It appears at face value that some opposition to the Ayer Road Commercial District visioning project relates to one or other of the three phases and that if we just did one or two phases, or even just the form-based code, which seems to have some slightly higher level of support, that would suffice. This short piece seeks to explain why the integrated three-phase project was proposed and why I believe that it cannot be limited to the code development.
Point 1 - Phase Integration
Each of the proposed phases creates a needed product that informs the next phase. Subsequent phases or steps cannot be adequately performed without these prior inputs. To put it another way, if the market analysis is not performed, then you cannot derive a fiscal impact. Without a scale of development, with specific use types, you cannot prepare a development plan and no real-world visioning can be performed. Without knowing how much development can be supported, by both the market and the public, there is no way in the Vision Plan phase that you can determine the non-revenue generating amenities that can be required, such as open space set asides and athletic fields. If a clear and effective vision plan is not developed as Phase 2 would accomplish, you would have nothing to use as input for a form-based code. There would be nothing to "base" it on. A very simplistic representation of the data that is expected from this as part of Phase 1 could be as follows:
Use Type Max Sq. Ft. Fiscal Impact Smaller Sq. Ft Fiscal Impact
Retailing 165,000 + $900,000 80,000 + $230,000
Restaurants 45,000 + $450,000 20,000 - $12,000
Now, the actual analysis will be much more detailed and precise and will offer several additional thresholds to show the differing fiscal impact of each use and can also create combined or bundled use scenarios to show how a combination of uses and thresholds can provide revenue.
Point 2 - Needed Information
Each project phase derives products that answer key questions that staff, boards, and citizens all want and need. Phase 1 will answer the question, "How much square footage of each use type can the market support?" This question has never been asked so comprehensively as prior studies were either not as inclusive and complete or are now significantly out-of-date. The only reason I can conceive as to why one might not want this step performed is out of fear of the results. Phase 2 is the Vision Plan and a huge amount of needed data will be generated at this step--information that is crucial for the whole program. This information includes land that should be protected and preserved as open space and natural areas. This can be farm fields, other field vistas, wetlands, streams, ponds, forested areas, and other types of desirable open space. It can include one or more areas where recreation facilities like athletic fields can be located. The plan can determine where walking trails and bikeways can be located and best connected externally. The plan will show where buildings and uses can best be clustered and located. The final plan will integrate all of these separate questions into a cohesive plan that functions like a village or community gathering place. Phase 3 cannot be done without this cohesive vision. No form-based zoning for this type of area can be done without property owner participation, knowledge of where the open space is to be set aside, where roads and trails are to be placed, where/when/how water and wastewater is going to be brought to the area. To do each of these things singularly would be immensely inefficient and incongruous. It would be virtually impossible. To opponents, this might be a reason to oppose.
Point 3 - Citizen Input
A key to the three phase program is to get citizen participation. Not just feedback, but in fact we had envisioned that a number of citizen stakeholders would be key and integral participants in the process. We were planning on establishing a working committee that included a number of citizen representatives, both at-large and also from that specific part of town. We wanted citizens to be engaged during the design charettes so that they could help design and lay out the plan for the area. We had been considering subgroups to focus on infrastructure, building design, site design, open space, and so on and envisioned citizens serving on each of these specialty groups. The Vision Plan (Phase 2) would be developed as a citizen-centric plan and we would not move on to a form-based code development process until we got that right. Even during the form-based code development process, citizens would be involved making sure that the code that was developed adequately framed and facilitated the vision developed during the Vision Plan process.
In summary, none of these pieces will be successful by themselves. They each require input and feedback from the others. This, we believe, is the only way that Harvard residents and business owners can, for themselves, shape the future of this district so that all primary local goals of revenue generation, nuisance reduction, and placemaking, can be met. These plus the secondary goals of open space protection, sustainable development that meets local climate goals, transportation improvements, developing recreational facilities, and providing needed services and retailing for residents.
