on a traditional grid, the corridor has the potential for significant revitalization and economic vitality with primarily commercial, civic, and mixed uses. The other two subdistricts – The North River/Railroad Corridor and

Fig. 2.1.

9


Walnut Street Corridor – present more challenges, both economically and environmentally. However, over time these areas can provide an array of opportunities for passive and active recreation, light industrial, residential, and neighborhood-scale commercial uses. BLOCK SIZE. Moderate block size is important for creating walkable streets. In a traditional downtown district, an ideal block width is about 250 feet and a maximum of 600 feet. (Traditional neighborhoods can have longer blocks). If blocks are too long, i.e. greater distances between intersections, vehicle travel speeds tend to increase, which can diminish the pedestrian environment. Shorter blocks break up the building spaces and provide depths to the business district providing more interest to the pedestrian and opportunity for business development. While the Downtown Peabody was not laid out in a traditional grid like many other small New England cities, the block sizes on Main Street and Peabody Square can generally be measured by the distance between intersections. (See Table 2.2.)

Table 2.2. Downtown Block Characteristics Block Properties Total Value Primary Bldg

GFA (SF) Primary Bldg

Gross Rentable Area (SF)

Lot Size (Acres)

Total Property Value Per Acre

1 8 $11,472,800 130,642 61,065 4.1 $24,408,577 Ave. $1,434,100 18,663 12,213 0.5 $3,051,072

2 10 $7,717,700 135,455 101,813 2.2 $39,510,270 Ave. $771,770 13,546 10,181 0.2 $3,951,027

3 10 $5,640,800 104,299 62,880 1.9 $40,267,018 Ave. $626,756 13,037 7,860 0.2 $4,474,113

4 7 $2,605,100 70,227 57,208 0.8 $20,218,749 Ave. $434,183 11,705 9,535 0.1 $3,369,791

5 3 $9,180,400 35,816 22,992 1.6 $12,749,280 Ave. $3,060,133 11,939 11,496 0.5 $4,249,760

6 7 $6,631,400 128,214 37,890 2.1 $16,414,293 Ave. $1,326,280 18,316 12,630 0.4 $3,282,859

7 14 $4,581,600 78,564 34,478 2.3 $35,874,777 Ave. $327,257 6,043 4,925 0.2 $2,562,484

8 5 $3,356,500 37,862 25,744 1.3 $12,905,929 Ave. $671,300 7,572 6,436 0.3 $2,581,186

9 2 $1,469,400 9,118 7,798 1.0 $4,713,938 Ave. $734,700 4,559 3,899 0.5 $2,356,969

10 10 $6,145,400 64,978 49,843 3.3 $25,889,607 Ave. $682,822 8,122 9,969 0.4 $2,876,623

11 8 $2,527,100 28,882 10,766 0.7 $19,694,637 Ave. $315,888 4,126 3,589 0.1 $3,282,440

15 $617,300 8,160 5,440 0.2 $3,764,024 16 $73,000 867 504 0.1 $1,351,852 17 4 $2,150,200 18,943 11,008 1.4 $8,706,518

Ave. $716,733 4,736 2,752 0.4 $2,902,173

10


STREET WALL AND ENCLOSURE. Street Wall/Street Enclosure is the ratio of building height to the width between buildings (typically includes the street, sidewalk, and front yards of buildings). Street enclosure contributes to a comfortable pedestrian environment. In a traditional downtown district such as Peabody, the good street enclosure ratios should be between 1:2 and 1:3. If the ratio is too low, the buildings across the street feel distant and disconnected. If the ratio is too high the buildings may appear too large creating a canyon effect along the street and shadowing during long stretches of the day. Since street enclosure is an important walkability indicator, it was measured several locations in the Downtown Study Area. (Figs. 2.2-2.9) BUILDING FUNCTIONAL AND ARCHITECTURAL COMPATIBILITY. Building compatibility can be determined by the use, placement, size, scale, height, forms, and general architectural styles of buildings in a business district. Most buildings in the Downtown Study Area were constructed before the automobile was common place, and designing for excellent walkability was an equal or higher objective than other modes of transportation. Residences, businesses, and workplaces were meant to be accessible on a pedestrian scale, and the architecture supported both density and mixed uses. Functional compatibility can be seen in the subdistricts in terms of similar placement, massing, and scale of buildings. The majority of buildings on Main Street date between 1880 and 1920. Building frontages are typically subdivided into parcels providing for 40 to 60 feet of building storefronts along Main Street. The buildings are pedestrian oriented and built right up to the front lot lines at the sidewalk edge. Most buildings have a high ground floor plates, making them ideal shop fronts. Tall windows and transoms (many of which are currently covered up) allow natural light to reach the back of the store, providing energy efficiency. (Fig. 2.10) Of notable divergence from this pattern are a few buildings on the western edge of Main Street including Tedeschi’s Food Store, Main Street Plaza, McDonald’s and the new CVS Pharmacy. These buildings were constructed over the last 40 years with significant setbacks from the street and parking in front of the building: qualities typical of automobile-oriented development and starkly different from the pre-automobile, pedestrian-oriented patterns of the rest of Main Street. VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL MIXED USES. Most buildings on Main Street are between two and four stories, providing excellent opportunities for mixed use and increased street enclosure, which in turn contributes to improved walkability. Fortunately, there are only a few one-story buildings on Main Street. Significant variations in heights between adjacent buildings can be detrimental in a traditional downtown. However, most of the one-story buildings on Main Street have tall front elevations (at least 14 feet) such as Walgreens, TD Bank North, North Shore Bank, and Main Street Laundromat. (Fig. 2.11)

11


Figs. 2.2 and 2.3

12


Figs. 2.4 and 2.5

13


Figs. 2.6 and 2.7

14


Figs. 2.8 and 2.9

15


Figs. 2.10 and 2.11

16


C. CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORTATION Efficient traffic circulation, connectivity, and access are critical to the long-term viability of Downtown Peabody. As part of the placemaking audit, the RKG Team evaluated existing traffic and circulation patterns to determine how various methods of travel are interacting and/or conflicting in the Downtown Study Area. Meetings with City staff and the advisory committee, input at public workshops, and on-site observations informed the following circulation and transportation assessment, which is focused on key issues related to future economic development potential in Downtown Peabody.

1. Access, Circulation, and Connectivity Circulation and Street Inventory. The Downtown Study Area includes twenty-four thoroughfares that directly connect and distribute vehicles, buses transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians throughout the Study Area. Downtown Peabody’s streets have a distinct hierarchy in terms of size, capacity, and purpose. There are five major arterials serving the majority of properties and carrying a significant percentage of the overall traffic including Main Street, Lowell Street, Central Street, Peabody Square, and Foster Street. These primary corridors also provide inter-municipal access between Downtown Peabody and surrounding communities. Two major collectors, Walnut Street and Washington Street, provide primary access to downtown from the neighborhood north and south of the Study Area. Within the Study Area there are seven access streets: Mill Street, Wallis Street, Railroad Avenue, Caller Street, Howley Street, Nichols Lane, and Chestnut Street. These corridors connect to major collectors and arterials in the Downtown Study Area and enhance the overall circulation and distribution of traffic. Finally, there are ten neighborhood streets that provide direct access to residents living to the north and south of the Downtown Study Area. (Fig. 2.12)

Table 2.3. Streets in the Study Area Street General Type No. of

Properties

Caller Street Access Street 13

Chestnut Street Access Street 1

Howley Street Access Street 5

Mill Street Access Street 4

Railroad Avenue Access Street 1

Wallis Street Access Street 4

Nichol's Lane Access Street 0

Central Street Major Arterial 7

Foster Street Major Arterial 4

Lowell Street Major Arterial 5

Main Street Major Arterial 60

Peabody Square Major Arterial 2

Walnut Street Major Collector 36

Washington Street Major Collector 1

Eagan Street Neighborhood Street 2

17


Table 2.3. Streets in the Study Area Street General Type No. of

Properties

Holten Street Neighborhood Street 1

Little's Lane Neighborhood Street 1

Mt. Vernon Street Neighborhood Street 2

Paleologos Street Neighborhood Street 1

Tracey Street Neighborhood Street 1

Harris Street Neighborhood Street 0

Upton Street Neighborhood Street 0

Park Street Neighborhood Street 0

Pierpont Street Neighborhood Street 0

Connectivity. While the streets are not laid out on a traditional grid like many older downtowns, Downtown Peabody’s street network does provide strong connectivity, circulation, and access. Wallis Street, Caller Street, and Howley Street create direct connections between Main Street and Walnut Street and help disperse and redistribute traffic from these high volume corridors. Given the high capacity and connectivity of downtown

Fig. 2.12

18


streets, future land use development scenarios in the Study Area can likely be absorbed into the network without significant traffic impacts. Vehicle and Pedestrian Access. Direct pedestrian and vehicle access to individual buildings and properties are provided by curb cuts, alleys, and pedestrian passages. One of the goals for the downtown area (as reflected in zoning requirements) is to encourage fewer curb cuts onto primary streets, shared access and parking facilities, and pedestrian connections to rear parking areas. Multiple and wide curb cuts exist throughout the Downtown Study Area, particularly on segments of Central Street, Walnut Street, Mill Street, Wallis Street, and Caller Street. Main Street has fewer direct curb cuts as vehicle access is commonly provided from side streets. In the traditional core of Main Street on Blocks 2 through 6 (Peabody Square to Washington Street) there are only eight curb cuts on a total of thirty-seven properties. East of Washington Street, however, newer buildings tended to have more curb cuts; there are twenty curb cuts on the thirty-two properties on this section of Main Street. Twenty-seven alleys and passages provide pedestrian access to rear or side parking areas. However, several of these potential access points are closed off or uninviting to pedestrian passage.

2. Street Design Characteristics The City has embraced a “Complete Streets” approach to the redesign and enhancement of thoroughfares in the Downtown Study Area. Simply stated, the City understands the importance of balancing the needs of all travelers and integrating a broad range of intermodal facilities to accommodate personal automobiles, service vehicles, pedestrian, bicyclists, and bus transit. Additionally, the City has embraced “context-sensitive” design solutions to improving downtown streets by focusing on enhancements that are critical to economic development in a traditional downtown central business district such as Peabody. On-street parking, well-placed street trees, ornamental lighting, and other streetscape furnishings and storefront activation opportunities create a positive relationship between business owners and the “public realm,” providing a strong foundation for future private property investment. The RKG Team conducted a general assessment of key street design characteristics for primary corridors in the Downtown Study Area as part of the placemaking audit. A series of street cross sections, street enclosure, and photo images are provided in the figure below to illustrate the design characteristics of these corridors. As described earlier, Street Enclosure is the ratio of building height to the width between buildings on opposite sides of the street. It is a key indicator for creating a positive pedestrian environment. Main Street. The Main Street right-of-way is 80 feet wide and includes between two and three travel lanes, on-street parking lanes, and sidewalks on both sides of the street. The recent reconstruction reduced the number of travel lanes to two lanes in each direction between Peabody Square and Howley Street. While the overall capacity of the corridor may have been reduced somewhat, the new design integrated several intermodal and traffic calming treatments that balance the vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit demands on the corridor.

19


The optimal speed for a traditional downtown “Main Street” such as Peabody’s is between 15-25 miles per hour. Downtown Peabody’s previous four-lane street cross section encouraged higher speeds through the corridor, reducing the driver’s cone of vision and, therefore, pedestrian safety. At slower speeds, the driver is able to see a broader range of activity, including pedestrians on the sidewalk as well as businesses signs, displays, and outdoor uses fronting on the street (Fig. 2.13). From an economic perspective, slow and steady through Main Street is critical as most retail and restaurant business rely on good visibility from drivers as well as pedestrians. The reconstruction of Main Street included several traffic calming improvements: Narrower Travel Lanes. The travel lanes were reduced from 12 feet to 11 feet, except for

turning lanes (typically 12 to 13 feet) and when paired with on-street parking, when travel lanes are typically 15 feet.

Improved Bicycle Access. While Main Street is not currently identified as an official bike route and bike lanes have not been defined with paint, the new design significantly improves bicycle access. Where there is on-street parking, the travel lanes are typically 15 feet wide providing more space for bicycles. There is also a 5-foot shoulder along the corridor where on-street parking is not located, providing additional space for bikes. These improvements can be modified into full bike lanes and/or sharrows in the future with relative ease.

New Cross Walks and Curb Extensions. Peabody built new crosswalks coupled with new curb extensions in eight locations along the following corridor streets: Nichol’s Lane, Park Street, Little’s Lane, the Knights of Columbus, Washington Street (2), Holten Street, and Pierpont Street. Curb extensions shorten the distance that pedestrian have to cross (in this case, to approximately 40-45 feet), which improves pedestrian comfort and safety. In addition to these locations, the City constructed new crosswalks and made sidewalk improvements at the Howley Street intersection. All of these crosswalks are located mid-block, except at the signalized Washington Street and Howley Street intersections. Mid-block crossing works well when traffic is slow and where drivers anticipate pedestrian activity.

Pedestrian Refuges/Center Medians. The reconstruction included a new center median in front of the Peabody Institute Library and a pedestrian refuge (coupled with a pedestrian crossing and curb extension) at Park Street in front of Walgreens. Medians and refuges create visual obstacles for drivers, lowering speeds and improve the pedestrian environment. While the new center median is narrow (only 4 feet) there may be an opportunity to provide landscaping with planters and welcome signage.

Sidewalk Improvements. Sidewalks on Main Street range from 5 feet to 11 feet wide along the corridor. The new sidewalks installed along the north side of the street included concrete pavers, brick aprons, and new street trees and planting pits.

20


Fig. 2.13 (above and top of next page)

21


As shown in Fig. 2.14, the RKG Team measured street enclosure at three locations along Main Street. On the block between Foster Street and Nichols Lane, the Building to Street Ratio (the ratio of the space between buildings and the building heights) is 1:2.3, which is indicative of a traditional Main Street block. The buildings on both sides are older two-story buildings with no setback, creating good street enclosure. East of Willis Street between the Peabody Institute Library and the 3-story commercial block across Main Street, the Building to Street Ratio is 1:2.9. This is still within a comfortable enclosure but the ratio is lower due to the library being setback from the sidewalk 20 feet. It is typical for a civic building, such as a library or city hall, to be set back and at a height above the ground level in traditional downtowns to provide a sense of prominence. At the east end of the Main Street corridor, between the Main Street Plaza and McDonald’s Restaurant, the Building to Street Ratio is 1:8.5 which is indicative of a limited enclosure and a poor pedestrian environment. The buildings in this segment of Main Street are newer and tend to be shorter, 1-story buildings set back from the street with parking in front. This form of development is inconsistent with the traditional building pattern of the majority of Main Street and has poor walkability and should be limited in the future. Lowell Street. This corridor serves as a primary arterial and connection between Routes 1 and 128 to the west and downtown to the east. Within the Study Area the right-of-way is 70 feet with two 20-foot travel lanes, an 8-foot parking lane on the south side, and 10-12 foot wide sidewalks on both sides. The travel lanes are exceptionally wide as Lowell Street is the

22


primary access route for the Central Fire Station, which is located on the corridor. The street enclosure increases in the eastbound direction approaching Peabody Square (about 1:3.2) with prominent civic buildings including City Hall and Essex County District Court framing the street. A series of mature shade trees along Lowell Street also contribute to a strong pedestrian environment. (Fig. 2.15) Central Street/Peabody Square. Peabody Square is the featured entrance point into Downtown Peabody and is also a major crossroad between major arterials Central Street, Lowell Street, Main Street, and Foster Street. Walnut Street, Mill Street, and Railroad Avenue also feed into Peabody Square. The right-of-way varies significantly from about 90 feet at Walnut Street to over 300 feet at the intersection of Lowell Street and Main Street. Generally, the cross sections on each approach include three to five lanes with multiple combination of travel, turning, and parking lanes. While the square has sidewalks on all streets, the Peabody Monument, and landscaped traffic islands, this is a very difficult pedestrian environment. Crosswalks in Peabody Square are 50 to 70 feet wide and the street enclosure is inconsequential given the amount of space allocated to vehicles and pavement throughout the Square. (Fig. 2.16) Walnut Street. This corridor serves as a primary collector for the neighborhoods to the north and provides access for the commercial and industrial enterprises along the street. The right-of-way is approximately 50 feet with an intermittent 8-foot parking lane on the north side, a 15-foot travel lane eastbound, a 12-foot travel lane westbound, and 8-foot sidewalks on both sides. The street enclosure along Walnut Street between Walnut Place Condominiums and 15 Walnut has a building to street ratio of 1.64. The horizontal mix of dense residential and commercial/industrial uses in this area is common along the corridor. In front of Central Bakery at 48 Walnut and East End Park there is a 50-foot right-of-way, two 13-foot travel lanes, an 8-foot parking lane on the north side, a 6-foot sidewalk on the north side, and 9-foot sidewalk on the south side. Street enclosure is good on the north side of the street as the sidewalk is framed with a series of 1- to 3-story commercial buildings. (Fig. 2.17) Foster Street. Foster Street is a primary arterial that connects downtown with the neighborhoods in South Peabody and Route 129 in Lynn. Within the Study Area the right-of-way is about 74 feet and includes two travel lanes and multiple combinations of center turn lanes, center medians, and on-street parking. Additionally, there are 10-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street. As a result of more highway-oriented commercial development south of the Study Area, on-street parking is limited due to the number of curb cuts. A landscaped center median at the intersection with Main Street creates an attractive gateway feature into the Study Area. Enclosure is good on the east side of Foster Street in the Study Area as the street is framed by older 2- and 3-story commercial buildings with no setbacks. On the west side of the corridor, however, there is a surface parking lot that is partially screened by a series of mature street trees. (Fig. 2.18) Washington Street. This corridor serves as a primary collector for the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown and a direct connection between Main Street and the rotary at aa

23


Fig. 2.14

24


Fig. 2.15

25


Fig. 2.16

26


Fig. 2.17

27


Fig. 2.18

28


Route 129 in Lynn. The right-of-way is approximately 65 feet with a travel and parking lane in the southbound direction and a left-turn and right-turn lane in the northbound direction. There are also 9-foot concrete sidewalks on both sides of the street. The four tree pits in the sidewalks on both sides of the street have healthy and mature street trees that provide shade to the sidewalk and street enclosure. A massive beech tree at the corner of Main Street on the Pioneer House lawn also contributes to the overall streetscape. Mill Street. Mill Street is a key service street connecting public and private parking lots and providing access between the north side of Main Street and Peabody Square. The right-of-way is approximately 30 feet with an 18-foot unmarked travel lane and 6-foot concrete sidewalks on both sides. A series of mature and healthy street trees on the eastern half of the corridor toward Wallis Street provide shade and enclosure. Streetscape treatments are non-existent on the western half of the corridor toward Peabody Square with no street trees, private landscaping, and open curb cuts. Wallis Street. Wallis is an important access street that connects Main Street with Walnut Street. The right-of-way is approximately 44 feet wide and the typical cross section includes two 14-foot travel lanes and 8-foot concrete sidewalks on both sides. Informal on-street parking is permitted in front of the Post Office. On the southern end toward Main Street and the Peabody Institute Library, the streetscape is enhanced with a planting strip on the east side behind the library with series of healthy and mature Pin Oaks. Two street trees in sidewalk tree pits on the west side are fairly healthy although the pits take up most of the sidewalk and need to be cleaned out (poorly maintain street trees and tree pits is a common occurrence throughout the Downtown Study Area). The northern half of the corridor toward Walnut Street has limited streetscape with three tree pits containing a healthy tree, a dead tree, and no tree. Caller Street. This access street provides a direct connection between Main Street and Walnut for a number of residential properties on the south side and larger industrial properties on the northern half of the corridor. The right-of way is approximately 40 feet with the typical two 12-foot travel lanes and 8-foot concrete sidewalks on both sides. Unmarked and informal on-street parking is permitted on the east side of the street throughout the corridor. There are no street trees or other public streetscape enhancements on Caller Street. There are a few areas where private landscaping abuts the corridor but in very limited areas. Howley Street. This access street provides a direct connection between Main Street and Walnut on the east side of the Downtown Study Area. The corridor serves large and relatively new developments on the southern half toward Main Street including CVS Pharmacy, Stop & Shop, and Azorean Function Hall. It also provides access to Main Street for industrial properties on Walnut Street and neighborhood residents to the north. The right-of-way is approximately 50 feet with a typical cross section of two 16-foot travel lanes, a 9-foot concrete sidewalk on the east side, and a 9-foot asphalt sidewalk on the west side. Overhead power lines are located along the eastern edge of the right-of-way. There are no street trees or other public streetscape enhancements on Howley Street although in front of Stop & Shop and CVS there are well-maintain planting strips on the outside edge of the sidewalk with healthy street

29


trees. Other frontages along the corridor do not have landscaping. The most stark example is the Azorean Function Hall (Holy Ghost Society Cultural Center), which is built at the sidewalk, with no street trees or landscaping and a building devoid of doorways, fenestration and articulation along the frontage.

3. Traffic and Mobility Analysis A substantial amount of traffic volume moves through the Downtown Study Area on a daily basis. Given that Main Street is a primary access route between Routes 1 and 128 for residents on the east side of the City as well as nearby communities including Salem and Marblehead, this corridor received the largest share of the traffic. The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) maintains five permanent traffic counters in the Downtown Study Area that periodically provide average daily traffic (ADT) volumes. ADT data are available for these locations from 2001 and 2008. The more recent counts (2008) show that Lowell Street east of Route 128 had an ADT of 28,300. According to 2001 data, Wallis Street east of Walnut Street had an ADT of 3,200, while Howley Street east of Main Street had an ADT of 8,200, and Caller Street east of Walnut Street had an ADT of 4,900. It is not expected that these traffic volumes would have changed substantially over the past twelve years.

Table 2.4. Average Daily Traffic at MassDOT Permanent Counter Stations Station Route/Street Location 2001 2008

S004 Caller St. East of Walnut St. 4,900

S003 Howley St. East of Main St. 8,200

S006 Lowell St. East of Rte.1 32,400

S031 Lowell St. East of Rte.128 28,300

S005 Wallis St. East of Walnut St. 3,200

Source: MassDOT.

A traffic survey from May 2013 reported the ADT on Main Street at about 27,000 vehicles per day. In the morning peak hour (8:00 am – 9:00 am), Main Street had 949 vehicles in the eastbound direction toward Salem and 840 vehicles in the westbound direction toward Route 128. During the evening peak hour (6:00 pm – 7:00 pm eastbound and 5:00 pm – 6:00 pm westbound), there were 1,053 vehicles in the eastbound direction and 864 in the westbound direction. These volumes were collected on a Tuesday and Wednesday in May, which is generally ideal for collecting traffic data because schools are in session and the weather is generally mild. Average daily traffic counts on Main Street were collected for this plan on Tuesday, October 1, 2013 and Thursday October 3, 2013 at two locations on Main Street: between Park Street and Little’s Lane, and beween Pierpont Street and Holton Street. Table 2.5 shows that on average, there were 22,761 vehicles with 11,646 in the eastbound direction and 11,115 in the westbound direction.

30


Table 2.5. Average Daily Traffic on Main Street, October 2013 Location Direction Total

ADT EB WB

Main Street between Park St. and Little's Ln.

Tuesday, Oct 1 10,909 11,298 22,207

Thursday, Oct. 3 11,614 11,085 22,699

Average 11,700 11,003 22,703

Main Street between Pierpont St. and Holton St.

Tuesday, Oct 1 11,785 10,922 22,707

Thursday, Oct. 3 11,507 11,308 22,815

Average

Average 11,646 11,115 22,761

Source: Howard/Stein-Hudson, Inc.

At these two Main Street locations, automatic traffic recorder counts (ATRs) indicated that the peak hour of morning traffic was 7:30 am - 8:30 am on Tuesday and 6:15 am - 7:15 am on Thursday, and the evening peak hour was 4:45 pm - 5:45 pm both days. The Thursday evening peak hour volumes were about 5 percent lower than the Tuesday volumes for the same time period, while the Tuesday morning volumes were 3 percent lower than the same time period on Thursday. This change may be attributed to different social habits on Tuesdays compared to Thursdays, when people are more likely to go out after work.

KEY INTERSECT ION TRAFFIC ANALYS IS At the City’s direction, ATRs were also gathered on October 1, 2013 and October 3, 2013 at three intersections:

Peabody Square (Lowell/Main/Central/Foster/Mill);

Walnut Street/Wallis Street; and

Walnut Street/Howley Street.

