Document Lewiston_doc_ffea2c1170

City of Lewiston, ME Riverfront Island Master Plan Committee Goody Clancy May 2012 riverfront island master plan ---PAGE BREAK--- acknowledgements Riverfront Island Master plan Advisory Committee Robert Macdonald, City of Lewiston-Mayor 2012–2014 Larry Gilbert, City of Lewiston-Mayor 2007–2012 Paul Robinson, City of Lewiston-Planning Board Eric Potvin, City of Lewiston-Planning Board, YPLAA Steve Morgan, City of Lewiston-City Council Chip Morrison, Chamber of Commerce Tom Platz, Platz Associates Paul Roy, LA Magazine Jonathan Labonte, Androscoggin Land Trust Bob Thompson, Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments Jim Lysen, St. Mary’s Regioanl Medical Center Len Tracy, Continental/Hill Mills Ray Lagueux, Franco-American Heritage Center Rachel Desgrosselliers, Museum L-A Hillary Dow, YPLAA, Future Forum Mark Lee, Harriman Associates and YPLAA Steve Costello, Sun Journal Michael Dostie, Dostie Jewelers Mark Cayer, City of Lewiston-City Council Consultant Team Goody Clancy W-ZHA Desman Associates Smart Mobility ORW Landscape Architects & Planners Woodard & Curran The City of Lewiston wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the many members of the Lewiston-Auburn community who participated in this process through interviews, meetings, workshops, tours, the project website and email. The City thanks US Senator Susan M. Collins, her staff, and the entire Maine congressional delegation for assisting in the funding of this project. The City thanks the Franco-American Heritage Center, the Bates Mill Complex, and Museum L-A for their generosity in hosting public meetings. The City also wishes to thank those who provided several of the photographs found within this document: Daniel J. Marquis Photography, Christina Epperson, Dave Gudas, the Androscoggin Land Trust, the Franco-American Heritage Center, Museum L-A, and Lyme Properties. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan i 1 Introduction Overview 3 Process 6 How to use this plan 9 2 Lewiston Today Economic context and market potential 13 Planning context 16 3 The Plan 21 Tap the power of the River 26 Attract a vital mix of new uses 34 Make the district more walkable 42 Insist on quality 52 4 Implementation 53 Table of Contents ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan ii ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 1 1 Introduction ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 3 A quiet renaissance is underway along Lewiston’s downtown riverfront. Over the last ten years, both Lewiston and Auburn’s central areas have begun to reorient themselves to face the Androscoggin River. A great river, once harnessed to produce the power that drew industry to the twin cities, can now again be the spark that defines the communities. The riverfront can become the region’s great urban destination, a place for recreation, cultural activities, work and urban living. Recent successes Despite severe economic headwinds, much has been accomplished in recent years. Collaborative partnerships involving public, private and non- profit entities—and a shared commitment to supporting reinvestment in the community— have drawn new businesses and destinations to Lewiston-Auburn. Riverfront Island, a pivotal area within the city’s downtown riverfront, has come to host more than 1,000 jobs within the Bates Mill Complex, where high-quality restoration has attracted major office uses, destination restaurants, a brewery, a medical office, and new loft-style housing now under construction. At the same time, new cultural destinations and outdoor spaces are also bringing activity to the Riverfront Island area. A former church now houses the Franco-American Heritage Center, a performance venue that draws thousands to the area each year. Museum L-A, a dynamic non-profit devoted to telling the 200 year story of work and community in Lewiston-Auburn, has begun to design their new home—a modern museum space on the River’s edge that will incorporate portions of a former mill building. Once an abandoned rail yard, Simard-Payne (Railroad) Park is now a major public space along the River, and home to the annual Great Falls hot air Balloon Festival. A former rail bridge is now a pedestrian and bike bridge, linking Simard-Payne Park in Lewiston to Bonney Park in Auburn, and providing striking views of the River. A Lewiston-Auburn Riverwalk has begun to take shape on the Auburn side of the River, and paths have been established along portions of the Lewiston riverfront as well. overview © Eric Potvin ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 4 Redevelop Island Point for office, institutional and related uses Move forward with a new waterfront hotel Create a Riverwalk along the entire downtown waterfront Create a new amphitheatre at the water’s edge, and a dock for small boats at Simard-Payne Park Advance development of the Museum L-A facility on the waterfront Reuse Continental Mill for loft housing Continue to add housing and other uses within the Bates Mill Complex Add new workplaces to Hill Mill, reflecting its current diverse mix of businesses Improve connections between Lisbon Street and the riverfront Redevelop Bates Mill #5 site with a new Canal Park, retail and possible civic uses Improve streetscape along the canals and promote housing development along Oxford