The combined peak hour volumes for the three intersections were 7:30 am – 8:30 am and 4:30 pm – 5:30 pm, which correlates to the peak hours collected on Tuesday on Main Street. Peabody Square. At Peabody Square, the heaviest movements (aside from through movements) included right turns from Central southbound onto Lowell Street westbound (312 AM peak and 315 PM peak) and left turns from Central Street onto Main Street (214 AM peak and 237 PM peak). There was also a heavy turning volume from Lowell Street eastbound onto Central Street northbound (171 AM peak, 150 PM peak) and from Main Street westbound onto Central Street northbound (226 AM peak, 208 PM peak). Central Street southbound and Main Street westbound, which have heavy right-turning volume, both have right-turn slip lanes that avoid the signal entirely.

31


Pedestrian crossing activity was minimal at the Peabody Square intersection. Only about sixty pedestrians crossed any of the roadways during the evening peak hour. Most of these pedestrians (twenty-six) were crossing Mill Street (which is not part of the signalized intersection) or Main Street (thirteen). Even less activity was recorded in the morning peak. A very small number of bicycles (three total) were counted in the morning peak and but none in the evening peak hour. Walnut Street/Wallis Street. At the Walnut Street/Wallis Street intersection, the heaviest movements observed were through movements on Walnut Street. Overall, Wallis Street volumes were minor; the heaviest movements were the right- and left-turns from Wallis Street southbound onto Walnut Street. Walnut Street/Howley Street. At Walnut Street/Howley Street, there were heavy right turns from Walnut Street eastbound onto Howley Street southbound (172 AM peak hour, 223 PM peak hour) and heavy left turns from Howley Street northbound onto Walnut westbound (161 AM peak hour, 270 PM peak hour). Through movements on Walnut Street were much higher during the evening peak hour than the morning peak (for example, Walnut Street westbound had 220 through vehicles in the AM peak hour, but 364 in the PM peak hour).

4. Safety Analysis MassDOT publishes three-year vehicle crash data for cities and towns. The data help to identify dangerous intersections and roadway segments. The most recent data for Peabody (2008-2010) identify a total of 133 accidents in the Downtown Study Area. Ninety-four were “property damage only” crashes and thirty-nine accidents involved non-fatal injuries. There were no reported accidents involving pedestrians or bicyclists. Table 2.6 summarizes the location of crashes in the Downtown Study Area between 2008 and 2010.

Table 2.6. Downtown Study Area Vehicle Crashes (2008-2010) Location Total

Number Property Damage Only

Non-Fatal Injury

Fatal Accident

Pedestrian Involved

Bicyclist Involved

2010

Main Street 21 16 5 0

Main Street/Central Street 1 1 0 0 0 0

Central Street 1 1 0 0 0 0

Walnut Street 4 2 2 0 0 0

Caller Street 1 1 0 0 0 0

Total 28 21 7 0 0 0

2009

Main Street 34 24 10 0 0 0


Walnut Street/Central Street 7 6 1 0 0 0


32


Table 2.6. Downtown Study Area Vehicle Crashes (2008-2010) Location Total

Number Property Damage Only

Non-Fatal Injury

Fatal Accident

Pedestrian Involved

Bicyclist Involved

Total 46 35 11 0 0 0

2008

Main Street 47 31 16 0 0 0


Walnut Street/Central Street 3 2 1 0 0 0

Howley Street 2 1 1 0 0 0


Total 59 38 21 0 0 0

TOTAL 2008-2010 133 94 39 0 0 0

Source: MassDOT.

While the data indicate a fairly highly number of accidents, they tend to be low-impact accidents. This may be a result of high traffic volumes and periodic congestion, which tends to reduce vehicle speeds and the severity of crashes. Slower speeds also provide safer conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists because drivers have more time to react to potential accidents.

5. Transit Services Four MBTA bus lines pass through and service the Downtown Study Area, as shown in Fig. 2.19. These routes include bus stops at either Peabody Square or Main Street. They provide regular service to the Liberty Tree and North Shore Malls as well as surrounding communities including Salem, Danvers, and Lynn.

Table 2.7 MBTA Bus Transit Service in Downtown Study Area

Route Connections Weekday

Inbound Outbound

434/435/436 Liberty Tree Mall - N. Shore Mall - Main St Peabody - Central Park - Goodwins Cr - Central Sq - Neptune Tower

17 17

465 Danvers Sq - Liberty Tree Mall - N. Shore Mall - Peabody Square - Salem Depot

11 10

Source: MBTA.

MBTA commuter rail service is available two miles from Peabody Square in Salem at 252 Bridge Street, which is also connected the Downtown Study Area by MBTA bus service (Route 465). The Salem MBTA Station provides service to North Station in Boston with twenty-nine weekday inbound trips and thirty weekday outbound trips. In 2013, the City of Salem constructed station improvements and a parking garage to increase capacity. Salem Station is in the MBTA’s Zone 3. Under the current fare schedule, a one-way trip costs $8.00 ($3.75 for seniors and disabled), and there is a daily parking fee as well.

33


6. Planned and Programs Transportation Improvements The Main Street Re-Alignment project is the largest and most recent transportation project in the Downtown Study Area, completed in the fall of 2013. The City used local funds to leverage a $1.5 million MassWorks grant and made significant traffic calming improvements to the corridor. These improvements include the reduction of travel lanes from four lanes to three lanes with a center turn lanes, new sidewalks, street trees, crosswalks, and curb extensions. The Howley Street bridge replacement over the North River is a planned capital transportation project in the Downtown Study Area. This project is currently being designed and construction is expected to start in the Winter of 2013/2014.

D. PARKING DISTRIBUTION AND PATTERNS The amount, distribution, and availability of public and private parking (and the perception of adequate parking) is critical to the vitality of Downtown Peabody. As part of the placemaking audit, the RKG Team evaluated the public and private parking supply in the Downtown Study Area in terms of capacity, distribution, location, access, and location. Using input from City officials, the Advisory Committee, and public workshops, the evaluation also considered parking needs for potential long-term development scenarios as well as the public’s perception of parking in the district.

Fig. 2.19

34


1. Ratio of Parking to Building Space The parking inventory in Appendix C (Volume 2) identifies the number of parking spaces (public and private) by block in the Main Street-Peabody Square Subdistrict compared with the estimated amount of gross and usable building space. For a traditional mid-sized downtown district such as Peabody, the ratio of parking spaces to building floor space should be in the range of one space per 400 to 450 sq. ft. This takes into consideration that parking demands are somewhat reduced in downtowns due to the availability of public transportation, linked trips (people who park in one location and utilized several services), variation in peak hour demands between different types of business (e.g., a bank has different operating hours than a pub), and the number of residents who can walk or bike to downtown from nearby neighborhoods. In the Main Street-Peabody Square Subdistrict, there is approximately one parking space per 570 square feet of gross floor area and one parking space per 330 sq. ft. of rentable building space.

2. Parking Supply and Distribution Diverse and well-distributed parking, including public and private, on- and off-street, surface and structured (where applicable) parking is critical to the success of traditional downtown central business districts. Based on information from the City, aerial photography, and on-site observations, there are approximately 1,482 parking spaces in the Main Street-Peabody Square Subdistrict (Appendix C). Of this total, about 1,107 are privately owned and operated parking spaces. These parking spaces are well distributed throughout the Subdistrict with the largest number of spaces occurring in Blocks 1, 7, and 10. For purpose of analysis, the Main Street-Peabody Square blocks (blocks 1-11, 16, and 17) were used to determine where parking capacity and demands may need to be addressed in the future. Appendix C shows the parking distribution by block. Overall, parking is adequately distributed throughout the Main Street-Peabody Square Subdistrict, although there are four blocks where the parking per usable building space exceeds the 1:400 ratio: blocks 2, 3, 4, and 8. Blocks 2, 3, and 4, between Peabody Square and Wallis Street, are the oldest and highest density areas of Main Street. In this area, the buildings predate the automobile (except Walgreens), so space for off-street parking is limited and parking lots are generally small. This block contains three large buildings and limited area for surface parking.

3. Public Parking Facilities and Usage Public parking in the Downtown Study Area, both on-street and off-street, is generally adequate and well distributed (Fig. 2.20). While there may be some perceptions that public parking spaces are hard to find at certain times of day, the overall ratio of parking to building square footage is still reasonable and on target for a medium sized downtown such as Peabody. Table 2.8 reports the inventory of public parking spaces, including the number of meters, non-metered, and handicapped spaces.

35


ON-STREET PARKING Public on-street public parking is officially designated in the Downtown Study Area along the following corridors:

Main Street - both sides

Rail Road Avenue – both sides

Lowell Street – both sides

Foster Street west side

Central Avenue – east side

Caller Street – east side

Wallis Street – both sides in front of Post Office

Park Street – west side

Washington Street – west side

Holton Street – west side

Fig. 2.20

36


Table 2.8. Public Off-Street Parking Lots and Primary On-Street Parking Spaces Block Location Metered

Spaces Non-Metered Spaces

Handicap Spaces

Total Parking Spaces

1 Foster Street Lot 28 24 3 55

3 Nichol's Lan Lot 20 12 2 34

5 Willis St - Library Lot 17 2 19

15 Mill Street - Post Office Lot 55 2 57

16 Central Street Lot 7 12 2 21

16 Rail Road Ave - On Street 41 41

2 thru 10 Main Street - On-Street 80

Total 72 144 11 307

Source: City of Peabody.

On-street parking along Walnut Street, Caller Street, and Wallis Street is partially striped and partially informal. All other on-street parking is striped and well defined. There are about 190 marked on-street parking spaces in the Downtown Study Area, with 137 on primary streets and fifty-three on secondary streets. (Fig. 2.21) The only metered on-street parking is located along Main Street, including a total of 80 spaces between Peabody Square and Pierpont Street. While Main Street spaces are well marked, metered, and short-term (intended to be customer oriented and turn over several times per day), several of the side streets provide an opportunity to accommodate longer-term parking. These areas would serve long-term parking demands more efficiently if they were striped, signed, and permitted. PUBL IC OFF-STREET PARKING There are an estimated 186 public off-street parking spaces in the Downtown Study Area in five different locations that include lots on Foster Street, Nichol’s Lane, Mill Street, and Central Street, and at the Library. All of these lots are located in the Main Street-Peabody Square Subdistrict and are operated by the City primarily in support of downtown businesses. Parking time limits in the five municipal lots range from two hours to all day. The Mill Street and Nichol’s Lane parking lots serve as the primary public off-street parking facility for the core area along Main Street. These facilities are located in Blocks 2 and 3 where the ratio of parking spaces to usable building space has been determined to be lower than desirable for the Main Street-Peabody Square Subdistrict. (Fig. 2.22) PARKING USAGE Peak hour occupancy of public parking facilities was evaluated in 2010 and 2012. These occupancy/availability studies were conducted on all five of the City’s off-street parking facilities as well as the key on-street parking spaces along Main Street and Railroad Avenue during the morning, midday, afternoon, and evening on a weekday and a weekend afternoon

37


and evening. The results of the 2012 occupancy survey are summarized in Table 2.9. (See also, Figs. 2.23-2.27)

Table 2.9. Downtown Public Parking Average Occupancy and Permits, 2012 Location Total Metered Non-

Metered Permit Sticker

User

Ave. Overall Occupancy

% Permit

User

Central Street Parking Lot 21 7 12 5 17% 24%

Foster Street Parking Lot 55 28 24 10 30% 18%

Nichol's Lane Parking Lot 34 20 12 6 3% 18%

Wallis St - Library Lot 19 17 0 2 35% 11%

Mill St - Post Office Lot 57 0 55 27 23% 47%

Main Street On-Street Spaces 80 80 0 0 60% 0%

Railroad Ave On-Street Spaces 41 0 41 4 16% 10%

Source: City of Peabody.

Fig. 2.22.

38


Fig. 2.23 and Fig. 2.24

39


Fig. 2.25 and Fig. 2.26

40


Overall, the occupancy study indicated good availability of all off-street and on-street parking facilities during all times on weekdays and weekends. The peak usage of on-street spaces along Main Street was 68 percent from 11:00 am – 1:00 pm on weekdays and 71 percent on weekends from 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm. Railroad Avenue had good availability throughout the week, with peak usage of 35 percent on weekdays between 9:00 am and 11:00 am. All off-street public parking facilities had good availability during all times on weekday and weekend. The Central Street parking lot had a maximum usage of 31 percent during weekdays from 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm. The Foster Street lot had a maximum usage of 41 percent during weekday evenings from 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm. This is probably attributable to meetings at City Hall and usage by the two restaurants across the street. Nichol’s Lane had very low occupancy, with a maximum of 9 percent on weekdays between 1:00 pm and 5:00 pm. This was surprising because the lot is located in Block 3, which has an overall low ratio of parking spaces to building space. The Mill Street lot had the highest overall usage, with peak occupancy occurring on weekdays between 1:00 pm and 5:00 pm. The Library Lot on Wallis Street had the highest usage during weekday and weekend evenings (58 and 68 percent occupancy, respectively).

Fig.2.27

41


PARKING T IME L IM ITS AND ENFORCEMENT Parking time limits and enforcement in a traditional downtown district should recognize the need to provide convenience and access to both short-term customers and long-term employees. Time limits for metered spaces on Peabody’s Main Street as well as metered and permitted spaces in the public off-street parking lots recognize this important distinction. The 2012 parking occupancy study demonstrated relatively low occupancy by sticker permit holders (typically held by long-term parkers such as downtown employees). The highest average percentage of permit usage was 47 percent in the Mill Street parking lot. The Foster Street and Nichol’s Lane parking had only eighteen percent average use by sticker holders.

4. Practical Capacity Practical capacity is the practical limit of available parking spaces at any one given time. It recognizes that it is impractical to think that every parking space within the Downtown Study Area will be occupied at all times, primarily due to time spent maneuvering into spaces. The practical capacity of curbside parking is generally achieved at an occupancy rate of 85 percent. According to the recent occupancy surveys, the practical capacity in the Downtown Study Area is never reached even at the weekday peak hour of 1:00 pm. Appendix D (Volume 2) reports the highest occupancy rate in the Main Street-Peabody Square Subdistrict for off-street and on-street parking.

5. Parking Placement and Access Parking placement and access are key contributors to the pedestrian environment and walkability. A higher number of curb cuts over the sidewalk and the separation of the sidewalk and buildings by parking lots significantly diminishes the pedestrian experience and visibility of storefronts by pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. Parking placement in the Main Street-Peabody Square Subdistrict is generally placed to the side or rear of the primary building. The number of curb cuts directly onto primary streets such as Main Street is also minimal. However, there are several areas where shared access to parking facilities as well as internal access and connectivity between parking areas can be improved. Specifically, internal connectivity and coordination of the private parking lots on the south side of Mill Street in Block 3 would yield more parking and improve circulation and safety. Additionally, there are opportunities to improve access between the public sidewalks and the parking area. On the west side of Main Street between Peabody Square and Washington Street there are several side alleys and pedestrian passages between building that lead to parking areas to the rear. However, several of these passages are currently closed off to pedestrians. On the east end of Main Street, there are several buildings set back from the street with no pedestrian access from the sidewalk, e.g. Tedeschi’s Convenience Store, Main Street Plaza, McDonalds, and CVS Pharmacy.

E. ZONING The City of Peabody substantially overhauled and updated its Zoning Ordinance in 2011. Under the present code, the City is divided into twenty-one districts. A majority of the land in the Downtown Study Area falls within Peabody’s Central Business (BC) District, and some

42


of the area is in the General Business Downtown (GBD) District. Smaller amounts are in the Light Industry and Single- and Two-Family Districts. Significant portions of the study area also fall within the Flood Plain/Wetlands District, an overlay district that covers land in the federally designated 100-year flood plain. Table 2.10 summarizes the dimensional requirements that apply in the Downtown Study Area.

Table 2.10 Zoning Density and Dimensional Regulations (2013) Maximum Districts in the Study Area

Minimum Lot Dimensions

Minimum Yard Depths

Height (ft.)

Lot Coverage

(%)

FAR Minimum Buildable Area

Area (s.f.)

Frontage (ft.)

Front (ft.)(a)

Side (ft.)

Rear (ft.)

(ft.) (%) Depth (m) (ft.)

Height (ft.)

R-2

Single-Family 5,000 50 15 10 35 30 35% 0.7 25 35

Two-Family 7,500 50 15 10 35 30 35% 1.0 25 35

Central Business (BC)

none none 0 0 10 4 stories or 50 feet

none 3.7 -- --

Gen. Bus. Downtown (GBD)

none none 0 0 10 3 floors/ 36 ft

none 3.7 -- --

Light Industry (IL)

none none 50(b) 40 30 40 35% 1.0 -- --

Source: City of Peabody Zoning Ordinance (2013) Footnotes to Schedule: (a) In the case of a corner lot, any yard parallel to a street shall be considered a front yard. (b) In B-H, B-N, G-B, I-L and I-P Districts, the depth of the front yard shall be measured from the property line. (m) At no point between the frontage line and principal structure shall the lot be narrower than seventy-five (75) per cent of the required lot frontage.

Appendix E (Volume 2) summarizes the distribution of study area land by zoning district and compares existing conditions with zoning requirements. In general, Peabody’s current zoning requirements do not appear to discourage redevelopment, but they also do not encourage new investment. The City’s code imposes site design standards on development in the BC and GBD districts, and for the most part the standards make sense for an older central business district. The City also waives parking requirements for nonresidential development in the downtown area. However, much of what is allowed in the downtown area requires a special permit from the City Council. In addition, many factors the City should regulate – e.g., form regulations that would make new development on vacant sites or teardown-rebuild lots fit with the established building patterns on Main Street – are not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance.

43


F. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

1. Contaminated Sites As an old industrial center, the Downtown Study Area contains several brownfields: properties that may be difficult to redevelop due to the presence (known or potential) of hazardous materials or pollutants. According to a study recently completed for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the City of Peabody, and the City of Salem under an EPA Brownfields Coalition Grant, the Downtown Study Area includes approximately thirty properties with known chemical contaminants. Many of Peabody's brownfield sites exist along Walnut Street, which runs through the North River corridor and lies almost entirely within the 100-year flood plain. Some were former leather tanneries that are now abandoned lots, but others are businesses and homes that could have experienced some contamination after the tanneries closed.

Table 2.11. Downtown Study Area Brownfields Inventory Parcel ID Street

Address Parcel Area

Owner or Site Name Zoning Land Use Code

AUL or Tier Site

Flood Plain

085-037 45 Walnut Street

1.30 City of Peabody* GBD NR Tier II Yes

085-041A 13 Wallis Street

1.68 Dimambro Aflred Jr Trustee

IL 350 No Yes

085-042 0 Mill St 0.65 Commonwealth Of Massachusetts

BC 929 No Yes

085-057 0.28 City of Peabody BC NR Yes

085-060 4 Mill St 0.22 Antonio A Delauri BC 112 No Yes

085-072 0.91 City of Peabody GBD NR No

085-162 0.04 City of Peabody BC NR Yes

085-162A 0.02 City of Peabody BC NR Yes

085-169 0.14 City of Peabody BC NR No

085-176 55 Foster St 0.32 John Leo Et Al. BC 325 No Yes

085-176A 43 Foster St 0.10 Vasilos Houvardas And Basil Simou

BC 325 No Yes

085-177 37 Foster St 0.51 N Lagonakis And C Linardos

BC 341 Yes Yes

085-181 0 Foster St 0.69 City of Peabody BC 930 No No

085-37 0.00 Not Reported NR

085-72A 17 Wallis St 0.00 Regency Realty Trust N.A NR No Yes

086-130X 9 Howley Street Rear

3.82 Peabody Ra Llc IL 324 Yes Yes

086-133 9 Howley St 0.00 Not Available N/A NR Yes No (close)

086-140X 65 Walnut St 2.76 119 R Foster Street Llc IL 400 Yes No

086-142 24 Rear Caller Street

0.39 Boston Chimney & Tower Co Inc.

IL 400 No No (close)

086-142A 24 Caller Street

0.98 Clark Steel Drum Co Inc. IL 400 Yes No (close)

44


Table 2.11. Downtown Study Area Brownfields Inventory Parcel ID Street

Address Parcel Area

Owner or Site Name Zoning Land Use Code

AUL or Tier Site

Flood Plain

086-142B 0 Caller Street 0.70 Michael Markos IL 400 No Yes

086-150 18 Howley Street

2.99 Azorean Brotherhood of Divine Holy Ghost

BC 962 No No (close)

086-150A 166 Rear Main Street

0.70 Riverwalk Place LLC BC 440 Yes Tier 1B

Part

086-150B 166 Main Street

0.56 Jeffery Krugman Trustee BC 390 Yes Yes

086-151X 21 Caller Street

1.14 Robert Sr. & Susan Bagerella

B-C NR No Yes

086-160 174 Main St 1.00 Jerome Sousa BC 324 Yes Yes

086-162 20 Howley Street

0.89 Azorean Brotherhood of Divine Holy Ghost

BC 962 Yes No (close)

086-600-647

75 Walnut St 0.00 Upton Manor Condominium

NA 997 Yes No

40 Hardy St Not Reported NR Yes Yes

085-900-979

8 Walnut St 1.53 Masino Leather BC NR Yes Tier II

Yes

Source: Inventory data provided by Weston & Sampson, Inc. Not all data fields are available for all locations. *Public park partially funded with brownfields grant from MassDevelopment.

2. Flood Plain Over half the Downtown Study Area is located in the 100-year flood plain, which is delineated on flood hazard maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Several storms have produced severe flooding in the downtown area since the 1950s, most recently in October 1996, June 1998, April 2004, May 2006, March 2010, and October 2011. The 1996, 2004, 2010, and 2011 storms were serious enough to trigger federal disaster declarations. According to engineering studies, the flooding occurs because two culverts that carry storm water from the Goldwaithe and Proctor Brooks converge into single main culvert that ultimately discharges to the North River, the main drainage course through Peabody. The single culvert is undersized and aging, it and does not have capacity to carry the amount of water generated by two culverts during a major storm, which in turn causes storm water to back up in Peabody Square.5 The City, downtown property owners, and downtown businesses have spent a considerable amount on general recovery costs, building and infrastructure repairs, and cleanup, and the businesses also lost income when access to the business district was curtailed by flooding in Peabody Square. The recurrence of flooding problems and the adverse impact both on the City and private property owners led to a grant application to FEMA for pre-disaster mitigation funds. At the City’s request in 2011, RKG prepared a cost-benefit analysis of a then-proposed solution known as the Goldwaithe Brook Flood Mitigation Project. Under that plan, new

5 Jeffrey Reidenauer, PhD, URS Group, Inc., for the City of Peabody to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (September 18, 2008).

45


culverts would have been constructed to bypass the existing drainage system for approximately 1,950 feet and transmit water directly to the North River. The Goldwaithe Brook project was actually one phase of a larger three-part flood mitigation project. As designed, it would have eliminated flooding under a 25-year, 24-hour storm event and significantly reduced flooding during a 50-year, 24-hour storm event. Based on its research for the cost-benefit analysis, RKG reported several findings about the Goldwaithe Brook Flood Mitigation Project: Insurance and banking professionals interviewed for the study said that both the flooding

and the threat of future flooding had likely caused a lack of investment in the Downtown Study Area, either by new business ventures or reinvestment by existing business ventures.

Responding to a survey about the impact of the October 2011 flood, local businesses estimated physical damage that ranged from $3,000 to $10,000 in repair costs, $20 to $5,000 in cleanup costs, $500 to $5,000 in damaged inventory and equipment, loss of sales revenues of about $3,500, and $500 to $900 in lost wages.

Eighty percent of the businesses responding to the survey flood said they did not expect to recover any of their costs through insurance settlements.

More than half of respondents said that they had delayed improvements to their property due to concerns of future flooding and subsequent damage.

Together, the four major flood events in 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2006 generated an estimated $29 million in losses.

Following further review and due to concerns about the capital costs involved, the City decided to forego the Goldwaithe Brook Flood Mitigation Project and is currently evaluating other options. Absent a significant commitment to flood mitigation in the Downtown Study Area, the City will need to allow more residential redevelopment along Walnut Street and downtown side streets in the flood plain. There is little incentive for business enterprises to invest in real estate in a flood plain given the risk of lost assets and income. .

46

Market Analysis / 47

3. MARKET ANALYSIS The City asked RKG to analyze market conditions in the Downtown Study Area in order to understand what the demand may be for commercial, industrial, or residential space and assess the health and well-being of existing businesses. Accordingly, this chapter presents a snapshot of Peabody demographics and economic indicators, and also provides anecdotal information about downtown’s prospects from the perspective of business owners, commercial property owners, and residents.

A. KEY FINDINGS Peabody is the fourth largest city in Essex County, but twenty-ninth lowest in the county

for per capita income, median household income, and median family income.

Peabody had relatively strong population growth between 1970 and 2000, but its near-term growth projections are low.

Compared with neighboring Beverly, Salem, Danvers, and Lynn:

o Peabody has the largest percentage of residents 65 years and over (by nearly 10 percentage points), and the third smallest percentage of people below 18 years.

o Peabody has slightly fewer people in the labor force, which is consistent with its larger elderly population.

o Peabody has the second lowest college graduation rate, 39.4 percent. This is also lower than average for Essex County and the state.

o Household sizes are smaller in Peabody. Renter households are the smallest (1.98 people per household), and homeowner households are the second smallest (2.64 people per household).

o Peabody has the third highest median housing values (behind Danvers and Beverly but ahead of Lynn and Salem). Still, Peabody’s housing values are lower than those of Essex County as the state as a whole.

o Peabody’s unemployment rate has hovered at approximately 6.4 percent: a higher rate than in Beverly and Danvers, lower than in Salem and Lynn.

o Average weekly wages are the second lowest in Peabody (trailing Salem).

Most people who live in Peabody also work in Peabody, Boston, or one of the neighboring cities and towns. The same is true for most people who work in Peabody, too.

Most Peabody residents in the labor force are private wage workers; the rest are predominantly employees of local, state, or federal government. In addition, most have jobs in the following industries: retail trade, educational, health care, or social assistance, and professional/technical services.

47


Incomes vary significantly by neighborhood in Peabody. Essex County Census Tracts 2107 and 2108 are the poorest areas in the City. Census Tract 2108 contains the Downtown Study Area and forms the basis for this plan’s demographic analysis.

English, Portuguese, Spanish, and Greek are the most frequently spoken languages in Peabody. Nearly 7,000 Peabody residents are foreign born, with 41.2 percent from Europe (Greek, Italian, and Polish are common), and 38.9 percent from Latin America (Spanish and Portuguese).

The total number of housing units grew by 12.9 percent between 2000 & 2010, mainly in Census Tract 2103. However, the vacancy rate increased from 1.7 percent to 3.7 percent.

Housing values vary widely throughout Peabody. According to the most recent estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS 2007-2011), Census Tract 2101 had the highest values at $399,000, and Census Tract 2108, the lowest at $299,000. Rents are highest in Tract 2103 and lowest in Tract 2106.

Peabody is 165 units shy of meeting the 10 percent affordable housing minimum under Chapter 40B, the comprehensive permit law. The number of homeowners spending large shares of their monthly income on housing costs – people with housing cost burdens – decreased in every census tract between 2000 and 2011, but the number of cost burdened renters increased in every census tract except for Tract 2102.

Peabody attracted significant investment in new apartment development prior to the recession. Construction has been relatively flat since then.

In terms of economic base trends in Peabody, between 2007 and 2011:

o The food service, leisure and hospitality, wholesale trade, and personal services sectors experienced the most growth in establishments in Peabody.

o The largest increases in average monthly employment occurred in the health care and social assistance, transportation and warehousing, and management of companies and enterprises industries. The largest losses occurred in manufacturing, wholesale trade, finance, and information.

Peabody has the lowest residential tax rate and the second lowest commercial/industrial/personal property tax rates of the comp geos.

B. DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS Peabody’s population increased by nearly 7 percent between 2000 and 2010, more than twice the rate of growth for Essex County or the state as a whole (see Table 3.1). The projected population increases for 2017 are similar for all three geographies, although the rate of growth in Peabody may still exceeds that for the county or state. Peabody also experienced greater racial and ethnic diversification from 2000 to 2010 compared with Essex County or the state.

48


Table 3.1. Population and Household Growth Decennial Census Estimate Projection Percent Change

2000 2010 2012 2017 2000-2010 2012-2017

City of Peabody

Total Population 48,036 51,251 51,781 53,236 6.7% 2.8%

Total Households 18,628 21,313 21,580 22,720 14.4% 5.3%

Essex County

Total Population 722,421 743,159 753,237 762,850 2.9% 1.3%

Total Households 274,904 285,956 290,576 296,749 4.0% 2.1%

Massachusetts

Total Population 6,345,784 6,547,629 6,621,621 6,712,742 3.2% 1.4%

Total Households 2,441,906 2,547,075 2,581,361 2,635,320 4.3% 2.1%

Source: Demographics NOW and RKG Associates, Inc.

Median household income and per capita income for Peabody are generally on par with Essex County and Massachusetts. Despite similar percentage gains in average household income for Peabody, Essex County, and the state (see Table 3.2), average household income in Peabody remains around 90 percent of the state average. The number of households earning more than $50,000 in Peabody increased between 2000 and 2010 and is projected to continue to increase, while the number of households earning less than $50,000 has decreased and is projected to continue to decrease. By contrast, the number of households with very low incomes, earning less than $15,000 annually, increased nearly 7 percent between 2000 and 2010. Nevertheless, for median and per capita income measures, available projections indicate that Peabody’s households will experience more rapid income growth than their counterparts in the county or state by 2017.

Table 3.2. Household and Per Capita Income Census Estimate Projection Percent Change

2000 2010 2012 2017 2000-2010 2012-2017

City of Peabody

Average Hhld Income $63,987 $81,976 $85,957 $95,049 28.1% 10.6%

Median Hhld Income $55,192 $64,322 $68,339 $76,353 16.5% 11.7%

Per Capita Income $24,814 $34,218 $35,950 $40,688 37.9% 13.2%

Essex County




Massachusetts




Source: Demographics NOW and RKG Associates, Inc.

49


C. ECONOMIC INDICATORS This section presents an overview of key economic indicators including changes in the Peabody’s labor force and the types of businesses and jobs located in the City, by industry sector. Employment levels by sector are projected for 2020, which is used to estimate the demand for new development, as is an overall comparison of the Peabody economy to that of Essex County. These are city-wide statistics, not limited to the Downtown Study Area.

1. Labor Force and Unemployment

A community’s labor force includes all residents 16 years of age and older, employed or looking for work. From May 2012 through May 2013, Peabody’s average monthly labor force was 27,920, with minimal fluctuations (Fig. 3.1). The unemployment rate in Peabody has been consistently below that of the county and state, averaging 6.3 percent per month between May 2012 and May 2013. In comparison, over the same period the average unemployment rate for Essex County was 7.0 percent, while the average rate for the state was 6.7 percent (Fig. 3.2).

50


2. Establishments As shown in Table 3.3, Peabody gained thirty-one businesses between 2002 and 2012 for a 2.1 percent growth rate. Most of the business growth occurred in accommodations and food services, health care, and personal services, while the number of businesses in sectors such as manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail, and professional/technical services declines. Essex County experienced a higher rate of business growth during the same ten-year period: a 9 percent increase, to nearly 1,800 establishments. Many of the same industry sectors that decreased in Peabody also decreased at the county level.

3. Employment Despite the growth in total business establishments, employment in Peabody decreased by 10 percent, or nearly 2,700 jobs, from 26,360 in 2002 to 23,683 in 2012. However, Essex County’s employment base grew by 2.6 percent, for an increase of about 7,400 jobs, and Essex County also gained employment in sectors that lost jobs in Peabody, e.g., the finance and insurance and real estate sectors. It is important to note that in most cases, the sectors that experienced employment growth in Peabody between 2002 and 2012 provide jobs with relatively low wages. Moreover, due to shifts that occurred within the employment base, Peabody’s average weekly wage in 2012 was slightly lower than that of 2008. The City not only lost jobs, but also higher-paying jobs.

Table 3.3. Change in Employer Establishments by Industry Sector, 2002-2012 2002 2005 2008 2010 2012

Total Establishments, All Industries1 1,464 1,519 1,486 1,488 1495

Construction 141 161 171 149 146

Manufacturing 109 104 88 83 74

Wholesale Trade 84 75 79 86 80

Retail Trade 265 274 261 259 259

Transportation and Warehousing 42 45 41 49 43

Information 22 23 28 26 23

Finance and Insurance 70 76 66 67 64

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 44 44 39 38 35

Professional and Technical Services 147 150 133 127 136

Management of Companies and Enterprises 5 9 9 10 10

Administrative and Waste Services 87 77 84 82 82

Health Care and Social Assistance 136 140 137 136 145

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 11 12 11 8 12

Accommodation and Food Services 113 117 119 122 132

Other Services, e.g., Personal Services 167 189 191 214 224

Source: EOLWD and RKG Associates, Inc. Note: 1The number shown for “Total, All Industries” is greater than the sum of establishments reported in each sector. This is probably because one or more sectors include some establishments that are too small to be reported and are therefore classified as “confidential.” 2Industry sectors defined in Appendix F (Volume 2)

51


EMPLOYMENT PROJECT IONS AND SPACE NEEDS The Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development (EOLWD) develops estimates of employment change by industry sector for the state. Using these projections as a starting point, RKG estimates that Peabody’s employment base will include 26,500 jobs in 2020: a 12.6 percent increase over 2010, yet very similar to the size of the 2002 employment base. To determine potential demand for additional floor space for selected industries, RKG converted the employment projections to space demands by using industry standard estimates of square feet (sq. ft.) of floor space per employee. Realistically, however, not all of the projected growth in employment would result in demand for new or additional space, as some demand could be met by the existing vacancies in the market or occur at existing businesses. Table 3.4 presents a range of the estimated “capture” potential for new office and commercial development in Peabody over the next several years. This analysis considers the potential that new commercial development (non-retail, non-industrial) in Peabody could capture between 5 and 15 percent of the projected change in employment, by industry sector. The resulting space demands are presented below.

Table 3.4. 2020 Potential Space Needs by Selected Industrial Sector Industrial Sector Avg. SF

per Worker

2020 Employment

Total Demand, Peabody

MA

Capture Rates

5% 10% 15%

Office/Flex/Institutional

Information 225 356 3,595 180 360 539

Finance & Insurance 225 651 32,118 1,606 3,212 4,818

Real Estate 225 319 2,155 108 216 323

Professional & Technical 225 1,368 75,306 3,765 7,531 11,296

Management 225 365 10,336 517 1,034 1,550

Administration & Waste Services

225 1,255 54,648 2,732 5,465 8,197

Health Care & Social Assistance 450 5,127 428,355 21,418 42,836 64,253

Subtotal 9,440 606,513 30,326 60,651 90,977

Commercial

Arts & Entertainment 250 349 19,176 959 1,918 2,876

Accommodations & Food Services

500 2,747 65,400 3,270 6,540 9,810

Other Services 250 1,248 69,012 3,451 6,901 10,352

Subtotal 4,344 153,588 7,679 15,359 23,038

Total 13,783 760,101 38,005 76,010 114,015

Sources: EOLWD and RKG Associates, Inc.

52


The total estimated demand for additional commercial space throughout Peabody, in 2020, is 760,100 sq. ft., mainly for the health care and social assistance sector (representing 56 percent of demand).

Peabody’s estimated future employment could result in demand for 38,000 sq. ft.to 114,000 sq. ft. of new space citywide.

With respect to potential office development, the analysis considers a ten-year time period (from 2010 to 2020) and would result in incremental development only; and, (2) potential tenants could include small businesses, entrepreneurs, and start-ups, requiring flexible lease rates and terms that may be insufficient to warrant new construction costs.

4. Location Quotients The health of a local economy can be gauged by comparing its composition and structure with that of a larger regional economy. The technique for this type of analysis is location quotients, or ratios that compare the concentration of employment in two areas, such as a city or town and a county, metro area, or state. For purposes of this plan, Peabody is compared with Essex County.

Table 3.5. Location Quotients: Peabody Compared with Essex County Industry Sector 2002 2012 % Change

Construction 0.543 0.638 17.6%

Manufacturing 0.752 0.611 -18.7%

Wholesale Trade 1.867 1.627 -12.9%

Retail Trade 1.376 1.474 7.1%

Transportation & Warehousing 1.175 1.564 33.0%

Information 0.701 0.480 -31.5%

Finance & Insurance 1.114 0.615 -44.8%

Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 0.880 0.973 10.6%

Professional & Technical Services 0.653 0.730 11.7%

Management of Companies & Enterprises 0.378 1.313 247.8%

Administrative & Waste Services 0.985 0.702 -28.7%

Health Care & Social Assistance 0.788 0.936 18.8%

Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation 0.489 0.603 23.3%

Accommodation & Food Services 1.027 1.109 8.0%

Other Services 0.857 0.777 -9.3%

Source : EOLWD, Census Bureau (U.S. County Business Patterns) and RKG Associates, Inc.

A ratio near 1.0 (often plus or minus 20 percent) indicates that Peabody is performing on par with Essex County in terms of employment concentration in an industry sector. A ratio less than 0.80 suggests that Peabody is under-performing in an industry sector. A location quotient greater than 1.2 indicates a better performance in Peabody than Essex County, though sometimes a very high location quotient can signal over-dependence on a given industry. The location quotient study of Peabody indicates the following:

53


Both the wholesale and retail trade sectors in Peabody strongly outperform Essex

County, although the concentration of retail in Peabody has diminished somewhat since 2002.

The transportation/warehousing sector in Peabody was on par with Essex County in 2002 but it has grown since then. The location quotient has increased 33 percent.

In 2002, Peabody had a relatively low concentration of the management of companies sector compared with Essex County. By 2012, however, the location quotient for this sector had increased nearly 250 percent. Peabody now has a higher concentration of these jobs than Essex County.

Despite overall growth in Peabody’s economy, many industry sectors continue to lag.

D. COMMERCIAL MARKET CONDITIONS This section presents an overview of Peabody’s commercial market, focusing on a sampled inventory of available properties for sale and for lease, as well as interviews with local real estate professionals who reported trends in the market place.

1. Available Inventory A sampling of available commercial properties in Peabody is presented in Appendix G (Volume 2). To summarize the inventory: There were four listings for retail properties for sale, averaging 3,720 sq. ft. and with an

average asking price of approximately $157/sq. ft., or $583,500.

Six office properties were listed for sale, averaging 21,830 sq. ft. with an average asking price of $60/sq. ft. All of the properties exceeded 10,000 sq. ft. except for an older building in the downtown (9,000 sq. ft.), which has been marketed for a considerable time.

There were twenty listings of retail-related properties for lease, averaging 3,760 sq. ft. with an average asking lease rate of close to $16/sq. ft.. The asking lease rates typically ranged from $8/sq. ft. to the low $20’s/sq. ft..

Fifteen office properties were advertised for lease ranging from $7/sq. ft. to the high teens/sq. ft., averaging $10/sq. ft. for a 6,300 sq. ft. space.

2. Commercial Land Sales The RKG Team reviewed the assessor’s database to obtain sales information from Downtown Peabody properties where commercial buildings were constructed over the last decade. The search produced a sample of four sales (Table 3.6). All of the transfers occurred before 2005, and the sale prices ranged from $220,000 to $850,000. The low end was for a 1.3-acre lot at 79 Endicott Street, where the Peabody Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses built a 5,151 sq. ft. church in 2003. The indicated land price per sq. ft. of floor space was $43/sq. ft. At the high end was a 0.4-acre parcel at 32 Central Street, by the Community Credit Union for a new bank building at $161 per sq. ft. of floor space.

54


The sale of 23 Central Street occurred in August 2004 for $375,000 for a 3,756 sq. ft. retail building. The indicated land price per sq. ft. of floor space was $100/sq. ft. The other transfer was for two parcels on Lowell Street in October 2000 for $235,000. A restaurant building was constructed in 2005; the land acquisition cost based on building size was $86/sq. ft.

Table 3.6. Commercial Land Sales Owner Address Zone Building

Type Acres Year

Built Bldg. GFA

Sale Date

Sale Price

Peabody Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses

79 Endicott R2 House of Worship

1.27 2003 5,151 May-02

$220,000

Community Credit Union

32 Central BC Bank 0.39 2006 5,278 Jun-05

$850,000

Pantazelos, Peter, Tr. 23 Central BC Retail 0.13 2004 3,756 Aug-04

$375,000

Nash Donald H. Jr., Tr. 48-49 Lowell BC Restaurant/ Pkg. Lot

0.32 2005 2,718 Oct-00

$235,000

Sources: Peabody Assessor’s Office, Essex County Registry of Deeds, RKG Associates.

E. HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS This section describes housing supply characteristics and trends in Peabody overall and in the Study Area based on a review of decennial census information. These characteristics include characteristics and trends of homeowner and renter households and real estate market conditions. For purposes of housing market and demographic profiles, Essex County Census Tract 2108 represents the Downtown Study Area geography (see Map 3.1).

1. Housing Supply, Vacancy, and Tenure Trends Over the last decade, Peabody’s housing inventory increased by 3,320 units, including 390 new units in the downtown area. As shown in Table 3.7, occupied units did not increase at the same rate as total units, resulting in an increase in vacancies. This suggests an oversupply in housing in 2010, which in turn may relate to foreclosure activity at the latter part of the decade. There was a disproportionate increase in homeowner households in the Downtown Study Area compared with the city overall. The Study Area captured about one-fourth of Peabody’s growth in homeowner households but only 5 percent of the growth in renter households. Since most of the new product built in Peabody over the past decade was targeted for renters, the statistics in Table 3.7 are not very surprising. Although Downtown’s homeownership rate increased to 29 percent from 2000 to 2010, the area still has a large concentration of renters.

55


Table 3.7. Housing Supply and Characteristics (2000, 2010) Peabody Census Tract 2108 Tract as % of City

Criteria 2000 2010 % Chg 2000 2010 % Chg 2000 2010

Total Housing Units 18,898 22,220 17.6% 2,001 2,393 19.6% 10.6% 10.8%

Occupied Units 18,581 21,313 14.7% 1,956 2,253 15.2% 10.5% 10.6%

Owner 13,227 13,988 5.8% 471 662 40.6% 3.6% 4.7%

% Owner 71.0% 66.0% 24.0% 29.0%

Renter 5,354 7,325 36.8% 1,485 1,591 7.1% 27.7% 21.7%

% Renter 29.0% 34.0% 17.2% 76.0% 71.0%

Vacant Units 317 907 186.1% 45 140 211.1% 14.2% 15.4%

Vacancy Rate 1.7% 4.1% 2.2% 5.9%

% Seasonal 3.0% 4.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Owner Vacancy Rate

0.4% 1.3% 1.8% 2.2%

Renter Vacancy Rate

2.3% 5.5% 1.7% 5.7%

Sources: ACS, and RKG Associates, Inc.

2. New Residential Building Permits Table 3.8 summarizes building permit activity in Peabody as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. A total of 2,200 units were permitted over the last decade, for an average of 220 units per year. However, most of the activity occurred between 2003 and 2005, when almost 1,400 units were permitted, accounting for nearly 64 percent of the total over the decade. Starting in 2007, permit activity dropped significantly and remained low for the next three years. This is consistent with national trends triggered by the recession. In fact, the annual average number of permits over the last three years was only 10 percent of all permit activity for the entire decade. Comparing the number of units permitted between 2000 and 2010 (2,200) with the net change in housing from census data (3,320) suggests that additional units permitted at the late 1990s came on-line during the early part of the last decade. As shown in Table 3.8, the average unit construction cost was $127,500 over the last decade, ranging from $113,500 per unit for buildings with five units or more to nearly $202,000 for a single-family home. From 2007 to 2010, the average construction cost for a single-family home declined to $195,600, but overall, Peabody’s average residential construction cost increased. This is due to a combination of unit mix (virtually no new multi-family units after 2010) and trends in the construction trades.

56


Table 3.8. Building Permits by Type of Structure and Construction Cost

Number of Reported Units from Permits Average Cost per Unit

Year Single Family

Two Family

3 & 4 Family

5 & up Units

Total Units

Single Family

Two Family

3 & 4 Family

5 & up Units

Total Units

2000 25 4 3 194 226 $178,600 $78,750 $50,000 $83,907 $93,841

2001 23 234 257 $138,942 $63,972 $70,681

2002 19 2 50 71 $145,849 $83,128 $63,972 $86,422

2003 26 4 357 387 $152,243 $87,724 $69,388 $75,144

2004 36 526 562 $207,444 $157,859 $161,080

2005 35 9 402 446 $239,229 $81,978 $140,841 $162,262

2006 48 15 56 119 $259,854 $185,600 $125,304 $187,176

2007 20 2 9 31 $232,745 $213,500 $204,333 $223,255

2008 18 2 21 41 $163,611 $224,000 $74,143 $120,732

2009 19 6 36 61 $210,158 $53,667 $130,556 $147,787

Total 269 14 63 1,855 2,201

AVG 27 1 6 186 220 $201,848 $121,939 $117,298 $113,524 $127,508

2010 22 22 $179,591 $179,591

2011 18 4 22 $181,333 $110,000 $168,364

2012 15 15 $236,067 $236,067

Total 55 0 4 0 59

AVG 18 0 1 0 20 $195,564 $110,000 $189,763

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, RKG Associates, Inc.

SELECT NEW RES IDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN DOWNTOWN PEABODY According to local data, a total of 310 housing units were developed at a sample of sites in the Downtown Study Area, as shown in Table 3.9. This includes 224 units at four mid-rise projects, forty-eight units at a new senior apartment project, thirty-three units at six townhouse developments, and a few single-family and duplex buildings. A two-unit townhouse project was recently constructed at 20 Endicott Street at a reported construction cost of $100,000 per unit. This was the most recent new construction since 2009. All the mid-rise condominium projects built in the downtown occurred between 2004 and 2006.

Table 3.9. Recent Housing Development in Downtown Study Area Name Address Year Built Units Type

AHEPA/Penelope #120 98 Central 2001 48 Apartments

Bowditch Condominium 8-10 Bowditch 2003 2 Townhouse

114 Condominium 17 Andover 2003 5 Townhouse

Farnham Place 13 Endicott 2003 5 Townhouse

Residence 19 Buxton 2003 1 Single Family

Upton Manner 75 Walnut 2004 48 Mid-rise

Residence 18 Berry 2004 1 Single Family

Peabody Crossing I 10 Crowninshield 2005 32 Mid-rise

57


Table 3.9. Recent Housing Development in Downtown Study Area Name Address Year Built Units Type

Walnut Place 8 Walnut 2005 80 Mid-rise

Drake Crossing 1 Drake 2006 17 Townhouse

Peabody Crossing II 8 Crowninshield 2006 64 Mid-rise

Wilson Crossing 13 Andover 2007 2 Townhouse

Residence 20 Fay 2007 1 Single Family

Duplex 8 Smidt 2007 2 Two-Family

Duplex 63 Central 2009 2 Two-Family

20 Endicott 20 Endicott St 2013 2 Townhouse

TOTAL UNITS 312

Sources: Peabody Assessor’s Parcel Database, RKG Associates, Inc.

F. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS This section provides more detail of decennial census statistics regarding the age and income characteristics of homeowner households in Peabody and its downtown, as well as housing supply, value, and mobility trends.

1. Age Characteristics of Homeowner Households Since 2000, most of the increase in homeowner households in Peabody occurred in the oldest age groups: age 75 and older and age 55 to 64, as shown in Table 3.10. Homeowner households declined among householders 25 to 34 years and 35 to 44 years. By 2010, homeowners in these two age groups represented just 15 percent of total households, compared to 22 percent in 2000. Baby Boom homeowners (age 45 to 64 in 2010) represented about 30 percent of total households in 2010 and, despite increases over the last decade, most of the increase appears to be a result of aging-in-place, as is the case with the increase among elderly homeowners 75 and over. Homeowner households in Downtown Peabody increased across all age groups over the last decade, with the highest gains in younger households (age 25 to 34), which countered trends citywide. The next highest increase in Downtown homeowners was in the Baby Boom age groups, likely a result of new household formation or downsizing.

58


Table 3.10. Homeowners by Age Cohort, Peabody and Downtown Study Area Decennial Census Change % of Total

City of Peabody 2000 2010 Absolute Percent 2000 2010

Total Households 18,581 21,313 2,732 14.7% 100.0% 100.0%

Owner Households 13,227 13,988 761 5.8% 71.2% 65.6%

<25 yrs 59 70 11 18.6% 0.3% 0.3%

25 to 34 yrs 1,196 993 -203 -17.0% 6.4% 4.7%

35 to 44 yrs 2,935 2,138 -797 -27.2% 15.8% 10.0%

45 to 54 yrs 3,040 3,308 268 8.8% 16.4% 15.5%

55 to 64 yrs 2,317 3,040 723 31.2% 12.5% 14.3%

65 to 74 yrs 2,094 2,051 -43 -2.1% 11.3% 9.6%

75 yrs + 1,586 2,388 802 50.6% 8.5% 11.2%

Downtown Study Area

Total Households 1,956 2,253 297 15.2% 100.0% 100.0%

Owner Households 471 662 191 40.6% 24.1% 29.4%

<25 yrs 10 11 1 10.0% 0.5% 0.5%

25 to 34 yrs 63 131 68 107.9% 3.2% 5.8%

35 to 44 yrs 89 105 16 18.0% 4.6% 4.7%

45 to 54 yrs 90 130 40 44.4% 4.6% 5.8%

55 to 64 yrs 75 108 33 44.0% 3.8% 4.8%

65 to 74 yrs 72 87 15 20.8% 3.7% 3.9%

75 yrs + 72 90 18 25.0% 3.7% 4.0%

Source: U.S. Census & RKG Associates, Inc. “Downtown Study Area” is Census Tract 2108.

2. Homeowner Households by Income The median household income for homeowners in Peabody was approximately $80,700 in 2010, compared to $73,100 in the Downtown Study Area (Table 3.11). Most of the growth in homeowners city-wide over the last decade occurred among households with incomes over $150,000, followed by those earning $100,000 to $149,999. The change in the income distribution of homeowner households in the Downtown Study Area was somewhat different, however, with homeowners increasing across all income levels except for those earning $25,000 to $49,999. In 2010, homeowners with incomes of $75,000 or more in the city represented more the 35 percent of total households; in Downtown Peabody, homeowners earing $75,000 or more accounted for about 12 percent of total households.

59


Table 3.11. Homeowners by Household Income Decennial Census Change % of Total




less than $25,000 1,735 1,455 -280 -16.1% 9.3% 6.8%

$25,000 to $49,999 2,922 2,364 -558 -19.1% 15.7% 11.1%

$50,000 to $74,999 3,089 2,596 -493 -15.9% 16.6% 12.2%

$75,000 to $99,999 2,538 2,652 114 4.5% 13.7% 12.4%

$100,000 to $149,000 2,153 2,922 769 35.7% 11.6% 13.7%

$150,000 or more 794 1,999 1,205 151.8% 4.3% 9.4%

Median Owner Income 64,495 80,670 16,175 25.1%

Downtown Study Area



less than $25,000 90 141 51 56.8% 4.6% 6.3%

$25,000 to $49,999 118 71 -47 -40.2% 6.0% 3.1%

$50,000 to $74,999 147 168 21 14.4% 7.5% 7.5%

$75,000 to $99,999 98 152 54 54.8% 5.0% 6.7%

$100,000 to $149,000 15 94 79 525.0% 0.8% 4.2%

$150,000 or more 5 37 32 634.5% 0.3% 1.6%

Median Owner Income $57,649 $73,058 $15,409 26.7%

Sources: U.S. Census and RKG Associates, Inc.

3. Homeowner Households by Number of Bedrooms Table 3.12 shows that in 2010, Downtown Peabody had the highest concentration of homeowner households living in two-bedroom units (14.8 percent). Citywide, the highest concentration of homeowners lived in three-bedroom units (31.3 percent), as shown in Table 3.14. The number of three-bedroom owner-occupied units in Peabody declined between 2000 and 2010, while there was a modest gain in the number of three-bedroom units. The number of homeowners living in four- and five-bedroom units has increased by nearly 690 households since 2000, with the downtown capturing 6 percent of this growth. In comparison, Downtown Peabody captured about 58 percent of the citywide growth in 2-bedroom homeowners, but only 15 percent of the growth in one-bedroom homeowner households.

60


4. Homeowner Households by Units in Structure

In Peabody and just about everywhere, most homeowners own single-family homes. Fig. 3.3. shows that in 2010, homeowners in single-unit residences (including mobile homes) accounted for almost 85 percent of all households in Peabody, but only 45 percent in the downtown area. The homeowners in buildings with 20 units or more accounted for only 7 percent of total households citywide and 22 percent in the downtown in 2010. Downtown has a higher concentration of homeowner households in duplexes and buildings with three or four units than the city as a whole.

Table 3.12. Number of Bedrooms in Homeownership Units Decennial Census Change % of Total




0-bdrm 21 28 7 31.5% 0.1% 0.1%

1-bdrm 403 661 258 63.9% 2.2% 3.1%

2-bdrm 2,943 3,118 175 5.9% 15.8% 14.6%

3-bdrm 7,050 6,678 -372 -5.3% 37.9% 31.3%

4-bdrm 2,332 2,833 501 21.5% 12.6% 13.3%

5-bdrm + 482 672 190 39.4% 2.6% 3.2%

Downtown Study Area



0-bdrm 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0%

1-bdrm 0 39 39 0.0% 1.7%

2-bdrm 233 334 101 43.5% 11.9% 14.8%

3-bdrm 151 162 11 7.5% 7.7% 7.2%

4-bdrm 66 98 32 47.9% 3.4% 4.3%

5-bdrm + 23 29 6 26.1% 1.2% 1.3%

Source: U.S. Census; American Community Survey & RKG Associates, Inc.

Between 2000 and 2010, growth in owner-occupied units occurred most dramatically in large multifamily buildings of 20 units or more, both citywide and downtown, as shown in Table

61


3.13. Homeowners in these larger buildings accounted for 82 percent of homeowner household growth citywide and 75 percent in Downtown Peabody. The number of owner-occupied single-family dwellings (attached and detached) increased 22 percent in the downtown and 52 percent in the city overall between 2000 and 2010.

Table 3.13. Homeowners by Building Type Decennial Census Change % of Total




Single Unit 11,025 11,420 395 3.6% 59.3% 53.6%

Mobile home 673 481 -192 -28.6% 3.6% 2.3%

2 units 628 678 50 8.0% 3.4% 3.2%

3 to 4 units 326 186 -140 -42.9% 1.8% 0.9%

5 to 9 units 89 62 -27 -29.9% 0.5% 0.3%

10 to 19 units 120 165 45 37.2% 0.6% 0.8%

20 units + 370 996 626 169.2% 2.0% 4.7%

Downtown Study Area



Single Unit 261 302 41 15.5% 13.3% 13.4%

Mobile home 0 0 0 NA 0.0% 0.0%

2 units 96 111 15 15.8% 4.9% 4.9%

3 to 4 units 116 75 -41 -35.0% 5.9% 3.3%

5 to 9 units 0 0 0 NA 0.0% 0.0%

10 to 19 units 0 30 30 NA 0.0% 1.3%

20 units + 0 144 144 NA 0.0% 6.4%

Source: US Census; American Community Survey & RKG Associates, Inc.

62


5. Homeowner Households by Home Values According to American Community Survey (ACS), the median value of owner-occupied homes in Peabody in 2010 was $350,400, but only $299,500 in the Downtown Study Area. Since 2000, the median home value in the downtown more than doubled while the citywide median home value increased 62 percent. Both citywide and downtown, owner-occupied home values increased more than the increase in median household income during this period (25 percent citywide and 27 percent downtown).

6. Homeowner Households by Period of Moving Into Unit Approximately 290 homeowners in Downtown Peabody purchased their unit between 2000 and 2010, accounting for 43 percent of all homeowner households (Table 3.14). Citywide, 35 percent of the homeowner households moved into their unit between 2000 and 2010. The homeowner base is relatively stable, especially in the downtown. After accounting for household growth, annual homeowner turnover between 2000 and 2010 averaged just 1.5 percent in the study area (30 households per year), and 2.9 percent citywide (410 households per year).

7. Conclusion Between 2000 and 2010, the Downtown Study Area added homeowners at a faster pace than the City overall. Homeowners in the Downtown Study Area increased across all age and income groups. The median household income for downtown homeowners increased to $73,060 by 2010 but remained about 9 percent lower the city-wide median. Most of the new homeowners live in buildings with 20 units or more, and the median value of owner-occupied housing doubled over the last decade. However, the values of new condominium projects in the downtown dropped precipitously at the end of the decade and have only recently started to recover. Approximately 53 percent of the homeowner households moved into their unit over the last decade. The ownership base is stable, with an annual homeowner turnover rate in the downtown of 1.5 percent on average.

63


Table 3.14. Homeowners by Move-In Year Census/ACS Change % of Total




Owners by Move In (2010 only) Avg./Yr %Owner %Total

2005 or later 2,553 511 18.3% 12.0%

2000 to 2004 2,294 459 16.4% 10.8%

1990 to 1999 3,476 348 24.8% 16.3%

1980 to 1989 1,974 197 14.1% 9.3%

prior to 1980 3,692 26.4% 17.3%

Downtown Study Area



Owner by Move In (2010 only) Avg./Yr %Owner %Total

2005 or later 184 37 27.7% 8.2%

2000 to 2004 103 21 15.6% 4.6%

1990 to 1999 82 8 12.4% 3.6%

1980 to 1989 72 7 10.8% 3.2%

prior to 1980 221 33.4% 9.8%


G. FOR-SALE MARKET CONDITIONS This section identifies trends in the volume of residential sales in Peabody and median prices based on data obtained from The Warren Group. Foreclosure activity is also reviewed to provide a better understanding of market characteristics. Finally, sales activity at a select sample of condominium projects in Downtown Peabody is quantified.

1. Citywide Sales Volume and Pricing Trends Although sales are increasing, the volume of single-family home and condominium sales in Peabody remains below pre-recession levels. In 2012, there were 334 single-family home sales, a volume similar to 2007 (330 sales), and a nearly 40 percent increase over 2011 (Fig. 3.5). However, the 2012 sales volume was 21 percent below the 2003 volume (424 sales). Condominium sales were up 44 percent in 2012 compared to 2011 (121 sales compared to 84), but were 55 percent below 2005 level (270). Over the last five years, condominium sales in Peabody represented about 30 percent of the overall home sales.

64


Home values are also increasing from lows during the recent recession. In May 2013, Peabody’s median single-family home value ($310,950) was 9 percent higher than the 2011 median ($285,000), but 19 percent lower than the peak in 2005 ($385,000) (Fig. 3.6). The median condominium value in 2013 ($225,500) was 18 percent higher than in 2011 ($191,500) but 19 percent below the 2003 peak of $279,450.

2. Foreclosures Activity Trends

Since 2007, the petitions to foreclose on single-family residences in Peabody have ranged from a low of 52 petitions in 2011 to a high of 130 petitions in 2007, averaging around 100 petitions per year, as shown in Table 3.15. Through May 2013, there were 17 petitions to foreclose for the year, which if annualized equates to approximately 40 petitions. This would be the lowest annual number of foreclosures in recent years. Foreclosure auctions for single-family homes averaged about 80 per year in Peabody since 2007, ranging from 72 in 2009 to 139 in 2010. There are typically fewer foreclosure deeds for single-family units, averaging approximately 30 per year since 2007, ranging from 18 in 2012 to 52 in 2010. Foreclosure deeds represent about 39 percent of auctions for single-family homes on average, indicating that the remaining 60 percent of homes were taken back by the lender. Foreclosure deeds averaged 11 percent of single-family sales since 2007, but 5 percent more recently.

65


Table 3.15. Foreclosure Trends in Peabody Single-Family Homes Foreclosure Deeds as %

Year Petitions to Foreclose

Auctions Auctions as % of Petitions

Foreclosure Deeds

# of Sales

Auctions Sales

5-13 17 7 41.2% 5 106 71.4% 4.7%

2012 90 73 81.1% 18 334 24.7% 5.4%

2011 52 84 161.5% 24 236 28.6% 10.2%

2010 117 139 118.8% 52 247 37.4% 21.1%

2009 122 72 59.0% 26 298 36.1% 8.7%

2008 103 89 86.4% 42 289 47.2% 14.5%

2007 130 43 33.1% 30 330 69.8% 9.1%

AVG 98 79 80.3% 31 287 38.9% 10.7%

Condominiums Foreclosure Deeds as %

Year Petitions to Foreclose

Auctions Auctions as % of Petitions

Foreclosure Deeds

# of Sales

Auctions Sales

5-13 2 5 250.0% 3 49 60.0% 6.1%

2012 21 23 109.5% 10 121 43.5% 8.3%

2011 16 21 131.3% 15 84 71.4% 17.9%

2010 16 42 262.5% 17 122 40.5% 13.9%

2009 37 28 75.7% 18 139 64.3% 12.9%

2008 26 24 92.3% 11 137 45.8% 8.0%

2007 30 9 30.0% 9 142 100.0% 6.3%

AVG 23 24 102.7% 13 124 54.6% 10.5%

Source: Warren Information Services & RKG Associates, Inc.

Petitions to foreclose on condominiums in Peabody ranged from 16 (2010 and 2011) to 37 (2009) and averaged 23 units per year. For auctions, a slightly higher average was indicated (24) over the period, while foreclosure deeds on condominiums averaged 13 per year, representing 55 percent of auctions. Foreclosure deeds represented about 10 percent of sales on average over the last several years. As reported in Table 3.18, 2010 witnessed the highest number of auctions for both single-family homes (139) and condominiums (42). Foreclosure deeds transferred that year represented 21 percent of the single-family sales and 14 percent of the condominium sales. Although the number of petitions has recently declined, there are still owners of single-family homes and condominiums whose mortgages remain higher than current property values. This should lessen in the future as values recover.

3. Condominium Sales Trends in Downtown Peabody RKG collected condominium sales data for a large sample of downtown condominium units from the City assessor’s database, and parsed out the sales at ten condominium projects built after 2003 for comparison purposes. Table 3.16 shows that condominium sales for both the Downtown Study Area and the City overall peaked in 2005. Between 2006 and 2008, there were 50 Downtown condominium sales per year, on average, which accounted for about one-third of city-wide sales. Sales for condominiums overall declined further between 2009 and 2011. An uptick occurred in 2012, but downtown sales remained relatively flat.

66


Table 3.16. Peabody and Downtown Study Area Condominium Sales Peabody Downtown Downtown (Post 2003) Peabody Downtown Downtown

(Post 2003) 2004 174 68 52 $249,000 $235,000 $232,900

2005 270 140 107 $259,900 $255,030 $255,560

2006 204 55 43 $269,950 $269,000 $270,000

2007 142 49 37 $263,000 $257,400 $269,000

2008 137 47 43 $220,000 $220,000 $223,000

2009 139 36 27 $225,000 $196,711 $219,500

2010 122 26 25 $237,885 $212,500 $204,250

2011 84 19 9 $191,500 $165,000 $187,753

2012 121 21 11 $219,100 $160,500 $188,006

May13 49 7 5 $225,500 $218,700 $225,000

Source: The Warren Group, Peabody Assessor’s Parcel Data, and RKG Associates.

Table 3.16 also shows the median value of condominiums citywide as well as those in the downtown total sample and those from post-2003 projects. In 2006, median prices for all condominiums peaked at or near $270,000. Prices decreased in 2007 and by 2008, median prices dropped to about $230,000 indicating a fifteen percent loss in value. By 2010, a modest rebound was evident citywide, while the median condominium prices in the downtown (all and post-2003) decreased. Citywide, the lowest median value was in 2011 ($191,500), reflecting a 29 percent loss in value since 2006. By May 2013, the median value in Peabody increased to $225,500 recovering 18 percent of the loss in value. In the downtown, the bottom of the market did not occur until 2012 ($160,500), as the median price for all sales decreased 40 percent from the peak while the decease for newer units was 30 percent. In May 2013, the median for all condominium sales downtown recovered to $218,700, for a 36 percent increase, while the median for the post-2003 units rebounded to $225,000. In effect, May 2013 median values were about 15 percent lower than the peak and on-par with median values in 2008. Most of the recovery occurred in 2012 and early 2013, indicating the condominium market in downtown and the City overall has improved. However, median sale prices have not recovered to their pre-recession peak.

4. Downtown Post-2003 Sales by Unit Sizes and Years Table 3.17 summarizes sales of the post-2003 downtown condominium sample between 2004 and May 2013, by different unit sizes which are a proxy for bedroom counts. Most of the sales were units in the 900 to 1,399 sq. ft. size or two-bedroom group, and the average unit price for this type peaked in 2007, at nearly $295,000 and $254/sq. ft. By 2011, the average price for this unit type had declined to less than $197,000, indicating a 33 percent loss in value since 2007. Sales through May 2013 showed average pricing rebounded to $223,100, but the average pricing of current listings ($219,500) in this category (including a few short sales) may lower this slightly by the end of the year. The average sale price for one-bedroom units (less than 900 sq. ft.) peaked in 2006 at over $216,000 ($276/sq. ft.) and then declined rapidly to $160,000

67


in 2008 and then again to $109,400 in 2011, for a 50 percent loss in value for one-bedroom units. An average price recovery of nearly 30 percent was indicated in 2012, and another 9 percent gain indicated through May 2013. This most recent average price remained 29 percent below the peak in 2006.

Table 3.17. Characteristics of Post-2003 Downtown Condominium Sales < 900 SF 900 - 1,399 SF 1,400 SF + Median

Price Year # Avg. $ Avg. SF # Avg. $ Avg. SF # Avg. $ Avg. SF

2004 16 $170,163 777 29 $233,324 1,093 7 $328,971 1,595 $232,900

2005 23 $191,881 835 84 $276,296 1,185 0 $255,560

2006 5 $216,600 786 38 $281,511 1,156 0 $270,000

2007 13 $206,972 783 22 $294,964 1,157 2 $312,500 1,488 $269,000

2008 2 $160,750 808 41 $223,809 1,177 0 $223,000

2009 4 $134,000 835 15 $195,553 1,176 8 $259,800 1,540 $219,500

2010 3 $144,335 791 15 $197,345 1,174 7 $253,700 1,540 $204,250

2011 2 $109,400 795 7 $196,841 1,183 0 $187,753

2012 5 $140,702 741 6 $214,492 1,179 0 $188,006

May-13 1 $152,900 821 3 $223,067 1,104 1 $270,000 1,488 $225,000

Listings 5 $219,520 1,209 3 $291,600 1,551 $239,400

Source: Peabody Assessor's File; Warren Information Services; Essex County Registry of Deeds; Realtor.com; & RKG Associates, Inc.

The average sale price of three-bedroom units (1,400 sq. ft. plus), which were typically at the post-2003 townhouse projects, peaked at nearly $329,000 in 2004, although the average price per sq. ft. peaked at $210/sq. ft. in 2007, when the average unit price for three-bedroom units declined by 5 percent to $312,500. All the sales in 2009 and 2010 occurred at the Drake Landing project, after the project was repositioned from foreclosure, but the average unit price ($257,000, both years combined) was about 18 percent lower than the first two sales at this project in 2007 ($312,500). A recent sale at this project for $270,000 indicated a 5 percent increase from the 2009-2010 average. The average price from the three current listings ($291,600) indicated another 8 percent increase from the May 2013 average, and it would be about 7 percent lower than indicated in 2007.

5. Land Acquisition Pricing for Select Condominium Projects in the Downtown

RKG identified the land acquisition price for ten condominium projects developed in the Downtown Study Area after 2003 (Appendix H; Volume 2). Of note: Six are townhouses and four are mid-rise projects.

The land sales for the mid-rise projects occurred between October 2002 and November 2004, and they ranged in sale price from $1.24 million to $1.88 million.

68


The average land price per unit at these mid-rise sales ranged from $22,500 (Walnut Place) to $48,182 (Peabody Crossing 1), and this range was between 10 percent and 15 percent of the average unit value at that time.

The land sale prices for the townhouse projects built prior to 2008 ranged from $125,000 (Bowditch Condominium) to $1.53 million (Drake Crossing), and the most recent sale at 20 Endicott Street ($106,000) was lower than the low-end of the previous sales.

The average land sale price per unit ranged from $40,000 at 114 Condominium to $90,000 at Drake Crossing, which subsequently went through foreclosure.

The most recent sale at 20 Endicott Street (December 2012) indicated a land price of $53,000 per unit or 33 percent higher than the low-end of the range.

This average land cost per unit ranged between 15 percent (114 Condominium) to 29 percent (Drake Crossing) of the average unit sale values at that time.

The recent average unit price for each of these projects is shown (except at Farnham Place) for comparison purposes as well as to understand what potential land prices per unit would be today, based on the prior percentages, noting that: For the mid-rise project, the potential land value per unit would range from $17,000

(Walnut Place) to $32,500 (Peabody Crossing 1).

For the townhouse projects, the potential land price per unit would range from $34,700 (114 Condominium) to $77,200 (Wilson Crossing).

The most recent sale at 20 Endicott Street ($53,000 per unit) was in the middle of the adjusted range for townhouse projects based on current average unit pricing.

6. For-Sale Market Conclusions The average sale price of post-2003 condominium units in the Downtown Study Area through May 2013 ($218,420) increased by 23 percent since the low point in 2011 ($177,410), but still remained about 20 percent below the peak in 2006 ($273,960), when most of these new units came on-line. The average pricing for three-bedroom units (1,400 sq. ft. or larger) did not decline (-23 percent) from its peak as much as for one-bedroom (-49 percent) or two-bedroom (-33 percent) units. The current average listing price ($291,600) for three-bedroom units was -11 percent below the peak, while recent averages for two-bedroom units ($221,000) indicate a -25 percent difference from the peak, and for one-bedroom units ($152,900) a -29 percent difference. Improving conditions in the three-bedroom condominium market was also supported by new construction occurring at 20 Endicott Street for a two-unit, three-bedroom townhouse project. The average size (1,299 sq. ft.) of these units were slightly lower than the 1,400 sq. ft. threshold researched above but the asking price $249,900 ($192/sq. ft.) was consistent with new market realities.

69


A review of land acquisition prices indicate that average land value per unit would range from 15 percent to 29 percent of the average unit value for townhouse projects. The recent land sale at 20 Endicott Street indicated a land price per unit of $53,000 that was 21 percent of the unit sale price ($249,900). This factor was just below the mid-point of the range, while land price per unit was also slightly lower than the mid-point of the range in potential land value per unit ($34,700 to $77,300).

H. RENTER HOUSEHOLDS CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS This section identifies trends and characteristics of renter households from a review of census data. In this manner, the age and income characteristics of renters can be understood, as well as the types of units, rent paid, and when renters moved into these units.

1. Age Characteristics of Renter Households Peabody gained 1,970 renter households between 2000 and 2010, when renter-occupied units increased to 34.4 percent. The Downtown Study Area captured about 5 percent of the city-wide growth in renter households: much lower than Downtown’s representation of renters overall in 2000 (28 percent). As a result, renter tenure rates in the downtown decreased to 71 percent in 2010, from 76 percent in 2000, as shown in Table 3.18.

Table 3.18. Renters by Age Cohort, Peabody and Downtown Study Area Decennial Census Change % of Total



Renter Households 5,354 7,325 1,971 36.8% 28.8% 34.4%

< 25 yrs 239 327 88 36.8% 1.3% 1.5%

25 to 34 yrs 1,179 1,350 171 14.5% 6.3% 6.3%

35 to 44 yrs 1,184 1,213 29 2.4% 6.4% 5.7%

45 to 54 yrs 751 1,135 384 51.1% 4.0% 5.3%

55 to 64 yrs 535 851 316 59.1% 2.9% 4.0%

65 to 74 yrs 576 669 93 16.1% 3.1% 3.1%

75 yrs + 890 1,780 890 100.0% 4.8% 8.4%

Downtown Study Area


Renter Households 1,485 1,591 106 7.1% 75.9% 70.6%

< 25 yrs 65 70 5 7.7% 3.3% 3.1%

25 to 34 yrs 291 278 -13 -4.5% 14.9% 12.3%

35 to 44 yrs 292 265 -27 -9.2% 14.9% 11.8%

45 to 54 yrs 184 289 105 57.1% 9.4% 12.8%

55 to 64 yrs 139 184 45 32.4% 7.1% 8.2%

65 to 74 yrs 190 208 18 9.5% 9.7% 9.2%

75 yrs + 324 297 -27 -8.3% 16.6% 13.2%

Source: U.S. Census & RKG Associates, Inc.

70


Citywide, increases in renters occurred across all age brackets, with the largest increase in 75 years and older, and in the two baby-boom generation groups (45 to 54 years, and 55 to 64 years). The former can be attributed to Brooksby Village, and the latter to the 14-North (formerly Avalon at Crane Brook) and Highlands at Dearborn projects. In Downtown Peabody, the change was different because declines occurred in the two age groups: 25 to 44 years, and 75 years and older. Despite losses in the downtown, renters 75 years and older accounted for 13 percent of households in 2010, while renters in the 25 to 44 years age group represented 24 percent. In 2010, baby-boom generation renter accounted for 21 percent of total households in the downtown, while age 65-to-74 renters accounted for another 9 percent.

2. Renter Households by Income

The median renter-household income in Peabody was just over $37,000 in 2010 while in the Downtown Study Area, it was almost $29,900, as shown in Table 3.19. Median renter income in the downtown (46 percent) increased at a faster pace over the decade than in the City (22 percent). In the downtown, most of the increase in renter households occurred in the two income groups of $25,000 to $74,999, and a loss (shift) of those earning less than $25,000. City-wide, increases in renter households occurred across all income groups. In 2010, renters with incomes under $25,000 made up about 11 percent of total households in the City but 28 percent of total households in the downtown, despite declines in this income group over the last decade. Moreover, about 71 percent of the renter households in the downtown (or 50 percent of total households) in 2010 earned less than $50,000.

71


Table 3.19. Renters by Household Income Change % of Total




less than $25,000 2,160 2,415 255 11.8% 11.6% 11.3%

$25,000 to $49,999 1,637 2,269 632 38.6% 8.8% 10.6%

$50,000 to $74,999 894 1,305 411 46.0% 4.8% 6.1%

$75,000 to $99,999 348 524 176 50.6% 1.9% 2.5%

$100,000 to $149,000 243 620 377 155.0% 1.3% 2.9%

$150,000 or more 68 192 124 182.3% 0.4% 0.9%

Median Renter Income $30,279 $37,031 $6,752 22.3%

Downtown Study Area



less than $25,000 842 622 -220 -26.1% 43.0% 27.6%

$25,000 to $49,999 376 512 136 36.1% 19.2% 22.7%

$50,000 to $74,999 205 318 113 55.1% 10.5% 14.1%

$75,000 to $99,999 18 96 78 434.8% 0.9% 4.3%

$100,000 to $149,000 35 31 -4 -10.4% 1.8% 1.4%

$150,000 or more 7 12 5 70.0% 0.4% 0.5%

Median Renter Income $20,430 $29,882 $9,452 46.3%


3. Renter Households by Bedrooms In 2010, the highest concentration of renter households in Peabody were in 2-bedroom units (14 percent) followed by those in 1-bedroom units (12 percent), as shown in Table 3.20. The growth in 1- and 2-bedroom renters (1,450) over the last decade accounted for 74 percent of the renter household growth in the City. In the downtown, 1-bedroom renters accounted for 28 percent of total households, while 2-bedroom renters represented 22 percent. The former however declined over the last decade while the latter increased. The downtown also had a higher concentration of renters households in 3-bedroom or larger units (13 percent of total household, combined), than citywide (6 percent of total households, combined), and the downtown captured about 36 percent of the citywide growth in renter households in 3-bedrooms or more over the last decade.

72


Table 3.20. Renter-Occupied Units by Number of Bedrooms Census/ACS Change % of Total




0-bdrm 217 369 152 69.9% 1.2% 1.7%

1-bdrm 1,912 2,594 682 35.7% 10.3% 12.2%

2-bdrm 2,255 3,022 767 34.0% 12.1% 14.2%

3-bdrm 853 1,071 218 25.5% 4.6% 5.0%

4-bdrm 73 179 106 144.9% 0.4% 0.8%

5-bdrm +

Downtown Study Area



0-bdrm 133 184 51 38.2% 6.8% 8.2%

1-bdrm 738 622 -116 -15.7% 37.7% 27.6%

2-bdrm 445 485 40 8.9% 22.8% 21.5%

3-bdrm 160 218 58 36.5% 8.2% 9.7%

4-bdrm 0 57 57 0.0% 2.5%

5-bdrm + 7 25 18 255.4% 0.4% 1.1%


4. Renter Households by Units in Structure

In 2010, most Downtown Study Area renters lived in structures with 20 or more units (61 percent of renters) or in 2-to-4 units structures (35 percent). A somewhat different distribution existed citywide (Fig. 3.8).

5. Renter Households by Gross Rent

In 2010, the median gross rent in Peabody was $1,163 while in the downtown it was $752, or 35 percent lower. Renters paying $1,000 or more increased significantly over the last decade (Table 3.21). In 2010, however, about 40 percent of the renters in Peabody paid monthly rents of less than $1,000 while in the downtown, over 71 percent of the renters paid less than $1,000.

73


Table 3.21. Renter-Occupied Units by Gross Rent, Peabody and Downtown Study Area Census, ACS Change % of Total




Renters by Gross Rent as % of Renter

No rent to $499 1,075 1,191 116 10.7% 20.1% 16.3%

$500 to $749 1,878 636 -1,242 -66.1% 35.1% 8.7%

$750 to $999 1,104 1,072 -32 -2.9% 20.6% 14.6%

$1,000 to $1,499 718 2,495 1,777 247.5% 13.4% 34.1%

$1,500 to $1,999 145 1,220 1,075 741.4% 2.7% 16.7%

$2,000 and up 79 712 633 801.4% 1.5% 9.7%

Median Gross Rent $687 $1,163 $476 69.3%

Downtown Study Area 2,000 2,010



Renters by Gross Rent as % of Renter

No rent to $499 632 470 -162 -25.6% 42.6% 29.6%

$500 to $749 596 339 -257 -43.2% 40.1% 21.3%

$750 to $999 197 327 130 65.8% 13.3% 20.5%

$1,000 to $1,499 58 313 255 438.9% 3.9% 19.6%

$1,500 to $1,999 0 95 95 NA 0.0% 6.0%

$2,000 and up 0 48 48 NA 0.0% 3.0%

Median Gross Rent $653 $752 $99 15.2%


6. Renter Households by Period of Moving into Unit Approximately 1,220 renters moved into their unit in the Downtown Study Area over the last decade, which accounted for 77 percent of renter households or 54 percent of total households, as shown in Table 3.22. City-wide, about 83 percent of the renter households moved into their unit over the last decade, including about 61 percent that moved in since 2005. On average, renter turnover (adjusted for growth) was 410 households per year in Peabody over the last decade, including 150 renters a year in the downtown. This equates to a turnover rate of 5.6 percent citywide, and 9.3 percent in the downtown area. 7. Conclusions Renters in Peabody increased by almost 2,000 households over the last decade, due primarily to the development of three large apartment complexes on the outskirts of the city. While downtown captured just 5 percent of this growth in renter households, it still had a disproportionate share of the city’s renters and a fairly low homeownership rate. In 2010, elderly households (age 65 and older) accounted for 32 percent of all renters downtown, while those younger than age 45 represented another 39 percent. The median income of downtown

74


renters increased to about $29,900 in 2010, but remained 19 percent below median renter income city-wide.

Table 3.22. Renters by Move-in Year Census, ACS Change % of Total

City of Peabody 2000 2010 # % 2000 2010



Renters by Move In (2010 only) AVG/Yr %Renter %Total

2005 or later 4,436 887 60.6% 20.8%

2000 to 2004 1,619 324 22.1% 7.6%

1990 to 1999 904 90 12.3% 4.2%

1980 to 1989 147 15 2.0% 0.7%

prior to 1980 218 3.0% 1.0%

Downtown Study Area



Renter by Move In (2010 only) AVG/Yr %Renter %Total

2005 or later 927 185 58.3% 41.1%

2000 to 2004 296 59 18.6% 13.2%

1990 to 1999 292 29 18.4% 13.0%

1980 to 1989 43 4 2.7% 1.9%

prior to 1980 32 2.0% 1.4%


Median gross rent increased to $750 by 2010. This is statistically in balance with median renter income (30 percent of monthly income for rent and utilities). However, units with rents of $1,000 or more experienced an eight-fold increase over the last decade in the downtown area. In 2010, they accounted for about 30 percent of all rental units. Also in 2010, approximately 71 percent of the renter households in the downtown (or 50 percent of total households) earned less than $50,000, and many would likely qualify for rental assistance depending on household size. Approximately 1,220 renters moved into their unit in the downtown over the last decade, accounting for 77 percent of renters (or 54 percent of total households). Adjusting for growth, Downtown Peabody captured about 150 new renters per year over the last decade, for a 9 percent renter turnover rate. Downtown Peabody has a diverse rental market, although a large percentage of the renters were elderly and many would qualify for low-income rental assistance.

I. RENTAL MARKET CONDITIONS The RKG Team surveyed five apartment developments in Peabody to ascertain pricing characteristics. Table 3.23 summarizes the results. Two of the projects (Peabody Place & Main Street) are older buildings located in the downtown, while two (14 North and Highland at Dearborn) represent post-2000 construction and are much larger projects. These two have

75


direct exposure to I-95 and access from Route 114 or Route 1, respectively. The other one (Brown School Residences) was a conversion/renovation of an old school building (20 units) plus a new addition (41 units), located in a primarily residential neighborhood.

UNIT S IZES The two downtown projects have only one-bedroom units ranging in average size from

475 sq. ft. to 550 sq. ft. The two post-2000 developments contain a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom units, including two-bedroom units with one or two bathrooms. These projects also have multiple floor plans for different unit styles. The school conversion/new addition consists of one- and two-bedroom units, including units with one or two bathrooms.

The one-bedroom units at the post-2000 projects range from 746 and 823 sq. ft. in size, and they are 50 percent or more larger than those in the downtown, where one-bedroom units range from 475 sq. ft. to 550 sq. ft. The average size of the one-bedroom units at the school conversion (588 sq. ft.) was more like the downtown properties.

The average size of two-bedroom units with one-bath ranged from 746 sq. ft. to 866 sq. ft. at the post-2000 projects, and 970 sq. ft. at the school conversion.

Two-bedroom units with two-baths averaged at 1,200 sq. ft. or more at both the post-2000 developments and school conversion.

The average size of three-bedroom units with two-baths ranged from 1,340 sq. ft. to nearly 1,400 sq. ft. at the post-2003 projects.

BEDROOMS AND RENTS The average asking rent for one-bedroom units ranged from over $800 to almost $1,600

per month. The high-end of the range ($1,459 to $1,593) applies to the post-2000 projects while prices below $1,000 per month apply to the school conversion and downtown properties. On a per sq. ft. basis, the range in one-bedroom rents was $1.64/sq. ft. to $1.96/sq. ft., with the high-end ($1.93-$1.96/sq. ft.) indicative of the post-2000 projects, and the lower-end ($1.64-$1.77/sq. ft.) of the downtown properties or the school conversion.

For the average unit with two bedrooms and one bathroom, the asking rent ranged from $1,139 to $1,820 and for two bathrooms, $1,136 to $2,085. In both cases, the low end was indicated at the school conversion while the high-end was at the post-2000 developments.

On a price per sq. ft. basis, the average rent at two-bedroom units at the school conversion ranged from $0.95/sq. ft. (2-bath) to $1.17/sq. ft. (one-bath) while at the post-2000 project average two-bedroom rents ranged from $1.58/sq. ft. (two-bath) to $2.10/sq. ft. (1-bath).

For three-bedroom units, the average asking rent ranged from $2,208 to $2,555, and the indicated rent per sq. ft. was between $1.58/sq. ft. and $1.91/sq. ft.

76


Table 3.23. Apartment Characteristics, Comparison Developments Apartment Project 14 North [1] Highland at

Dearborn Brown School Residences [2]

Peabody Place Main Street

Address 150 Andover St Dearborn 200 Lynn St 115 Lowell St 65 Main St

# of Units 381 446 61 20 100

Year Built 2005 2005 1913/2007 1910 1890

1-Bdr/1-bath

Size (SF) 746 823 588 550 475

Rent [1] $1,459 $1,593 $964 $975 $805

Rent/SF $1.96 $1.93 $1.64 $1.77 $1.69

2-Bdr/1-bath

Size (SF) 866 866 969

Rent [1] $1,776 $1,820 $1,139

Rent/SF $2.05 $2.10 $1.17

2-Bdr/2-bath

Size (SF) 1,211 1,211 1,200

Rent [1] $1,910 $2,085 $1,136

Rent/SF $1.58 $1.72 $0.95

3-Bdr/2-bath

Size (SF) 1,396 1,340

Rent [1] $2,208 $2,555

Rent/SF $1.58 $1.91

[1] Includes 78 units in Danvers; [2] 55 years & older

Source: Rent.com & RKG Associates, Inc.

1. Other Rental Indicators RKG also tabulated asking rents for a sample of rental listings found on Craig’s List, a popular website for advertising available rental units. The sample excludes units at major apartment complexes such as the Highlands at Dearborn or 14-North, but it includes units at smaller multi-family properties and condominium projects. A summary of these listings by bedrooms are shown in Table 3.24. For comparison purposes, the FY 2013 Fair HUD Market Rent (FMR) for the Boston metro area6 is exhibited as well. The HUD FMR is estimated annually and used as a benchmark for Section 8 rental vouchers depending on the size and income of an income-qualified household.

Asking rents for one-bedroom units ranged from $625 to $1,225, and averaged $899 per month. The low-end was for a unit in an older multi-family property, while the high-end was for an 800 sq. ft. downtown condominium with garage parking. The FMR was $1,156, about 6 percent lower than the high-end of the range.

6 The Boston MA-NH Metropolitan Fair Market Rent (FMR) Area.

77


Asking rents for two-bedroom units ranged from $1,150 to $1,600, as shown in Table 3.30 The low-end was the asking rent for a mobile home while the high-end was for a reported “spacious” unit in a historic building. The average for two-bedroom units was about $1,340, which was similar to the asking rent for two-bedroom modern condominiums in the downtown. The FMR for two-bedroom units was $1,444, about 8 percent higher than the average from the sample and 10 percent lower than the high-end of the range.

Asking rents for 3-bedroom units ranged from $1,500 to $1,700 and averaged at $1,600. Two listings were de-leaded units in smaller multi-family properties. FMR for 3-bedroom units was $1,798, about 6 percent higher than the high-end of the range.

Table 3.24. Summary of Asking Rents for Listed Apartments in Peabody (2013) One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom Three-Bedroom Rental Listings 4 7 3

Average Rent $899 $1,336 $1,600

Low $625 $1,150 $1,500

High $1,225 $1,600 $1,700

Fair Market Rent [1] $1,156 $1,444 $1,798

[1] FY-2013 for Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH HUD Metro FMR Area Source: Craig's Lists; HUD & RKG Associates, Inc.

In short, the average asking rents at smaller multi-families in Peabody ranged from less than $900 for a one-bedroom unit to $1,600 for a three-bedroom unit. In each case, average asking rents were below the HUD Fair Market Rent, although the high-end of the range for each unit type was similar for the most part to FMR or exceeded it. Asking rents at the newer downtown condominiums properties were typically at near the average or toward the high-end of the range. These listing prices were also lower than indicated at the larger, post-2000 apartment complexes in Peabody, discussed earlier.

2. Land Sales for Apartment Projects RKG researched the City Assessor’s database locate and analyze land sales of post-2000 apartment projects and the results of five transfers (Appendix I; Volume 2). The sale dates ranged from October 2000 to July 2006 and the sales prices range from $575,000 to $17.4 million. The low-end was indicative of a 48-unit, age- and income-restricted development in the Downtown Study Area. This was a 2000 sale with an indicated land price of about $12,000 per unit for the 2.1-acre site. The high-end of the sale price range was the transfer of the 90-acre campus for Brooksby Village, a continuum of care facility built in 2003 (off Route 114) at $12,216/unit. The land sales of the two post-2000 apartment complexes in Peabody resulted in a value of $13,450 per unit at Crane Brook (14-North) campus to nearly $26,700 per unit for the Highlands at Dearborn. The sale price for the Brown School Residences indicated a price of nearly $32,000 per unit, or the high end of the per unit value range.

78


3. Rental Market Conclusions Peabody’s rental market experienced a boom over the last decade as it increased by over 2,000 units. Most of the new units were located outside the Downtown Study Area with convenient regional highway access or visibility, and in close proximity to the commercial build-up along the major highway corridors. These new projects also established high-end rental pricing that benefitted the older properties throughout the City and in the Downtown Study Area. Market rentals in the downtown were primarily limited to smaller multi-family properties, or older apartment buildings primarily with one-bedroom units on the upper floors. Rents at these units were typically at the low-to-mid point of the price ranges. Also, some modern condominium units that developed in the downtown over the last decade became part of the rental supply over the last few years due to slow sales and foreclosures. The need for additional rental units in Peabody and its downtown was evident by a relatively “tight” supply, coupled with annual renter turnover and continued demand for newer product to replace the older stock.

79

Goals & Benchmarks / 80

4. GOALS & BENCHMARKS Based on the existing conditions analysis, placemaking audit, and input from City officials and the general public, a set of Sustainability Indicators has been created to define and track economic development conditions in Downtown Peabody over the next five years. Sustainability Indicators measure various quality-of-life statistics and the current level at which the Downtown Study Area is measured. For example, an economic development indicator would be level of education, average commute time to work, median income, locally-owned businesses, unemployment rates, percentage of commercial-industrial tax base, and other measurable statistics that define the Downtown Study Area’s economic performance and role in the community. The actual numbers and values assigned to these indicators – where known based on the scope of this plan – are the benchmarks, and goals should be where the City wants to be in five years in numerical or measurable terms. Using baseline indicators, the RKG Team worked with the community to establish general economic development goals through a combination of interviews, public workshops, and discussions with City officials. The general goals listed below relate to specific economic strategies, actions, and implementation methods. Suggested Sustainability Indicators are attached at the end of Section 4 for the City’s use as it implements this plan (Table 4.1).

A. SETTLEMENT PATTERNS AND DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS GENERAL GOALS Maintain traditional settlement patterns, design, and development characteristics,

particularly in the Main Street – Peabody Square Subdistrict.

Facilitate infill development, redevelopment, and rehabilitation that is compatible and complimentary in terms of building design and property uses.

Provide well integrated and utilized open spaces and civic gathering places focusing on the North River – Railroad Subdistrict.

Building strong relationships between the private development and private realm through context-sensitive building design/placement, parking, streetscape enhancements, civic gathering areas, and sidewalk activation.

Implement and refine context-based plans, programs, policies, regulations, and incentives that maximize the economic and civic potential in Downtown Peabody.

Protect and promote key historic, civic, and cultural landmarks.

Protect environmental resources that are particularly sensitive to future development and change of use.

80


Address deteriorated or obsolete, and architecturally altered buildings that compromise historic integrity, the pedestrian environment, and economic potential.

Address vacant available land and potential development and redevelopment sites.

Provide for safe, convenient, and attractive access for vehicles, buses, bicycles and pedestrians modes of travel.

B. LAND AND BUILDING USES GENERAL GOALS Facilitate a high degree of vertical and horizontal mix of uses.

Provide for a diversity of commercial and institutional services that fulfill daily necessities.

Encourage clustering of complimentary uses that create synergy and attraction.

Facilitate ground floor commercial uses and upper floor commercial and residential uses in the Main Street – Peabody Square Subdistrict.

Facilitate civic facilities, passive, and active recreational uses, and limited mixed uses in the North River – Railroad Subdistrict.

Support commercial, light industrial, and residential uses in the Walnut Street Subdistrict through selected infill and redevelopment to provide essential services, employment opportunities, and new housing to the surrounding neighborhood.

C. BUSINESS, SERVICES, AND EMPLOYMENT GENERAL GOALS Expand the number of businesses providing essential services (food, clothing, and

health care) to residents living downtown and in surrounding neighborhood.

Expand retail and restaurants to serve local residents as well as commuters and visitors in Downtown Peabody.

Expand other commercial and light industrial enterprises to provide a broad range of well-paying jobs for local residents.

Encourage moderate to high “occupant density” (residents and workers).

D. PARKING CAPACITY, DISTRIBUTION, PLACEMENT, AND USAGE GENERAL GOALS Provide for well-distributed parking including public and private, on- and off-street

spaces.

Require parking placement to the rear of the building (or behind the front façade) to enhance walkability, particularly in the Main Street-Peabody Square Subdistrict.

81


Facilitate and incentivize shared access to parking facilities as well as internal access and connectivity between parking areas and to public sidewalks.

Manage public parking time limits and enforcement to provide convenience and access to both short-term customers and long-term employees.

E. ACCESS, CIRCULATION, CONNECTIVITY, AND STREET DESIGN GENERAL GOALS Maintain and improve street network connectivity, circulation, and access.

Continue to facilitate “Complete Streets” approach in Downtown Peabody by integrating a broad range of intermodal facilities (auto, service vehicles, pedestrian, bicycle, and bus transit).

Install wayfinding/directional signage that is visible, intuitive, and attractive.

Continue to improve safety and comfort for pedestrians.

Improve bicycle access and facilities such as designated bike paths, bike lanes, sharrow, bike boxes, and other improvements.

Encourage expanded utilization of bus transit and improve existing facilities.

F. WALKABILITY, VISITABILITY, AND STREET ACTIVATION GENERAL GOALS Encourage a reduction in the number and width of curb cuts through consolidation and

relocation where possible.

Encourage more pedestrian passages between the sidewalk and rear parking lots as well as pedestrian facilities through parking lots in front of buildings.

Encourage active uses of private frontages both in front of the buildings and on the sidewalks (e.g., forecourts, civic gathering areas, outdoor dining, store displays, etc.).

Continue to provide well-placed pedestrian crossings and traffic calming devices to enhance safety and the quality of the pedestrian experience.

Continue to expand attractive streetscapes with a broad combination of street trees, landscaping, and furnishings that are highly functional and well maintained.

Encourage more attractive and diverse building elements such as blade signs, wall signs, window signs, and awnings that are in scale with the building.

Encourage improved shopfronts that are interesting and engaging to the pedestrian including various window treatments and displays.

Install pedestrian level wayfinding and landmarks signage systems that direct and educate pedestrians about points of interest.

82


Utilize Tactical Urbanism applications such as PARKing, PARKlets, Pop-Up stores, vendors courts, food trucks and other temporary or incremental techniques to improve vitality and the pedestrian environment.

G. OPEN SPACES, CULTURAL ATTRIBUTES, CIVIC ACTIVITIES GENERAL GOALS Facilitate the installation of well-integrated active and passive open spaces such as

commons, greens, plazas, parks, playgrounds, community gardens, and others.

Expand use of public and civic buildings as venues for local government services, entertainment, cultural and historical events, recreation, and civic gatherings.

Plan for activities and events, and highly program civic spaces and buildings with a broad variety of community-oriented events.

Promote civic attributes such as local landmarks, cemeteries, historic buildings, and memorials.

Establish and public art installation program including sculpture, murals, and other forms.

H. PLANS, REGULATIONS, POLICIES, AND INCENTIVES GENERAL GOALS Allow for a broad range of commercial, light industrial, civic, institutional, and

residential uses in appropriate locations in the Downtown Study Area including a horizontal and vertical mix of uses.

Refine dimensional standards to address the placement of buildings on lots in context with traditional and desirable settlement patterns in certain area such as Main Street, Lowell Street, and Peabody Square.

Encourage more businesses to take advantage of existing ordinances supporting outdoor activities (e.g., sidewalk dining and displays) as well as attractive pedestrian-oriented business signs (e.g., hanging, wall, awning, window, and sandwich boards).

Refine parking standards to provide more flexibility in the required number of spaces through public on-street and off-street parking offsets, shared parking, and satellite parking.

Consider economic development incentive programs specially geared to the Downtown Study Area such as a façade and sign improvement program, low-interest loan program, tax increment financing (TIF) agreements, and district improvement financing (DIF).

Continue to seek grant funding for public infrastructure, open space, and private-public development partnerships that improve economic opportunity and performance of Downtown Peabody.

83


Table 4.1. Sustainability Indicators Indicator Current

Benchmark (if known)

5-Year Goal

Potential Sources of Information

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS Downtown Study Area (Acres) 80 City GIS Maps Downtown Study Area Population 4,809 American Community Survey Downtown Population Per Acre (Based on Census Tract 2108 area, not study area acres reported above)

21 American Community Survey; MassGIS

Number of Properties 151 Peabody Assessors Office LAND AND BUILDING USES Building and Land Use Total Building Square Footage 1,848,985 Peabody Assessors Office Building Types in FY2013 (# and SF) Peabody Assessors Office Commercial Buildings 50(480,801) Peabody Assessors Office Industrial Buildings 12 (112,935) Peabody Assessors Office Mixed Use Buildings 38 (473,550) Peabody Assessors Office Public, Civic and Institutional Buildings 10 (209,015) Peabody Assessors Office Residential Buildings 24 (253,304) Peabody Assessors Office Recreational Buildings None Peabody Assessors Office Vacant, Developable, and Potentially Developable Land

Peabody Assessors Office

Developable Commercial Land 2 (0.57) Peabody Assessors Office Industrial Land 1 (0.18) Peabody Assessors Office Developable Industrial Land 2 (0.98) Peabody Assessors Office Municipal Property - Vacant 4 (1.13) Peabody Assessors Office Municipal Property - Improved 3 (2.25) Peabody Assessors Office Protected Lands (acres) Peabody Assessors Office or

Conservation Commission CPA Lands - Peabody Assessors Office or

Community Preservation Committee

Private Conservation Land - Peabody Assessors Office or Conservation Commission

City and State Protected Land - Peabody Assessors Office or Conservation Commission

Active Recreation Land (East End Park) 1 (1.3) Peabody Assessors Office Building Design Characteristics Average Building Size in Main Street-PS Subdistrict

10,391 Peabody Assessors Office

Average Building Height in Main Street-PS Subdistrict

31 Peabody Assessors Office

Average Building Front Setback in Main Street-PS Subdistrict

12 Peabody Assessors Office

Average Building FAR in Main Street-PS Subdistrict

1.2 Peabody Assessors Office

Property Values Total Commercial/Industrial Property Value

$33,790,722 Peabody Assessors Office

84




5-Year Goal


Total Commercial/Industrial Property Value Per Acre

$1,620,658 Peabody Assessors Office

Percent of Total City-Wide Assessed Value from Commercial/Industrial Property

23.6% Peabody Assessors Office; MassDOR

BUSINESS, SERVICE AND EMPLOYMENT

Estimated Number of Business-Employer Establishments, 2013

262

InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013

Retail Businesses InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Retail Stores - Various 18 (7%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Electronics and Appliance Stores 2 (1%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Food and Beverage Stores 6 (2%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 3 (1%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Health and Personal Care Stores 4 (2%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Sporting Goods, Hobby, Musical Instrument, and Book Stores

2 (1%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013

Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 6 (2%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers


Restaurants and Drinking Establishments InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Full-Service Restaurants 18 (7%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Drinking Places Alcoholic Beverages 3 (1%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Limited-Service Restaurants 3 (1%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Professional, Financial and Personal Services


Accounting, Tax Preparation, Related Services


Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services


Travel Agencies 3 (1%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Commercial Banking 8 (3%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Insurance Agencies, Brokerages, Related Activities


Legal Services 9 (3%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Management, Scientific, and Technical Services


Real Estate 9 (3%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Hair, Nail, and Skin Care Services 19 (7%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 5 (2%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Other Professional Personal Services 16 (6%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Auto Related Businesses InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Automotive Repair and Maintenance 10 (4%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 5 (2%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Manufacturing and Construction Related Industries


Manufacturing 13 (5%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Construction 20 (8%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Wholesale Trade 8 (3%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Reupholstery & Furniture Repair 2 (1%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013

85




5-Year Goal


Services to Buildings and Dwellings 3 (1%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Public, Social, Religious and Institutional Services


Educational Services 7 (3%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Health Care and Social Assistance 11 (4%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation


Public Administration 5 (2%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Religious, Civic, Professional, and Similar Organizations


Unclassified Establishments 12 (5%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Est. Total Sales Volume of All Businesses, 2013 (in million $)

$ 338,403,000


Estimated Number of Jobs in Downtown Study Area

1,682


Estimated Average Employees Per Firm 6.4


Average Credit Score of Downtown Firms 80 (B) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Size of Firms (S.F.): InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 0-2,499 S.F. 137 (52%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 2,500-9,999 S.F. 84 (32%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 10,000-39,000 S.F. 34 (13%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 40,000+ S.F. 5 (1%) InfoUSA/Neilsen Oct. 2013 Ratio of Local Jobs to Downtown Labor Force (working residents)

American Community Survey (Labor Force); Downtown Jobs should be determined by survey of local businesses

Ratio of Local Jobs to Downtown Housing Units

American Community Survey (Housing); Downtown Jobs should be determined by survey of local businesses

Vacant Number of Storefronts on Main Street (Estimated)

5 On-Site Observations

OPEN SPACE, RECREATION AND CIVIC GATHERING AREAS

Land Dedicated to Passive/Active Recreational Uses

1.5± aces East End Park, City Hall front lawn, Library front lawn

Dedicated Land Per 1,000 Population Peabody GIS; Conservation Commission

Number and % of Dwellings within 1/4 mile of Dedication Lands

Peabody GIS

Number and % of Dwellings within 1/2 mile of Dedication Lands

Peabody GIS

Acres of Land Protected under CPA None Community Preservation Committee

Not-for Profit Recreation Based Organizations in Study Area

None Peabody Assessors Office or Recreation Department

THE ENVIRONMENT

86




5-Year Goal


Number of Buildings in the 100 Year Floodplain

Peabody GIS

Number of Buildings in 100 Year Floodplain Meeting Building Code

Estimate should be sought from Building Inspector

Number of LEED Certified Green Buildings and Sites

None Building Department of Community Development

Number of Designated Brownfield and Hazardous Waste Sites Identified

Mass. DEP, 2013

ACCESS, CIRCULATION, CONNECTIVITY AND STREET DESIGN

Roadway Network, Connectivity and Access Total Street Mileage in the Downtown Study Area

City DPW

Miles of Streets Per Square Mile City DPW, Peabody GIS Number of Intersections City DPW Number of Intersections Per Square Mile City DPW, Peabody GIS Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Miles of Bike Routes None City DPW Miles of Bike Trails and Multi-Purpose Paths

None City DPW

Ratio of Liner Miles of Streets to Linear Miles of Sidewalk

City DPW

Ratio of Liner Miles of Streets to Linear Mile of Bike Routes

NA City DPW

Average Block Size in Study Area Peabody GIS Number of Curbcuts on Main Street 36 City DPW Number of Intersections with Cross-Walks City DPW Number of Mid-Block Cross-Walks City DPW % of ADA Compliant Sidewalk Ramp and Crosswalks

City DPW

Traffic Congestion and Safety Total Number of Crashes in Past 3 Years

133 MassDOT 2008-2010

Number and % Crashes Involving Pedestrians Past 3 Years

None MassDOT 2008-2010

Number and % of Crashes Involving Bicyclists Past 3 Years

None MassDOT 2008-2010

Number and % Fatal Crashes Past 3 Years None MassDOT 2008-2010 Transit Characteristics Number of MBTA Fixed Bus Routes in Downtown Study Area

4 MBTA

Number of Bus Stops and Shelters in Downtown Study Area

6 MBTA

Parking Characteristics

87




5-Year Goal


Number of On-Street Public Parking Spaces in Main St-PS Subdistrict

137 On-site observations

Number of Off-Street Public Parking Spaces in Main St-PS Subdistrict


Number of Off-Street Private Parking Spaces in Main St-PS Subdistrict

1,107 On-site observations

Ratio of Parking Spaces to Net Rentable SF in Main St-PS Subdistrict


Number of Blocks with Ratio of Parking Spaces to Net Rentable SF less than 1:400


Number of Shared Curb-Cuts and Parking Lots on Main Street

On-site observations

Number of Pedestrian Passages to Parking Areas Behind Building

On-site observations

Parking Placement on Main Street: On-site observations Number of Lots in Front of Building 4 On-site observations Number of Lots to Side/Rear of Building 12 On-site observations Number of Lots Behind Building 31 On-site observations Walkability and Street Activation Characteristics

Typical Building to Street Enclosure on Main Street

1/2.5 Peabody GIS

Average Building Frontage Occupation in Main St-PS Subdistrict

69% Peabody GIS

Number of Businesses with Outdoor Seating in Main St-PS Subdistrict


Number of Businesses with Projecting (Blade, Hanging) Signs in Main St-PS Subdistrict


HOUSING Total Housing Units (Tract 2108) 2,285 American Community Survey Types of Housing Units: (note that some categories may overlap)

American Community Survey

Single Family Detached 277 American Community Survey Duplex 377 American Community Survey Three- or Four-Family 359 American Community Survey Multi-Family Building (5 to 9 Units) 24 American Community Survey Apartment Building (More than 9 Units) 1,163 American Community Survey Multi-Use Building (Comm/Res) 328 American Community Survey Other Housing Unit Types 163 American Community Survey % Age-Restricted Housing Units American Community Survey % Owner Occupied Housing Units 685 American Community Survey % Renter Occupied Housing Units 1,471 American Community Survey % Affordable Housing Units 40B Subsidized Housing Inventory Total Number of Households 2,156 American Community Survey Est. People per Ownership Unit 2.57 American Community Survey Est. People per Rental Unit 2.07 American Community Survey

88




5-Year Goal


Median Gross Rent $752 American Community Survey Median Owner-Occupied Home Value $299,500 American Community Survey REGULATIONS, POLICIES AND INCENTIVES

Regulations Broad Mix of Uses Permitted in Key Districts

Partially Amend Comm. MA Smart Growth Toolkit; recommendations of this plan

Provisions for Desired Density, Placement, and Vertical Definition of Buildings and Uses

Partially Amend Comm. MA Smart Growth Toolkit; recommendations of this plan

Context-Based Building Design Guidelines Yes On-site observations to assess effectiveness

Access Management Provisions Yes On-site observations to assess effectiveness

Smart Parking Standards No Comm. MA Smart Growth Toolkit

Quality Open Space, Civic Space and Landscaping Requirements

Yes On-site observations to assess effectiveness

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Standards Yes On-site observations to assess effectiveness

Effective Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Yes Local Action Units approved by DHCD Local Initiative Program

Low Impact Design (LID) Street, Parking and Infrastructure Standards

Yes

Policies and Incentives TIF Agreements City records DIF Districts No City records BID District No City records

EOA Designations Yes City records Expedited Permitting (Chapter 43D) No City records Façade and Sign Program No City records Low Interest Business Development Loan Programs

Yes City records

Grant Funds Used on Economic Development Projects

Yes City records

Commercial Tax Rate/Residential Tax Rate Ratio

Peabody Assessors Office; MassDOR

Downtown Organization Yes Peabody Downtown Association, Peabody Area Chamber of Commerce

Economic Development and Industrial Corporation (EDIC)

No Special Act of Legislature or Adoption of Chapter 121C

89

Recommendations and Action Plan / 90

5. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLAN This chapter of the Downtown Economic Development Plan presents many recommended action items that City officials and their partners in the business community should pursue over the next five years. The actions are based on the information and analysis in previous chapters and the following additional sources:

Public input at three community meetings held in July, September, and October 2013;

A special online survey conducted in the fall of 2013 to understand residents’ preferences for what Downtown Peabody should look like (Visual Preference Survey);

A meeting with local businesses, organized by the Peabody Area Chamber of Commerce;

Observations gathered by RKG’s team during interviews and informal field surveys between May and August 2013; and

An assessment of Peabody’s capacity to carry out a comprehensive downtown revitalization and development plan, given all of the competing needs that City Hall is trying to address.

Relevant documents from the public participation activities listed above can be found in Appendix J (Volume 2). In addition, Appendix K (Volume 2) contains a list of potential non-local funding sources that may be appropriate for implementing this plan. Finally, Appendix M identifies a selection of brownfield sites identified by Weston & Sampson, Inc., in the Downtown Study Area. (The content of Appendix L is discussed later in this section.)

A. BUSINESS RETENTION AND DEVELOPMENT Business retention and development strategies focus on current and projected unmet demand that would be likely to locate in Downtown Peabody based on the market analysis. The City should encourage business development (including retail, food and drink, entertainment, office, light manufacturing, and civic organizations) that would complement and bolster the existing business mix and enhance the character of Downtown Peabody.

1. Establish a Downtown Partnership Organization to Lead the Downtown Marketing and Economic Development Effort

The Downtown Partnership should be organized to serves as an umbrella organization and pull together constituents from both the private sectors and City for coordinated marketing, branding, economic development and business recruitments programs. The Downtown Partnership should build on the Peabody Area Chamber of Commerce's excellent work and the Peabody Downtown Association’s (PDA) momentum by expanding into more focused economic development, marketing and business development initiatives for Downtown Peabody. There are two key steps that need to be taken to mobilize the downtown

90


partnership: expand its roles and responsibilities beyond those of existing groups, and hire staff to support and carry out the organization’s mission. EXPAND THE ROLE OF THE ORGANIZATION. Once the joint partnership is assembled, it should fill the following roles: Become the centralized and authoritative voice for business development, capital projects

and marketing in Downtown Peabody.

Position the downtown as a major asset within the region.

Provide the leadership necessary to implement economic development programs.

Promote downtown businesses, locally and regionally.

Assist businesses in understanding City regulations and policies, and utilizing economic incentives and resources.

Represent the downtown business community at the City level and maintain strong communication between municipal officials and businesses operators.

Create a cooperative forum for sharing ideas and resources.

Create opportunities for mentoring and training youth, including linking schools and business.

Identify and work with the City to acquire key properties for targeted development or redevelopment.

Recruit successful regional businesses.

Support entrepreneurship, cottage industries and small scale manufacturing in the Downtown Study Area.

Work with the City in creating and administering business development incentive programs such as alow-interest business loan pool, a Façade and Sign Improvement Program, and others (see below).

EXAMPLES AND CASE STUDIES

Massachusetts has fifteen general downtown organizations, and the City of Boston has sponsored twenty-two neighborhood Main Street organizations.

• The Dedham Square Circle (DSC) in Dedham, MA, is a good model for Downtown Peabody. DSC is a designated 501(c)(3) and serves as an umbrella organization for business and property owners in Dedham Square. It has town-wide support and a winter fundraiser that brings in about $70,000 to carry out events, marketing, and promotional programs. “Friends of DCS” serves as the organization’s fundraising arm. Although the DSC existed before construction of Legacy Place, a large lifestyle center in Dedham located directly off I-95, the group solidified and gained strength when the mall was approved. Around

91


the same time, the Town of Dedham hired an Economic Development Coordinator (EDC) who played an instrumental role in helping the DSC advance from a small merchants organization to an active, effective advocacy group for Dedham Square businesses. With mitigation funds from Legacy Place as a match, the EDC wrote a successful streetscape improvements grant application that brought long-overdue physical improvements to Dedham Square. Today, the DSC is staffed by a part-time director who works with the board of directors to develop an annual projects list and timeline for raising funds. Sample initiatives include a website, street banners, streetscape and wayfinding design, façade and sign project, farmers market, and working with prospective developers on new building projects.

• Additional examples of effective downtown organizations include Building a Better Brattleboro (VT) and some of the smaller business improvement districts in Massachusetts such as Hyannis, Westfield, and Amherst (See BID recommendation below).

HIRE OR APPOINT A DOWNTOWN MANAGER. Peabody needs a downtown partnership manager to help downtown businesses organize, develop and carry out marketing programs, and work with property owners on property improvements. Downtown managers hail from a variety of backgrounds and experiences: marketing, business development, non-profit leadership, or community organizing. There are several models for hiring full- or part-time downtown managers, but most usually involve a partnership or pact between the downtown business community and the city or town. Funding should be from a variety of sources, including local businesses, major employers, property owners, interested citizens (contributions or donations), and the City.

2. Undertake a Business Retention Program Downtown Peabody should be a "place of necessity" for local residents. For example, shops and services that are utilized on a regular basis such as groceries, a pharmacy, clothing, restaurants, banks, the post office, and personal services should be strongly supported. The Downtown Partnership should undertake a local business retention, support and enhancement program that services local needs. This program should support pedestrian access and safety improvements to the grocery stores, pharmacies, the post office and banks, and all other necessary services that are within walking distance of downtown neighborhoods.

3. Undertake a Targeted Business Recruitment Program Based on the market analysis, there appears to be an opportunity for certain types of businesses, as suggested in the future space demands reported in Table 3.4. The City and downtown business community should work together in carrying out a business recruitment strategy, focusing on the following:

Accentuate the advantages of operating a business or investing in Downtown Peabody to prospective businesses owners and property investors.

92


Seek out entrepreneurs in the region who may be seeking new business opportunities in a downtown setting with lower operating costs and high traffic volumes.

Target business sectors which have a strong constituency locally and regionally.

Develop a list of appropriate regionally-based companies, contact them, and encourage personal visits.

The Downtown Partnership should work closely with the City and Peabody Area Chamber of Commerce to identify successful regional businesses under these categories (as well as other desired business categories). A Downtown Recruitment Team should be established to go out and meet with business operators and shop owners to discuss the opportunities they may have in opening another store in Downtown Peabody. In addition to information on market opportunities, the Recruitment Team should discuss other City-sponsored economic incentives and revitalization initiatives that may be utilized to enhance the success of their business.

B. MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS Marketing and communications have become increasingly important in small to mid-sized downtowns as they compete for quality jobs, a sustainable tax base, and a vibrant civic life. Business recruitment initiatives and advertising has grown rapidly as prospects are bombarded with messages and materials. This trend has made it much more difficult for business prospects to differentiate between the products, services, and places offered by a municipality. If Downtown Peabody is to grow existing businesses and, at the same time, attract desirable new businesses to downtown, it must develop a simple and compelling story that differentiates it from its competitors.

GENERAL MARKETING PARAMETERS FOR DOWNTOWN PEABODY

• Accentuate the positive advantages of operating a business or investing in redevelopment sites in Downtown Peabody to prospective businesses and property owners.

• Wherever possible, quantify these advantages, especially in terms of access to commuters via Route 1 and Route 128, built-in resident and employee markets, quality of the regional labor force, property availability and costs, City-supported incentive programs, and other local advantages.

• Respond swiftly and effectively to businesses and developers showing interest.

• Seek out business and higher education leaders in the region who may be looking for new branch opportunities.

• Target business and industry sectors that have a strong constituency both locally and regionally.

• Mobilize a small task force of regionally successful businesses who can suggest similar types of business prospects.

93


• Develop a list of appropriate businesses regionally, contact them, and conduct a personal visit, and encourage them to meet with City officials and local business leaders.

• Create a portfolio of economic development data about Downtown Peabody, e.g., marketing materials that compare Downtown Peabody with other downtowns in the region on the basis of cost, access, and visibility advantages.

An effective downtown marketing and communications program requires a combination of cost-effective advertising, targeted and “hands-on” business recruitment, and a public relations campaign that will create a “buzz” and give downtown an opportunity to tell its story. Recommended actions are further described below.

1. Define Downtown’s Competitive Advantages and Develop Strategic Marketing Materials Accordingly

The key to an effective marketing strategy is to identify and describe to prospective investors the competitive advantages of opening a business in the downtown area. Some of the advantages identified in this plan include:

A strong and diverse network of small locally-owned businesses and civic organizations to support growth in the downtown economy;

Relatively lower costs than nearby downtowns, providing attractive advantages to entrepreneurs;

An expansive regional network of higher education, historic and natural resources, cultural institutions and organizations to support small business and attract visitors;

Downtown’s institutional resources such as City Hall, Essex County District Court, Peabody Institute Public Library, and Post Office;

Very attractive buildings, streets, civic spaces and recreational amenities;

The new streetscape improvements along Main Street, which improve business exposure;

Open commercial spaces at ground level in highly visible locations; and

Commercial rental rates appear to be very competitive.

2. Create a Marketing Portfolio After competitive advantages of Downtown Peabody are clearly defined, the Downtown Partnership and City should work together in preparing a Marketing Portfolio including the following elements: Economic Resource Guide. Specific to Downtown Peabody, this may include: a

description of the market analysis; socio-economic profile; existing businesses and

94


institutions; recreational, cultural, natural and historic attributes; and local business development and property investment programs and incentives.

Downtown Brochures. Brochures should feature the history of downtown as well as current businesses, civic and cultural resources, and community events.

Space Inventory. A list of available commercial properties in the downtown area is an important element of the Marketing Portfolio. It provides prospective business tenants with an opportunity to identify several possible locations within the downtown and match specific spaces to their own particular needs and objectives. The space inventory should be coordinated with local realtors and property owners and updated on a regular basis.

These marketing materials should be distributed at local and regional points of interest such as City Hall, Peabody Leatherworks Museum, Peabody-Essex Museum, the Library, and regional visitor centers.

3. Create a Downtown Peabody Social Media Program Social media platforms are the most cost effective way for small downtown organizations to promote business and development opportunities and attract customers. The City and downtown business community should work together to create new social media venues that focus on assets, attractions, activities, competitive advantages and investment opportunities in Downtown Peabody. CREATE A DOWNTOWN PEABODY WEBSITE. A dedicated website for Downtown Peabody should provide the following elements: Summaries and links to relevant plans, policies, regulations, and incentives pertaining to

Downtown.

A current business listing and directory map including links to business homepages.

A current list downtown, city-wide and regional events.

A listing of recreational, cultural and civic activities, facilities and organizations (and links).

Socio-economic profile and market assessment.

SPACE Inventory including property owner and realtor contacts.

A downtown website should also be coordinated with the marketing portfolio described above.

95


TAP OTHER RECOMMENDED SOCIAL MEDIA VENUES. Coordinated with the new downtown website, there should be a Downtown Peabody Facebook page, YouTube Channel, Twitter, and blogs to generate information and interest in downtown. LINK SOCIAL MEDIA VENUES. The downtown website and other social media venues should be linked to local businesses and organizations such as the City of Peabody, Peabody Downtown Association, the Peabody Institute Library, Peabody County Chamber of Commerce, and others.


There are many outstanding examples small to mid-sized downtown websites and social media venues including Building a Better Brattleboro, Dedham Square Circle, Bellows Falls Downtown Alliance, Hyannis Main Street BID, and several of the Boston Main Streets program neighborhoods.

4. Develop a Downtown Logo and Slogan A logo and slogan will establish an instantly recognizable symbol for Downtown Peabody. It should be high quality and professional assistance should be considered. Once selected, the logo and slogan should be used on all marketing materials such as posters, leaflets, and the downtown website. It should also be used on all banners as well as gateway and directional signs in the downtown area. The logo should be coordinated with other existing logos in terms of colors and fonts such as those used by the City or Peabody Area Chamber of Commerce. Downtown’s subdistricts could be named, too, e.g., the Walnut Street corridor could be identified as the “Tannery District,” thereby distinguishing it from the “Main Street District” or “Peabody Square.”

5. Create a Consistent Multimedia Joint Advertising Program Joint advertising should be geared toward promoting Downtown Peabody as a district rather than individual businesses using the following tools: Cooperative print advertisements and inserts at strategic times during the year such as

the holiday season. Cooperative radio advertisements. Cable television show on a weekly basis such as “What’s Up with Downtown Peabody”

providing the community with information about upcoming events, projects, interviews with existing businesses, and new businesses.

A new downtown website and expansion of the current Peabody Downtown Association Facebook page can also be a very effective joint advertising tool at minimal cost to individual businesses.

96


6. Cross Promote Peabody with Other Regional Points of Interest and Marketing Initiatives

Peabody should be recognized as part of a regional geography and marketable attributes such as the North Shore Mall, Peabody-Essex Museum, Downtown Salem, Marblehead, and Cape Ann.

7. Partners with Colleges and Universities in the Region for Economic Development

Higher education institutions in the region such as Salem State University can be a positive influence on Downtown Peabody and there may be mutual benefits in creating links with the higher education institutions throughout the region. Some potential partnerships and strategic economic initiatives may be formed between the City, business leaders and colleges such as the following: Providing technical and business assistance through student projects, courses or lectures.

Apprenticeship and internship programs with local businesses with little or no staff.

Exhibits and performances in downtown venues.

Incubator for professors considering starting a new business venture.

8. Market Downtown Events to West Peabody Residents The City should take more steps to market downtown’s goods, services, and special events throughout Peabody, but especially to the residents of West Peabody. Doing so would help to reinforce the importance of downtown to everyone in Peabody and build a stronger sense of community. For example, the City could send event announcements through electric bills from the Peabody Municipal Light Plant and water bills.

9. Create a Downtown Plan Implementation Committee To carry out this economic development plan on behalf of the Mayor, the City should establish a Downtown Plan Implementation Committee composed of downtown commercial property owners and business owners, groups that have a direct stake in downtown’s health – such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Peabody Downtown Association, the Library, and others – and City staff and elected officials.

C. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND CIRCULATION

1. Establish an Access Management Program for Downtown Peabody Access management involves a set of strategies to improve the safety and efficiency of traffic by reducing congestion and conflict points, while simultaneously preserving community

97


character and safety through land use planning and site design. An effective local access management program in Downtown Peabody can play an important role in reducing accidents, preserving roadway capacity, and avoiding or minimizing costly roadway improvements to correct safety and congestion problems. The traveling public benefits from safer and more efficient travel, including pedestrians and bicyclists. Key elements of access management in Downtown Peabody include: Connections between adjacent properties (known as "cross access");

Limited driveway openings, including shared driveways and driveway spacing standards;

Corner clearance standards;

Intersection spacing and traffic signal spacing;

Center medians and other means of restricting turning movements at specific locations;

Shared parking between adjacent businesses, centralized public parking, and side and rear parking (versus parking between roadway and building); and

Convenient internal circulation and external connections for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Site-specific access management improvements should have a particular focus on Main Street and Walnut Street (where the most retail and restaurant establishments are located), and involve reducing curb cuts, sharing access, and making internal connections where feasible. Many of these businesses benefit from increased economic vitality along a well-managed corridor because of safer access to and from their establishments.

2. Install Traffic Calming Treatments to Improve Pedestrian Safety and Attractive Walking Environment

Curb extensions (or bulb-outs) are short sections of the street, usually at intersections, where pavement has been narrowed by extending the sidewalk into the on-street parking lanes. This reduces the width of the street that a pedestrian must cross, making crossing times shorter, easier, and safer. It also puts pedestrians in a place of greater visibility so that they can see traffic more easily and motorists can see them. Pedestrian refuge islands are placed in the center of the road between travel lanes, providing an opportunity for pedestrians to cross one lane at a time safely. An additional benefit of curb extensions and pedestrian refuge islands is that the street is narrowed so vehicles tend to slow down. These traffic-calming treatments, together with crosswalks, are also designed to enhance appearance through pavement treatments and landscaping.

98


EXAMPLES OF PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND TRAFFIC-CALMING TREATMENTS

Curb Extension with Brick Apron and Street Tree

Narrow Lanes with Landscaped Center Island/Pedestrian Refuge

Crosswalk and Pedestrian Refuge

LOCATIONAL TREATMENTS. Future phases of the streetscape improvement program should include specifically designed traffic calming enhancements to balance vehicle mobility with pedestrian safety. The primary focus of traffic calming is in Peabody Square which serves at the main gateway and entrance into downtown and the most difficult environment for pedestrians to maneuver safely. The key traffic calming intersections include: Central Street at Main Street

Central Street at Lowell Street

Central Street and Railroad Avenue

Central Street and Walnut Street

Walnut Street at Wallis Street, Caller Street and Howley Street

CONSISTENT TREATMENTS. Currently there are several different colors and treatments of pedestrian crossings in the Downtown Study Area. The City should provide a consistent design to cross walks as a indicator to pedestrians to cross in designated areas and to drives to slow down. Other traffic calming design elements should include additional pedestrian-level ornamental lighting, new sidewalks, curb extensions, center medians/pedestrian refuges, and raised cross-walks where needed.

3. Explore the Feasibility of Trolley Line or Light Rail to Salem Station Though clearly a long-term proposition, the City should begin the process of studying options for providing public transportation service between Downtown Peabody and the Salem commuter rail station.

4. Create Bike Lanes on Main and Boston Streets Also to facilitate access between Downtown Peabody and Downtown Salem, the City should work with city leaders in Salem to explore creating bicycle lanes on Main Street and Boston streets.

99


D. PARKING IMPROVEMENTS AND MANAGEMENT The public and private parking system (and the perception of adequate parking) is critical to the vitality of Downtown Peabody. Through the community engagement process, several parking issues were identified in the Downtown Study Area, e.g., the strategic expansion of public parking, connection of public and private parking areas, management of public and private spaces to facilitate a higher turnover of spaces primarily intended for customer use, and designation of longer-term remote spaces for local employees. Some of the specific considerations for future parking enhancements include the recommendations outlined below.

1. Improve Lighting and Landscaping in Off-Street Public Parking Lots The majority of both public and private parking lots have little or no landscaping or lighting. The advantage to providing trees is that they create shade for parkers and enhance the image of downtown for customers. Lighting provides additional sense of security. The trade-off would be that installing landscaping and lighting will require the reuse of a certain number of parking spaces.

EXAMPLES OF PARKING LOT TREATMENTS

Private Parking Lot Landscaping Pinehills, MA Rear Access from Parking Lot, Amherst, MA

Shade Trees in Parking Lot Solar Panel Shade Parking Lot and includes Car Charging Station

100


2. Carry Out a Parking Management Plan for Downtown Peabody Effective parking management might be best advanced through a formalized plan involving the City, MBTA (bus transit), the Peabody Downtown Association, Peabody Area Chamber of Commerce, and local business and property owners. The purpose of this plan would be to formalize cooperative strategies to carry out physical improvements, improve signage and access, maximize efficiency through shared uses, and make appropriate policy changes regarding managing and enforcing the parking supply. One option is to create a Downtown Parking Management Authority to formally organize shared interests in the supply and management of parking. The authority would be in a position to explore many methods to improve parking access, signage, shared use, and supply. They would report regularly to the City regarding the results of their efforts. In addition to the physical improvements identified in this section, specific management actions that could be addressed in the Parking Management Plan are as follows: FACILITATE PARKING AGREEMENTS. Formalized agreements among property owners (including the City) may lead to more efficient, shared layouts and access for pedestrians and vehicles at public and private parking lots in the Downtown Study Area. Parking agreements allow participants to rationalize and improve shared parking opportunities, including access for cars or pedestrians, shared use that allows for more efficient layouts, and the like. Participants can be any combination of private property owners, institutions, or the municipality. ALLOW AND ENCOURAGE SHARED PARKING. One of the keys to success for mixed-use districts is the ability for parking spaces to be shared among different users at different times. Not only does this promote the efficient use of the land, it supports the type of active pedestrian district that is critical to supporting vital mixed-use centers. Shared parking accommodations can be accomplished through zoning regulations and formal agreements, but need to be planned and managed. FACILITATE ACCESS EASEMENTS AND AGREEMENTS BETWEEN OWNERS. Pedestrian circulation through and around downtown is critically important in order to support the businesses, civic, and institutional uses. Reasonable pathways often pass across non-public land. Communities and property owners can establish access easements and other forms of legal agreements that ensure that property rights are protected but allow for pedestrian passageways and associated improvements. IMPROVE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARKING LOT CONNECTIVITY. On-site observations indicate that private parking efficiency could be improved in several places in the Downtown Study Area. The Town should consider incentives for private property owners to coordinate and provide internal connection where possible which could result in the creation of additional parking spaces and reduction in curb-cuts.

101


EXPAND THE PARKING STICKER PERMIT PROGRAM. The sticker permit program should be heavily promoted to downtown residents and employees to encourage them to park in more remote locations away from the core area along Main Street where customer parking is critical to business success. The City should consider marketing the program and look at additional methods of getting long-term parkers to obtain permits. Fees should be evaluated to determine if there’s enough incentive is provided to employees to park further out. Other issues such a comfort and safety would need to be evaluated EVALUATE PARKING ENFORCEMENT. Business and property owners benefit by consistent parking enforcement in the downtown area to ensure that the limited number of spaces, including the use of short and long-term spaces, is most effectively utilized. The general goal is to encourage more employees to park in the public off-street lots. Based on community feedback, education along with improved pedestrian lighting and consistent enforcement may be necessary to maximize the efficiency of public parking.

3. Evaluate Parking Time Limits of Parking Meters on Main Street On- and off-street public parking time limits should be based on proximity to the core business area along Main Street. Shorter time limited (such as 30 minutes to 2 hours) should apply to on-street parking where high customer turnover is desirable and beneficial to nearby businesses. On-street parking on side streets and off-street parking lots should be timed for longer periods and geared for local workers and customers that are planning on staying in the downtown area for an extended period of time. Any timing program has to be coupled with consistent enforcement to ensure proper turnover of spaces and with an effective directional sign program that allows customers to easily find short- and long-term parking throughout Downtown Peabody. Any proposed changes in timing of on-street and off-street parking limits should directly involve downtown property owners, business owners, and employees. During the public workshops, the possibility of eliminating the parking meters was proposed by several citizens. This is not recommended in this plan. Metered parking is the best way to enforce time limits and ensure better turnover of short and long-term spaces. Meter revenues are also typically used to support parking enforcement and to improve/expand public parking in the downtown area. Local residents and businesses are often against meters as they may be perceived as driving customers away. One intermediate approach would be to allow the 15-30 minutes of parking for free before the meter begins to count the time. This can be a much appreciated convenience for both merchant and customer while continuing to improve the turnover of short-term parking spaces.

4. Evaluate the Feasibility and Benefits of Structured Parking in the Long-Term

The City should consider structured parking in coordination (and possible partnership) with mixed use developments and based on potential siting, design and costs/revenues for the

102


facilities. The per space cost of construction costs are significantly higher than creating more surface parking space but the lost tax revenue of development land and the potential economic benefits of a mixed use project have to be considered as well. Of the five municipal lots, the Mill Street and Central Street lots have the best potential for structured parking due to their topography and proximity to the core area of Main Street where several existing buildings have potential for renovating upper floor spaces for office and residential uses.

5. Consider Establishing a Public Parking Fund The zoning ordinance should allow for payment in lieu of parking in Downtown Peabody. While not currently in place, the City should consider forming a public parking fund. It is suggested that the fund be defined broadly so that the City can use collected fees for any capital investment that adds new parking spaces, reconfigures lots to improve the utilization of existing spaces, closes or consolidates curb cuts, improves the management of supply or demand for parking spaces, adds new or improved pedestrian paths or amenities, provides bicycle parking or public transit facilities, or encourages other measures that shorten perceived walking distances in the Downtown Study Area. A Public Parking Fund would be one of many techniques that can be employed to finance public parking structures and lots. Direct expenditures and bonding using parking revenues or tax increment resources are other common methods.

E. STREETSCAPE AND WALKABILITY IMPROVEMENTS Good street design promotes community livability and vitality by emphasizing local travel needs and creating a safe, inviting space for community activity. In Downtown Peabody, it is important that future streetscape enhancements preserve the history and character of district, and that street design is integrated with adjacent building uses and open spaces. A detailed assessment of Main Street walkability can be found in Appendix L (Volume 2). Peabody has made significant streetscape improvements along Main Street and has also revised local regulations to allow outdoor dining, displays and projecting signs which contribute to walkability and a vibrant streetscape. Future streetscape enhancements should focus on basic design elements such as street furniture, public art, private landscaping (i.e. flower boxes), wayfinding signs, business directories, and a thorough maintenance program. Collectively, these elements should create an environment that is not only attractive, but can slow traffic and encourage walking, bicycling and use of bus transit. Through the community engagement process and on-site observations the following additional streetscape enhancements are recommended:

103


EXAMPLES OF STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS

Sidewalk Seating Area, Plymouth MA Sidewalk Planter, Batavia

NY Planting Strip and Furnishings, Niagara-on-the-Lake

1. Implement New Phases of Downtown Streetscape Improvements Streetscape improvements can provide more depth to the core area along Main Street by expanding pedestrian connectivity to parallel and side streets, and creating a more attractive setting for future business development and investment. Recommended future phases of the streetscape improvement project are shown in Table 5.1. New street trees planted in the core area along Main Street, Peabody Square and Walnut Street should be carefully located so as not to block doorway, window, and sign visibility. They may be best situated where buildings are joined together at a common wall or where parking is located in front of the building. The attractive ornamental gas-lamp street lights on Main Street and Washington Street should be extended onto other primary streets such as Central Street, Lowell Street, Foster Street, and Walnut Street. They should also be extended one block deep into Mill Street, Caller Street, Howley Street, and the neighborhood streets on the south side to create better depths to the Main Street business area, safer pedestrian access, and improved connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods.

Table 5.1 Recommended Future Streetscape Improvements in the Downtown Study Area Corridor Segment Treatment

Walnut Street Central St to Howley St Replace dead and dying trees; install new trees in open tree pits, prune existing trees as need to provide views of doors and window; add curb extensions and pedestrian crossing treatments at Caller, Wallis and Howley St intersections.

104


Table 5.1 Recommended Future Streetscape Improvements in the Downtown Study Area Corridor Segment Treatment

Peabody Square Walnut St to Lower St Implement preliminary street reconfiguration and streetscape plan; add new/replace damaged and missing street trees; consider landscaped median; traffic calming at major intersections

Foster Street Church St to Main St Repair sidewalks and prune street trees on west side; prune trees, add welcome signs and maintain furnishings in pocket at corner of Lowell St.

Wallis Street Main Street to Walnut St. Strip parking spaces and install curb extensions with new street trees at regular intervals to enclose street, slow vehicles, and improve aesthetics

Caller Street Main Street to Walnut St. Strip parking spaces and install curb extensions with new street trees at regular intervals to enclose street, slow vehicles, and improve aesthetics

Howley Street Main Street to Walnut St. Strip parking spaces and install curb extensions with new street trees at regular intervals to enclose street, slow vehicles, and improve aesthetics

EXAMPLES OF SIDEWALK ENHANCEMENTS

Street Trees Pruned Up Bridgewater, MA

Seating and Bike Racks, Portsmouth, NH Outdoor Seating on Narrow Sidewalk Winter Park, FL

105


2. Create an Advisory Committee for New Streetscape Projects and Tree Maintenance

The City Council should consider appointing a committee to oversee the design and installation of future streetscape improvements in Downtown Peabody as well as the maintenance of existing street trees. Maintenance of existing trees may involve the property irrigation and cleaning of tree grates. Pruning is also an important consideration. Street trees should be pruned to a level of 10 feet to that they do not create obstacles for pedestrians or screen the view of business signs, windows and doorways. The advisory committee should also be responsible to selecting and planting replacement and new street trees as necessary.

3. Install Downtown Gateway Treatments and Wayfinding Signage Attractive entrances or “gateways” into Downtown Peabody are critical to making a good impression on residents, visitors, and commuters (all potential customers). Gateway treatments also function as traffic-calming devices, providing a message to travelers to slow down as they approach the downtown center. Attractive planters and coordinated directional and welcome signs should be installed to enhance aesthetic value at key entrances to downtown. Potential locations, treatments, and examples are described and illustrated below.

EXAMPLES OF DOWNTOWN GATEWAY TREATMENTS

Kissimmee, FL Niagara On The Lake, Ontario CAN Batavia, NY

The primary gateways into Downtown Peabody converge on Peabody Square from Lowell Street, Main Street, Central Street and Foster Street. This is the best location to discover downtown and make an impression on travelers. Existing gateway treatments in the square include the Peabody Monument which is clearly visible to travelers on all for approached but could be enhanced with other treatments throughout the square. It is critical that gateway and wayfinding treatments in the square as well as the four primary corridors leading into the square are visible, high quality and attractive. More prominent and visible treatments are recommended at the locations below:

106


Install new welcome ground sign on Lowell Street eastbound at the corner of School Street

and upgrade the over-street banner at the Fire Station.

Install new welcome ground sign on Central Street southbound at Hardy Street and upgrade over-street banner.

Install new welcome ground sign on Main Street westbound at Howley Street and install new over-street banner.

Install new welcome ground sign on Foster Street northbound at Summer Street.

Install proposed streetscape improvements at Peabody Square by eliminating slip lanes, reconfiguration the island, relocation of the monument, and creating of plaza spaces.

Thin trees and install monument sign at pocket park at corner of Foster Street in Peabody Square.

4. Upgrade Wayfinding and Directional Signage System While there are some directional signs in Downtown Peabody, it is not as visible and intuitive as it should be to effectively indicate to motorists where points of interest and public parking are available in the Study Area. New directional signage should be considered that is coordinated with the new downtown logo and slogan, and uniform in design with gateway treatments, informational kiosks, and interpretive boards. It should be strategically located and visible at entry points to the Downtown Study Area and lead visitors to public parking lots. The wayfinding system should be implemented in concert with traffic-calming and crosswalk improvements at key intersections along Main Street, Central Street Walnut Street, and Peabody Square. Street Banners. Install additional street banners along Main Street on existing cobrahead lights and signal poles between Peabody Square and Howley Street. The banners should be perpendicular to the street and identify public parking and points of interest. They should also include sponsors and eventually replace the sponsor signs on pedestrian-level gas lamps, which are difficult to see and diminish the aesthetic appeal of the fixture. Interpretive Signage at East End Park, significant historic buildings, City Hall, Library, and other points of interest.

107


EXAMPLES OF WAYFINDING SIGN SYSTEMS

Coordinated Wayfinding System, Englewood, FL Pole Mounted Amherst, MA

5. Install Downtown Information Kiosks Strategically located informational kiosks should be placed in Downtown Peabody. The kiosks can be both stand-alone structures and wall-mounted units and should contain a business directory map, points of public interest, and information on upcoming events and activities in Peabody. The kiosk should also contain marketing materials explaining and illustrating local history, architecture, and culture. The new slogan and logo should be incorporated into the kiosk design. Potential locations may include City Hall, Peabody Square, East End Park, Peabody Institute Library, and mid-block along Main Street, and all public parking lots.

EXAMPLES OF WAYFINDING SIGNS, INFORMATIONAL KIOSKS, AND DOWNTOWN DIRECTORY BOARDS

Newburyport, MA Saratoga Springs, NY Falmouth, MA

6. Create a Downtown Murals Program Attractively designed murals can help create a positive symbol for downtown and serve as a reminder to residents and customers of significant cultural characteristics, historical events,

108


and fun facts about Downtown Peabody. One example would be a “Did You Know” timeline (see example below from Lyons, NY) that highlights significant historical events and community activities in downtown using attractive photos and graphics. Murals should be placed in visible locations that are currently unattractive (such as blank building walls, abutments, alleys, or parking areas). Local artists and students could be recruited to participate in a mural program.

7. Install New Interpretive Sign Boards Install interpretive boards and coordinate these small ground- or wall-mounted signs with the overall wayfinding system. They should depict and describe important natural, historic and cultural attributes in Downtown Peabody. Some potential locations for interpretative signs include East End Park (and other former tannery sites), City Hall, Pioneer House and other historic structures on Washington Street, and other points of interest.

EXAMPLES OF MURALS AND STREET ART

Example mural highlighting the Village of Lyon’s heritage along the Erie Canal in New York

Example murals and street art, Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida

109


8. Work with Existing Business Operators and Property Owners to Consistently Maintenance Curb Appeal

There are a number of storefronts in the Downtown Study Area that are not consistently maintained or are in disrepair. It is critical for business operators and property owners to properly maintain storefronts to make a good impression on local customers, visitors, and perspective new business tenants. Maintaining curb appeal may include washing store windows, sweeping trash, removing poor quality or garish window signs, painting facades, and replacing or installing new high quality awnings. The following additional actions are recommended: PREPARE A BROCHURE. Identify methods of improving storefront "curb appeal" and window displays; distribute to businesses; sponsor workshops and webinars by store merchandizing consultants; inform shop owners of blogs, websites, LinkedIn and Facebook pages, YouTube channels, and other on-line tutorials and educational materials on the subject. DISCOURAGE NEGATIVE CONGREGATIONS. Store owners should be aware of possible behavior issues of certain individuals or groups that may congregate in front of certain shops and create an uncomfortable street environment for some customers. DEVELOP A MERCHANDISING PROGRAM FOR SHOP OWNERS. The City and new Downtown Partnership should create a technical assistance program for local merchants on merchandising, window display, promotion, and marketing. CREATE TEMPORARY WINDOW DISPLAYS. Vacant storefronts should be kept clean, attractive and interesting to pedestrians. Temporary displays can be very effective, such as a walking gallery featuring artwork from local children, professional artists, merchandise from other downtown stores, or community events and project displays. Vacant storefront windows can also be decorated with temporary paints and decoration to celebrate a seasonal or specific holidays.

9. Develop a Merchandising Program for Downtown Shop Owners The City together with the Peabody Downtown Association and Chamber of Commerce should create a technical assistance program for local merchants on merchandising, window display, promotion, and marketing. There are several regional consultants that will provide this service for reasonable fees.

10. Improve Pedestrian Access to Sidewalks and Buildings There are several privately owned pedestrian alleys between Main Street and the private parking lots located on both and north and south sides of the street. Several of these alleys are currently closed off but could be reopened to provide more direct access for pedestrians from the parking to the sidewalk. The City should work with property owners to encourage these passages to be opened where safe and attractive pedestrian connection could be provided enhanced walkability to the district. There are also several buildings setback from

110


the sidewalk with parking lots between. The City should require sidewalk connections directly from the street to the front door where this occurs.

11. Implement Tactical Urbanism and Street Activation Demonstration Projects

Tactical Urbanism is growing movement of short-term, inexpensive tactics for improving the urban environment. It involves temporary, small-scale demonstration projects at the street, block, or building level. This approach allows many local stakeholders to test new concepts before making substantial political and financial commitments. Tactical Urbanism has the following characteristics:

A deliberate, phased approach to instigating change;

The offering of local solutions for local planning challenges;

Short-term commitment and realistic expectations;

Low-risks, with a possibly a high reward; and

The development of social capital between citizens and the building of organizational capacity between public-private institutions, non-profits, and their constituents.

Here are some Tactical Urbanism demonstration projects that have potential in Downtown Peabody and could be tested for minimal costs.

EXAMPLES OF TACTICAL URBANISM PROJECTS

• (Park)ing Day and (Park)lets

• Play Streets

• Open Streets

• Pavement to Plazas

• Pavement to Parks

• Pop-Up Cafes

• Pop-Up Shops

• Chair Bombing

• Guerrilla Gardening

• Street Fairs

• Food Carts/Trucks

• Mobile Vendors

• Depave

• Site Pre-Vitalization

• Pop-Up Town Hall

• Informal Bike Parking

• Intersection Repair

• Ad-Busting

• Reclaimed Setbacks

• Park Mobile

• Weed Bombing

• Micro-Mixing

• Park-Making

• Camps

111


EXAMPLES OF TACTICAL URBANISM

Parklet in Philadelphia Open Street in Chicago Guerrila guardening in Oakland, CA

12. Create a Sweat Equity Program for Downtown Revitalization A sweat equity program – similar to Habitat for Humanity – could be organized to allow citizens to get involved in improving storefronts, signs, landscaping, plantings, and other community and civic enhancements.

13. Install and Maintain Planter Islands The City should partner with organizations such as the Peabody Garden Club to create planter islands in the downtown area. The City’s contribution could include funding for maintenance, pruning, etc. Involving the Garden Club in beautifying Downtown Peabody would be another strategy for forging city-wide partnerships to support downtown revitalization.

14. Institute Evening Foot Patrols by Peabody Police More visible police presence would help to address some of the public safety concerns that residents expressed during the planning process for this Economic Development Plan. Toward that end, the Police Department should institute evening foot patrols throughout the downtown areas.

F. DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION

1. Consider Forming a Public-Private Partnership for the Redevelopment of Portions of Railroad/North River Subdistrict

This area has significant environmental constraints. The majority of the lands are included in the 100-year flood plain and there are a number of brownfield sites as the area has historically served as the primary location for tanneries. However, this area has significant potential to tie the downtown area together with a series of open spaces and civic uses. For example, the proposed Riverwalk could provide a connection between Peabody Square and Downtown Salem. There are several vacant and underutilized parcels that could be organized into a series of passive and active recreational areas, community gardens, civic buildings, and parking to support redevelopment and rehabilitation of properties on Walnut Street and Main Street.

112


This vacant and deteriorated building could be redeveloped through a public-private partnership between the City and property owners.

2. Consider Forming a Public-Private Partnership for the Redevelopment of Portions of the Walnut Street Subdistrict

There are several vacant or deteriorated properties along the corridor that could benefit from improvements to the Railroad/North River Subdistrict including open space and parking. Underutilized properties could provide an opportunity for future development primarily as market rate residential development and neighborhood commercial uses.

3. Consider the Establishment of a “Downtown Peabody Historic District” A historic district would provide a new level of recognition for Downtown Peabody which has been use effectively in many other places in drawing in new customers and visitors. Establishing a historic district which can be on the State Register as well as National Register of Historic Place involves a thorough inventory and documentation of buildings and structures. There are no specific restrictions on private property use or redevelopment in being part of a historic district (unlike a historic preservation district). However, where public funds are used, potential impacts on contributing historic structures would have to be evaluated and considers. To start the process, the City Council could establishment a Historic District Study Committee to evaluate the implications and provide a report on the proposed district.

G. REGULATIONS, POLICY AND DESIGN STANDARDS The City of Peabody’s existing land use policies, plans and regulations were evaluated to determine how effectively they are responding to the future vision of the Downtown Study Area. Overall, the zoning regulations are very responsive to the economic goals and opportunities for Downtown Peabody. The key characteristic of effective regulations in a downtown setting are providing for the desired amount of density, mix and vertical definition of uses, pedestrian oriented placement of buildings uses and parking, and utilization of sidewalk and semi-public frontages. Other supportive regulations involve flexible parking standards that recognize shared parking opportunities and sign regulations that provide for high quality design while improving visibility by customers. Recommended revisions to land use regulations include the following:

1. Revise the Zoning Regulations for the Central Business District to Align with the Future Vision of Downtown Peabody

City staff should work together with the Downtown Advisory Committee, Economic Development Committee, Planning Board, and City Council in considering zoning amendments in the Central Business (BC) and GBC zoning districts to provide for improved

113


opportunities for business development, property redevelopment, adaptive reuse, and high quality aesthetic enhancement in the Downtown Study Area. Consider limiting the size of retail stores to 10,000 square feet by right and over 10,000

square feet by special permit with specific performance standards to ensure compatibility with smaller stores that typically occupy the downtown area.

Consider adopting a maximum front yard setback or a built-to-zone (BTZ) in the CB district to ensure that new buildings retain the street enclosure and enhance the pedestrian environment. Front setbacks should be limited and uses specifically identified so that they serve as extensions to the sidewalk (such as with dining terraces, forecourts).

Consider requiring a parking placement requirement in the CB district to ensure that parking is located to the side or rear of the building, is screened from the street, and has appropriate pedestrian access. Provide additional parking reduction incentives where the use is within reasonable proximity of public parking, adjacent lots are connected internally and where curb cuts are shared or limited.

Consider requiring bicycle racks in the CB district and installing them in public parking lots.

Consider amending the landscaping requirements to allow for street plantings flexibility along the frontage to include a landscaped strip, sidewalk extension and pedestrian activity area (i.e. seating or café type use), or new street trees within the public right-own-way where needed.

H. ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAMS The Action Plan includes an overall economic enhancement strategy based on the results of the market analysis, identified development opportunities, and input from downtown business and key stakeholders. The economic enhancement strategies describe several implementation measures that can be achieved by the City in partnership with business operators, property owners, private developers and local organizations. A particular focus of this program should be strengthening the Downtown Study Area by working with existing and perspective property owners and developers on redevelopment that fills market niches and expands mixed uses, as well as creates new high-quality jobs. Economic development initiatives in Peabody must also support independent and locally owned businesses. Recommended economic incentive programs include the following:

1. Renew the Downtown Facade and Sign Improvement Program The City should renew, recreate, and promote the Downtown Peabody Sign & Façade Improvement Program as a key economic incentivize to property and business owners in the renovation of the exterior of their buildings, improve the overall visual appeal of Downtown Peabody as a place to visit, shop and work. This should be a matching grant program and

114


property owners should be eligible to receive a rebate equal to 50% of the actual cost of improvements. The City should retain an Architectural Design Consultant who services would also be reimbursable if constructed. There should be an upper limit on rebates (depending on the amount of funds allocated for the program) to ensure broad participation and application of façade improvement. Applicants should be commercial building owners, and buildings should be substantially occupied by operating retail businesses, service establishments or offices. Eligible improvements under the Sign and Façade Improvement Program should include the following: Removal of elements which cover architectural details.

Replacement of original architectural details.

New storefront construction within an existing building.

Window replacement and window framing visible from the street.

Removal of barriers to those with physical disabilities (e.g. steps) and construction of new exterior access.

New wall, blade and window signs and awnings.

Cleaning, repainting, repointing, or residing of buildings.

Exterior lighting planting, landscaping and furnishings when part of an overall façade renovation project

Participants should be required to provide a design easement agreeing not to change or alter the improved storefront without prior written approval from the City for a period of five (5) years from the agreement completion date. The City should also prepare Downtown Sign and Façade Design Standards to ensure high quality and appropriate design and construction. Issues to be addressed by the design standards for building renovations, storefront improvements and in-fill building construction should include: Comparable building heights.

Proportion of architectural elements.

Rhythm of masses and voids on building façades.

Shapes of roofs and windows.

Human scale of building and street elements.

Directional dominance of horizontal versus vertical features.

Details – color, texture, materials, paving.

Light fixtures.

Compatible signage and awnings.

115


Site design and its relation to the neighborhood.

The City should prepare a list of selection criteria for the program such as the follows: Location and Visibility. Projects located in highly visible areas of the target area and/or

projects with a high visible impact are more favorable.

Condition. Commercial buildings that have been designated as being in fair to poor condition and in need of repair per a building condition analysis carried out by the City’s architectural design consultant should be given priority.

Ratio of Private to Public Funds. Greater consideration should be given to projects whose ratio of private to public funds exceeds program minimum.

Status of Local Property Taxes. Local taxes should be paid and current.

Project Impact. Degree to which proposed project improves overall exterior appearance and/or deteriorated building conditions.

All improvements should comply with standards set forth in the Peabody Zoning Ordinance and the State Building Code.

2. Initiate and Strategically Utilize a Dedicated Supplemental Downtown Wine and Malt Licenses Program

A Downtown Supplemental Liquor License program requires special legislation from the State and can be a very effective economic development tool in creating a cluster of restaurants in strategic sites in the Downtown Study Area. Creating a cluster of restaurants in Downtown Peabody could create a regional draw and expanded the market area. Applicants would be reviewed under a set of guidelines adopted by the City to ensure quality. The stated purpose of such regulations would be to enhance both the dining experience of individuals patronizing Downtown Peabody restaurants and to foster the economic revitalization of Study Area. The City Council would be responsible for issuing the supplemental permits and should places considerable emphasis on applicants who achieve the following objectives: Occupy former vacant space.

Bring or maintain a high quality restaurant to the downtown that provides fine food and service with quality atmosphere.

Strengthen the commercial tax base.

Improve the variety of restaurants in downtown.

Improve the physical appearance of the downtown.

116


Applicants should operate a restaurant having a minimum of 20 seats excluding establishments whose principal business activity is fast food take out or have any drive-in aspect. As of December 2010, a total of four downtown businesses have received new beer and wine licenses under this program. One of the four beer and wine licenses already issued has been converted to an all-alcohol license via special legislation. Two additional licenses remain to be issued.


The Town of Norwood has used supplemental liquor licenses to attract five new restaurants and one renovated historic theater in the downtown central business district. It has been a very successful program for creating a cluster of quality restaurants and a regional draw for downtown.

3. Promote and Facilitate Additional Outdoor Dining for Downtown Food and Drink Establishments

Sidewalk activity such as seating and dining can add significant vitality to a downtown area, as evidenced by the success of outdoor dining in cities and towns like Newburyport, Northampton, Hyannis, and Plymouth, MA. It should be promoted and expanded along Main Street in Downtown Peabody. The City’s current zoning and design guidelines allow for outdoor seating and displays, yet very few of the existing businesses take advantage of this opportunity. The City should promote and highly encourage outdoor dining as a key street activation method.

4. Toolbox of Incentive Programs Create a Commercial Homesteading Program. This is an innovative incentive program

administered by the City to encourage private investment and the creation of jobs by offering municipally-owned properties (typically acquired by tax title) for a nominal cost to the bidder(s) whose proposal includes the most significant economic development benefits to the City. Significance is defined in terms of the total dollars that will be invested in the rehabilitation of the structure, the number and types of business and employment opportunities that will be created as a result of the project and the compatibility of the development proposal with economic development, historic preservation and other values that the City is attempting the encourage. The City then conveys the property subject to these improvements and other public purpose incentives.


This program has a record of demonstrated success in other Massachusetts communities such as Montague. In Turners Falls, it was used to stimulate the redevelopment of two tax title properties, resulting in close to $1 million of private investment, the creation two new businesses and numerous new jobs.

117


Utilize Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for Appropriate Projects in Downtown Peabody. A Tax Increment Finance Program (TIF) is used to finance the ongoing downtown improvement initiatives and other necessary improvements that would strengthen and expand the quality of working and living in downtown. TIF projects in Downtown Peabody should include property tax concessions to attract desirable businesses not presently in downtown, assisting existing key businesses or major employers that would otherwise be forced to relocate from Peabody, and leveraging significant benefits to the City from local business expansion which would not occur otherwise. These benefits may include property taxes, jobs, expansion of the downtown market, or other material advantages to the downtown area. Property tax concessions should also be focused on projects located in targeted redevelopment areas as identified in this plan. The City should evaluate the TIF program and specifically define the types of existing and new businesses as well as the strategic areas for targeted redevelopment where future TIF resources should be allocated.

Create an Economic Development Industrial Corporation (EDIC). An Economic Development and Industrial Corporation (EDIC) can be essential for implementing a local economic development plan. It is a quasi-public organization that operates under authority granted to it by the General Court. The goals of any EDIC project are two-fold: to decrease unemployment and eliminate blighted areas. Communities can establish an EDIC by adopting the provisions of a state law (G.L. c. 121C) or by filing a home rule petition with the General Court. Adopting EDIC legislation – whether by adopting the statute or proposing a home rule petition – creates an economic development partner to carry out projects that would be difficult if not impossible for a unit of local government to do on its own. Moreover, EDIC legislation enables a community to use its own bonding authority to acquire and dispose of real property without some of the constraints associated with general obligation bonds (G.L. c. 44, ss. 10 and 17).

There are several EDICs in Massachusetts, including a long-standing EDIC in neighboring Lynn. The Lynn EDIC focuses primarily (but not exclusively) on downtown development. Other EDIC examples include Watertown (Arsenal), Boston, Amherst, Framingham, Athol, Brockton, Everett, Quincy, and Plymouth.

Consider District Improvement Financing. District Improvement Financing (DIF) is a form

of tax increment financing recently enabled by the Massachusetts legislature (G.L. c. 40Q) that provides for a variety of tools to promote desired development in targeted geographic areas. In particular, the DIF program enables municipalities to finance public works and infrastructure projects identified in a development program for a designated area by “capturing” the increase in property tax revenues derived from new housing, commercial, or industrial activity in the area and applying such revenues towards the municipality’s development program. This “tax increment” can be pledged entirely or partially as a revenue stream within a designated district to repay bonded debt that is providing key public infrastructure investments needed to support the targeted private investment and redevelopment.

118


District Improvement Financing is commonly and successfully used around the nation for revitalizing downtown and village areas by making an upfront public investment in infrastructure, utilities, and civic facilities needed to generate private investment and development desired by the community. In Massachusetts, all municipalities are eligible for the DIF program. The procedures have been established in 402 CMR 3.01 through 3.18 and administered by the Economic Assistance Coordinating Council (EACC). The City should evaluate assessor’s records and market potential for targeted redevelopment sites to determine if there is enough growth potential that would be incentivized through infrastructure improvements to support a DIF program. Specifically, the City should the potential economic and tax revenue that might be generated based on the implementation of the flood mitigation improvements for the downtown area.

Consider Establishing a Low-Interest Business Loan Pool. The City should approach local

banks and financial institutions to determine the interest in establishing a low-interest loan program for Downtown Peabody. This may be the best opportunity for City to support future economic development incentive programs in Downtown Peabody if state funding is limited or unavailable. For example, a low-interest loan program could support the proposed Façade & Sign Improvement Program. A low interest loan pool typically has interest rates of one point below prime and the size of loans can vary significantly. Loan amount range significantly and are typically used for machinery and equipment, inventory, working capital, leasehold improvements and other start up or expansion expenses. Loaned on a term/installment basis, the program fills the gap for businesses that do not qualify for adequate conventional financing.


There are four well-established loan pools including Lowell 2000, Quincy 2000, Beverly, and Adams that use grants and low/no-interest loans and may serve as models for Peabody. The best example is the Quincy 2000 Collaborative, established in 1992 as a private, non-profit EDC. It works to unite Quincy's public and private sectors in a common economic development mission, bringing together business and government leaders to promote Quincy’s economic vitality, attract new business, and help existing businesses grow. They have a well-established Low Interest Loan Pool with over $5 million funded by a coalition of 11 banks. These funds can be used by start-up or expanding businesses for façade and signage improvements, business improvements, and equipment purchases.

Evaluate the Potential of Establishing a Capital Improvement Limited Partnership for Downtown Peabody. A limited partnership could be formed and shares could be sold (say, $1,000 each) to local citizens, property owners, and businesses to carry out specific projects and programs in Downtown Peabody Falls. The funds raised could possibly be used to leverage additional state and federal sources. With sufficient funding, a partnership could be used to fund small projects such as streetscape enhancements (i.e.,

119


information kiosk, street trees, etc.) or larger projects such as façade and sign programs, trails and parks, or acquisition and renovation of deteriorated buildings. This type of partnership has been used for several Main Street organizations around the U.S.

I. PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND TRAILS Public spaces are an essential element in a vibrant community, serving surrounding neighborhoods and drawing other city residents and visitors to Downtown Peabody for recreational and civic activities. Open spaces, parks, and trails are also aimed at supporting private businesses and property investment opportunities in the Downtown Study Area.

Construct the Riverwalk and make a multi-purpose trail connection between Peabody Square and Downtown Salem

Install playground equipment, ballfields, and an amphitheater at East End Park to provide more utilization for surrounding neighborhoods and the community. Hold regular civic events to activate the space.

Program the space in front of the Peabody Institute Library for small civic gatherings.

Improve furnishing, landscaping and maintain the pocket park at the corner of Lowell Street and Foster Street.

Create a park and civic facility behind the library on Wallis Street to make connections to East End Park and the future Riverwalk.

Create a series of connected open spaces along the North River for passive and active recreational uses and community gardens.

Use lighting and wayfinding to create connections between East End Park and the Library.

Implement a community gardens program around the downtown area.

J. COMMUNITY EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES The City needs to work closely with the Peabody Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, and, possibly, a new Downtown Partnership, to assess ongoing and potential new events and activities. Existing and new community events should be geared to enhance local and regional residents’ image of Downtown Peabody, attract more visitors and customers, and demonstrate the viability of the Study Area to prospective businesses. Currently, few formal and informal event activities occur in Downtown Peabody due to the limited outdoor gathering areas. Some ideas to consider for expanded existing and new events that have worked well in downtowns similar in character to Peabody include the following:

1. Expand the Farmers Market In addition to its regular weekday market in front of City Hall, the farmers market should consider expanding with the primary market event being held on Saturday or Sunday, and featuring local and regional produce, prepared foods, arts and crafts, and live music. There is

120


significant potential to increase the number of vendors and exposure of downtown by capturing weekend travelers along Main Street. The current venue at City Hall should be relocated to East End Park, Central Street or on Main Street in a highly visible location. The location should be near public parking and provide a large, flat surface for customers as well as easier access for venders and customers from the parking lot. If held at East End Park, seasonal and colorful structural tents should be installed to draw customers and improve functionality for venders.

2. Create a Food Vendor Court as a Business Incubator Coupled with the Farmers Market should be the “Taste of Peabody” Venders Court featuring food carts from existing downtown restaurants and other food venders considering a permanent location in the Study Area. Local chefs could provide samples off their menu and directions to their restaurants. This is a great opportunity to introduce existing and new restaurants to local customers and visitors. The City should work with the Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Peabody Association on the following steps: Identify location(s) for vendors court;

Price food carts that could be rented to proprietors;

Coordinate with existing restaurants and give them the first opportunities;

Recruit vendors including potential future restaurateurs; and

Advertise on line.

3. Expand Existing and Plan for New Community Events and Activities in Downtown Peabody

Some ideas to consider either as individual events or in combination are as follows:

Classic Car Show. Car shows are very popular and a great way of bringing residents and visitors to Downtown Peabody. Encourage local car clubs to participate and even organize the event. Main Street provides an outstanding venue to display classic cars with its historic buildings and setting. On-Street parking coupled with the width of the street and sidewalks could accommodate a significant number of cars and large crowds providing enormous exposure for downtown businesses. This could even be a regular monthly event or a seasonal event coupled with a holiday, such as Father’s Day. Example: the Father’s Day Classic Car Show in Hyannis.

Music and Movies in the Park. Hold concerts at East End Park on Thursday or Friday evenings to encourage neighborhood families to come and workers to stay in downtown. Sponsorships should be sought from local restaurants and movies should begin early enough for children to attend.

121


Clothesline Art Exhibits. Create an artists’ exhibit with booths, demonstrations, and activities for children and adults.

Sidewalk Sales. Expand the annual summer sidewalk sale. These events are traditionally scheduled during slow retailing periods but sales can also be linked to other events or have a particular theme to attract more customers.

“Village of Lights” Festival. Establish a downtown holiday lighting program and encourage local businesses and residents to participate. Raise funds and in-kind services from local businesses and utility companies. Expand the celebration of the holiday season with hay rides, craft fairs, ice sculpting, window displays, live music, open houses, and a tree lighting ceremony.

“Taste of Peabody” With the goal of Downtown Peabody becoming more of a destination for dining, local restaurants could set up a special event in downtown and provide samples of their menu. This event should occur as local residents return from summer vacations. This is a great opportunity to introduce existing and new restaurants to local and regional customers.

“Horribles” Parade and Pumpkin Celebration. Coordinated with the events held annually in Salem, Downtown Peabody could host parallel themed events during Halloween such as a pumpkin festival with a costume parade for children, traditional activities (i.e., bobbing for apples, storytelling, etc.), trick-or-treating in stores, and live entertainment. The festival could feature various pumpkin contests including a display of carved jack-o-lanterns along Main Street, largest pumpkin, and pumpkin pie contests.

Local Heritage Event. Create a series of events featuring the early days of life in Downtown Peabody with entertainment, historical tours and speakers, period dress, and exhibits.

4. Create a Master Schedule of Events Working with the (to be established) Downtown Partnership and other organizations, the City should create a “master schedule” of private and public events in order to ensure coordination and minimize street and sidewalk disruption. A master calendar of events would help with advertising downtown programs, too.

122


6. PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES Several infill development and redevelopment opportunities for specific sites in Downtown Peabody have been identified with input from City officials, the Downtown Advisory Committee, civic organizations, key stakeholder, interested citizens, and Weston & Sampson, which has done extensive brownfields studies in Peabody. Preferred development and redevelopment opportunities include new or renovated buildings, public infrastructure improvements, and open space enhancements that could provide enhanced public benefit to downtown business operators as well as the community. The sites are identified below and, except for the Riverwalk site, they are shown on maps in Appendix M. Private development and investment in Downtown Peabody is the primary ingredient of successful revitalization and the underlying objective of the Economic Development Plan. While the City cannot require private redevelopment, there are a number of key sites that are important in the process and where redevelopment may be facilitated through additional economic incentives.

A. 78 MAIN STREET This 3-story traditional brick building (known as the Music Box building) was built in 1870 and is downtown fixture. It is located on Main Street and the corner of Wallis Street and adjacent to the Peabody Institute Library. The building lot is small (only 2,134 square feet) with just 35 feet of frontage on Main Street and depth of 66 feet with rear access to Mill Street. The building itself contains 7,649 gross floor area with 5,723 square feet of rentable space. There are two storefronts on Main Street with one occupied by the Peabody Music Box and the other vacant. There is a possibility for a third storefront on Wallis Street. The grade change from Main Street down to the North River/Post Office creates a unique opportunity for this site. The building has no dedicated parking but the recently purchased public parking lot on Mill Street lot is located behind and across the street. In a public visioning workshop the preferred future scenario for the site were as follows: Renovation the building and seek a retail tenant for the ground floor and office or

market-rate residential on the two upper floors.

Consider using the building as an auxiliary space for the library keeping the storefronts in retail and restaurant use but with educational programs on the upper floors.

B. 2 WASHINGTON STREET This historic building and grounds had a long history as the former Bettencourt Furniture and most recently as the Pioneer House, an adult care facility. This is a prominent downtown site at the busy intersection of Washington and Main. The main house is architecturally interesting but the style may make it difficult, and costly, to redevelop. The property also includes a large carriage house. The grounds include well landscaped lawns and a

123


magnificent Beech tree near the corner of Main and Washington Streets. In a public visioning workshop the preferred future scenario for the site were as follows: An office building or classrooms for a college satellite campus or specialty school such as

dental, nursing, or similar.

A hotel and restaurant with a seasonal bar and dining terrace at the corner of Main and Washington Street centered on the Beech tree.

C. 166 MAIN STREET This is the only undeveloped parcel remaining on Main Street. The .6 acre site sits between the Main Street Plaza (a small strip mall) and the Peabody Bread and Brazilian bakery. A driveway accessing the lower lot behind the site separates it from the bakery. The revitalization parcel is about 10 to 12 feet above the lower lot owned by the Azorean Brotherhood. These two sites could be considered developable as one site given the connecting driveway easement. This property is zoned Business Central (BC) and can be developed to four stories or 50 feet. In a public visioning workshop the preferred future scenario for the site were as follows: A mixed use development with commercial uses along Main Street with residential

units above and behind the commercial portion of the building. Parking would be located under the structure and open space would connect to the North River and future Riverwalk. Vehicle access would be provided from Howley Street and possibly Main Street as shared access with the neighboring Peabody Bread.

Community initiated developments (CID) are civic projects intended to improve the quality of life for local residents, attract visitors to downtown, and create a foundation for private investment through a series of new public amenities that expand the market and generate interest in redevelopment.

D. RIVERWALK In 2013, Weston & Sampson prepared a “Riverwalk Visioning Study Summary Report” for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the City of Peabody, and the City of Salem. Salem. Much of the following discussion is based on excerpts from Weston & Sampson’s report. A key goal within the overall Brownfields Coalition Grant was to create a vision for a Riverwalk between the communities of Peabody and Salem along the North River that would create a continuous pedestrian green space from Peabody Square to Salem Sound. The conceptual vision for the Riverwalk weaves together plans for future widening of the river to accommodate flood storage, remediation of existing brownfield sites and efforts to revitalize the overall health of the river as a viable ecological corridor thus creating a uniquely energized urban greenway experience spurred by a new collaboration between these two cities.

124


The initial work of the study gave actual form and layout to the Peabody section of the Riverwalk based on clearly stated goals and objectives from the community and past planning efforts by the City. As early as 1990 it was recommended the river be ‘reclaimed as the centerpiece of a new urban park’. A design competition was held for a riverwalk in 1993 and a comprehensive master plan focusing on the Riverwalk was produced in 2001. The goals included: Preserve and enhance the ecology of the river corridor Create a new urban park Provide greenspace Enhance views Link historic and cultural sites Create recreational opportunities Create an auto-free zone for pedestrians Weston and Sampson has recommended the following actions for the City to implement the Riverwalk plan:

Meet with property owners/operators along the North River Corridor to review and discuss the Riverwalk vision and rationale for equitable parcel acquisition/easement terms. The City needs to sell the Riverwalk vision by explaining that property owner/operator cooperation is necessary for the broader, integrated downtown revitalization strategy. The City’s dedication to the Riverwalk signals a commitment to the future welfare of the community and also provides opportunities to create other synergies and efficiencies with the downtown plan;

Pursue local, state and federal grants to support the Riverwalk vision. In particular, review EPA Brownfields Program grants and funding sources (e.g., Revolving Loan Fund, Assessment and Cleanup Grants, Area-Wide Planning Grants, Technical Assistance Grants, Technical Assistance to Brownfields (TAB) Communities Program);

Allocate City resources for the transactional due diligence investigations of select Brownfields properties along the North River Corridor. The allocation of Brownfields resources for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA), Phase II ESAs to fill data gaps, and reuse planning cost estimates (e.g., obligations and conditions to maintain deed restrictions [i.e., AULs] or action plans to terminate AULs) is a critical step to manage and reduce the City’s liability and exposure to risk. The updated environmental evaluations will specifically identify redevelopment challenges based on contaminant conditions, site location or reuse restrictions (e.g., vapor intrusion pathway, extensive soil excavation as a result of being in a floodplain, AUL obligations, etc.);

Investigate the City’s eligibility under M.G.L. Chapter 121C to establish an Economic Development Industrial Corporation (EDIC) for the public purpose of undertaking local economic development activities in accordance with an economic development plan. According to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, economic development activities are

125


restricted to the development of industrial and manufacturing properties and are designed to increase employment and eliminate decadent and blighted open areas. An EDIC is created by a municipality to attract new industry to the community, to expand existing industry through projects financed and implemented by the EDIC, and to address unemployment and lack of business opportunity;

If possible, acquire the 13 Wallis Street parcel (property identification 085-041A). This strategic parcel is adjacent to the North River and is a key historical and cultural link to the abutting Peabody Institute Library located at 82 Main Street. The Weston & Sampson Riverwalk design creates an urban terrace to the rear of the library that overlooks the river and steps down to meet a large open greenspace which opens onto the Riverwalk. The greenspace vision at 13 Wallis Street is mirrored by a new park at 45 Walnut Street, a former Brownfields site located on the north side of the river. This key parcel is the anchor to the Riverwalk in the center of Peabody.

Meet with City’s counsel to discuss risk management tools and approaches (e.g., Covenant Not To Sue, indemnification agreements, insurance and escrow provisions) with anticipated Brownfields property transfers and acquisitions. The risk management strategy will be shaped by whether there is a viable property owner that may be willing to work cooperatively with the City. The purpose of seeking expert legal advice is to clarify and ultimately meet the requirements of CERCLA liability defenses. The idea is to have multiple layers of protection. For example, insurance products will limit the City’s financial exposure with respect to the specific circumstances defined by the coverage, but may be inappropriate as a long-term solution and difficult to obtain for smaller-scale projects. Insurance underwriters are more inclined to provide broad pollution coverage and charge the lowest premiums for environmental conditions that are well-characterized and controlled;

Develop a Riverwalk website to create a story and “buzz” about the implementation of this vision. Engaging and educating the community is important to gain momentum and sustain the project. The website should clearly explain the project as a long-term sustainable investment in the community and is a way to improve the downtown’s health and vitality. The website should talk about Brownfields success stories in similar urban corridors and have a mechanism (electronic suggestion drop box) to gain input from the community. The website should frequently educate the public on the process and explain how the project will benefit the community (e.g., improving pedestrian access and linkages to public transportation systems, fostering community/social interaction, reducing air and water pollution, cleaning up Brownfields, and utilizing low-impact development techniques). The website should encourage public involvement with the project.

Collaborate with the City of Salem to create a cohesive vision across both communities. Rconnecting the two cities with this Riverwalk will bring a renewed focus to the North River corridor and help stimulate it’s rebirth as a vibrant asset of these two communities.

126

DOWNTOWN PEABODY BROWNFIELD REVITALIZATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT … Plan_Volume I... · DOWNTOWN PEABODY BROWNFIELD REVITALIZATION & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN CITY OF PEABODY MAYOR

Documents