Street Create a Canal Walk linking downtown and the riverfront ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 5 A few blocks from the riverfront, new businesses and restaurants have begun to appear on Lisbon Street, Lewiston’s “Main Street.” Ongoing challenges The success of recent years has created a solid foundation for the area, but not yet a strong, vibrant urban riverfront destination. The downtown riverfront needs a critical mass of more housing, public amenities, and jobs—both to improve quality of life and to support economic development that extends beyond the riverfront and benefits the center cities of both communities. Today, Riverfront Island’s largely untapped assets— scenic Great Falls, miles of waterfront land, a canal network, and roughly 1 million square feet of still- vacant mill buildings—hold the keys to the area’s continued resurgence. This plan identifies the next steps in Lewiston’s renaissance, and outlines a vision for the future of Riverfront Island as the urban riverfront destination for the community and the region. The plan identifies both the key near- and longer-term steps that will advance this vision. shared vision Through extensive analysis and public discussion a common vision has emerged for Riverfront Island as an urban, recreation-oriented destination that: • Features a mix of activities and uses, includ- ing significant new housing, open space, stores, offices, restaurants, and a hotel—all with strong connections to the River and the Lisbon Street area. • Serves as a cultural center and destination for the Lewiston-Auburn community and for the broader region. • Celebrates Lewiston’s many assets, including the Androscoggin River, the canal network, and the historic architecture. goals Four closely related goals guide this master plan: 1) Tap the power of the River through development of a Riverwalk and improved water access to enhance quality of life and to support economic development. 2) Attract a vital mix of uses, including housing, through continued reuse of historic buildings and thoughtful new development that bring new life and activity to the area. 3) Make the district more walkable to ensure that Riverfront Island functions as a cohesive urban destination where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. 4) Insist on quality in both public and private in- vestment—to attract desired businesses, residents, and visitors, and so that the riverfront grows as a place the L-A community can take pride in. Waterfront access at Simard-Payne Park creates a new community destination. The canal can become a true amenity along Oxford Street, attracting new people and residential development to the edges of the park. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 6 B etween September 2011 and April 2012, members of the Lewiston-Auburn com- munity came together to create a vision and plan for continued revitalization of the Riverfront Island area. Several hundred Lewiston and Auburn residents contributed to shaping this plan. This initiative builds on a number of recent planning efforts undertaken by entities within the community and region. Those plans include: • Strategic Plan for the City of Lewiston (2010, City of Lewiston) • Downtown Neighborhood Action Plan (2009, Downtown Neighborhood Task Force) PROCESS Throughout the planning process, members of the Lewiston-Auburn community emphasized the following as important goals: • The L-A community has a rich heritage, still visible in the area’s historic buildings and canals. This plan should preserve that heritage where possible. • The L-A community includes two cities: Lewiston and Auburn. This plan should consider both communities. • The riverfront area should be the catalyst for enhancing downtown as a whole, including Lisbon Street, and L-A’s downtown neighborhoods. The plan should help strengthen and connect those areas that lie just beyond the Riverfront. • The plan should help improve Riverfront Island in ways that contribute directly to improving quality of life and open new opportunities for residents of adjacent downtown neighborhoods. Community Goals • The People’s Downtown Master Plan (2008, The Visible Community) • Connecting the Future—Transportation Plan for 2009–2030 (2008, Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center) • Bridging the Gaps—A Long-Range Facilities Plan for Bicycling and Walking in the ATRC Region (2008, Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center) • Lewiston/Auburn Downtown CBD Traffic Study (2007, Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center) • LA Excels (2000) The Androscoggin Greenway Project, an initiative of the Androscoggin Land Trust, was underway during development of the Riverfront Island Master Plan. The planning teams worked to coordinate these related efforts. The Riverfront Island Master Plan was sponsored by the City of Lewiston and led Goody Clancy, a Boston-based urban planning, architecture and preservation firm. The full planning team included W-ZHA (real estate / economic development), Des- man Associates (parking), Smart Mobility (trans- portation planning), ORW Landscape Architects & Planners (landscape architecture) and Woodard & Curran (engineering). ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 7 > Study Area “Walk & Talk” September 14, Riverfront Island Study Area Participants joined City staff and the consultant team for an informal lunchtime walking tour of the Lewiston riverfront area. Participants described aspects of the community and study area that they valued, and thoughts about how the riverfront could evolve to better serve the community and region. > Public Meeting Opportunities & Challenges November 16, Franco-American Heritage Center Participants reviewed findings related to economic and market conditions, and to physical opportunities and challenges. Participants then worked in small facilitated groups to discuss opportunities related to the river; new uses and destinations; and pedestrian and vehicular connections. The planning effort included three phases, each involving community input and discussion. • Phase 1: Analysis and Goals—Investigation of opportunities and constraints through review of prior studies, physical and market analysis, and stakeholder interviews • Phase 2: Alternatives—Development of alterna- tive scenarios for the future of Riverfront Island • Phase 3: Master Plan—Development of a vision and plan for the future of Riverfront Island Key components of the Master Plan process in- cluded: • Riverfront Island Master Plan Advisory Com- mittee: A 20-person Advisory Committee met throughout the master plan process to review pre- liminary findings and plan elements, to provide insights and feedback, and to guide the planning effort. The committee included a broad range of stakeholders. • Public Meetings & Events: At public meetings and events, members of the community reviewed preliminary study findings and evolving plan ele- ments, provided thoughts and ideas, and engaged in a community-wide discussion about the future of this important area. A summary of public events is as follows: Community members discussed opportunities and challenges for the riverfront at a study area Walk & Talk. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 8 > Public Meeting Alternative Scenarios January 18, Bates Mill Atrium Participants viewed a presentation describing potential directions for the riverfront area. The presentation highlighted areas of broad local agreement—e.g., a continuous public riverwalk, better use of the canals, a more walkable, bike- able environment—and areas of diverging opin- ion the future of challenging Bates Mill Participants then worked in small groups to confirm common goals and to discuss three future scenarios for the Bates Mill 5 site: inten- sive reuse of the existing Bates Mill 5 building; redevelopment of the site as a signature canal park; and redevelopment of the site for retail and parking. The project website provided a forum for project information and community comment. At public meetings, community members shared ideas for how the downtown riverfront could be improved. > Public Meeting Final Plan April 4, Museum L-A Public Meeting #3 focused on a presentation of the master plan. Plan recommendations were broadly endorsed by meeting participants. Several participants representing area entities expressed an interest in further involvement to move the plan forward. • Website, Public Comment Forum: A project website (www.riverfrontislandmasterplan.com) provided a place for the community to find information about the planning process, to review presentations and draft documents, and to offer thoughts and comments via an email “comment box” and survey questions. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 9 T his plan establishes a physical vision for the Riverfront Island area. As you review this plan, it may be useful to remember that: • This document is intended to serve as a “road- map” that will help the City and residents think about and move forward with efforts to strength- en this important area. It is also intended as an advocacy tool, for sharing Lewiston’s vision and generating excitement within the community, the broader region, and beyond. The plan provides a statement of the community’s vision, and lays out the steps for achieving that vision. • The plan identifies key priorities for implemen- tation that will help direct resources, as they become available, to the projects that are likely to have the most impact on the area. Ultimately, projects may happen in a different sequence than is described in the plan. • The sketches and descriptions within this document are intended to provide a broad sense of how particular projects should function to advance the community goals. As projects are designed and initiatives move forward, they probably won’t look exactly like the images in this document, but they should address the intent of the plan. how to use this plan An effective plan should be both visionary and practical. Four qualities characterize the plan’s approach to implementation: • Think long-term, focusing on the “big picture” of what Riverfront Island and downtown L-A could be like twenty years from now. • Think short-term, focusing on how this vision might be advanced over the next several months. • Build around what’s working, celebrating past successes and using what’s already in place as a starting point for next steps. • Be flexible and opportunistic using dollars as they become available to advance initiatives that will have the most impact on Riverfront Island and downtown L-A. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 11 2 Lewiston Today ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 12 City of Auburn City of Lewiston Central Maine Medical Center St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center USM Lewiston-Auburn College Bates College Downtown Auburn Great Falls Riverfront Island Study Area LISBON STREET LINCOLN STREET WEBSTER STREET SABATTUS STREET MAIN STREET Androscoggin Riv er 95 Augusta ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY Lewiston Auburn Portland MAINE 1/2-mile 0 1 mile North ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 13 T he Lewiston-Auburn metropolitan area (An- droscoggin County) is located in south-cen- tral Maine, less than an hour drive from the ocean, the mountains, and from Portland, Augusta, and Freeport. The area’s strong interstate access places 50% of Maine’s population within a half hour drive of the County. Together, the cities of Lewis- ton and Auburn are home to approximately 60,000 residents—a population exceeded in Maine only by Portland. Lewiston-Auburn is the region’s economic and cultural center, serving Androscoggin County and the large trade area of central and western Maine. Given its size alone, Lewiston‐Auburn’s suc- cess is important to Maine’s economic development. Lewiston-Auburn is a regional center for healthcare, education, culture and shopping. On the Lewiston side of the River, within 1.2 miles of the downtown riverfront, are Central Maine Medical Center (one of the state’s three largest medical facilities), St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center, Bates College, University of Southern Maine’s Lewiston-Auburn College, financial and professional service compa- nies, as well as hotels and retail. Lewiston-Auburn is also an employment center. There are approximately 50,000 jobs in Androscog- gin County. Lewiston is home to half of these jobs. Lewiston‐Auburn’s key industries include health care, high‐precision manufacturing, transportation and logistics, and financial services. Bates College is also a very important anchor in the Lewiston‐Au- burn economy. Within a five‐minute drive of the Riverfront Island master plan area there are ap- proximately 9,500 households and 7,000 employees. Lewiston‐Auburn has many assets. What Lewiston‐ Auburn needs is growth. Growth can come from capitalizing on existing market opportunities as well as developing or strengthening existing market niches. In terms of the downtown, areas of potential opportunity include medical‐related investment; additional office space; tourism, recreation, arts and entertainment uses; and housing. Capitalizing on these market opportunities will require that initiatives be coordinated and invest- ment be leveraged to generate maximum spin‐off. An over‐arching emphasis on quality will be essen- tial—in keeping with the example of Bates Mill, a redeveloping mill complex at the heart of the study area—particularly since Lewiston‐Auburn will need to shed its old image as a struggling mill town. Initiatives need to be coordinated because op- portunities may be limited in the near‐term, but sustaining Lewiston‐Auburn’s recent successes and current market “buzz” is very important. Investments need to be clustered to build on the downtowns’ Only with critical mass can Downtown offer a multi‐purpose, enriching ex- perience. Lewiston has an image as an old manu- facturing town, it must now evolve into a “hip,” diverse urban destination. Markets are attracted to places that invest in quality, whether the invest- ment is in buildings, amenities or infrastructure. Shared vision and commitment among public and institutional stakeholders will be critical to the area’s success in realizing its potential. To be successful, residents, policy‐makers and the major institutions in Lewiston‐Auburn must not only support the community’s vision, but become meaningful participants in its implementation. While there are market opportunities, market driven development must be supplemented by public and institutional investment. Meaningful investments by area corporations, the hospitals, Bates College and other major local and regional stakeholders can significantly enhance Riverfront Island’s market potential and transformation. In the near-term, public subsidy will continue to be critical to project feasibility. ECONOMIC CONTEXT & MARKET POTENTIAL ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 14 Areas of market opportunity include: Housing Compared with the region and state, housing in Lewiston is older and less expensive. 4 percent of Lewiston’s housing stock was constructed in the last decade—in contrast to 9 percent statewide—and housing in Lewiston is 53 percent less expensive than housing in Portland. There is no new urban residential product in either Lewiston or Auburn. Analysis shows unmet demand for urban-format housing options. One and two‐person households account for two‐thirds of all households in An- droscoggin County, and 73 percent of households in Lewiston. Over 40 percent of Androscoggin County households are in the target market for urban living. These households are retirees, empty nesters and younger singles and couples and small families with tastes and preferences aligned with urban living. Yet 55 percent of the housing stock in the County consists of single family homes. There is mismatch between household type and the housing stock in Lewiston. The lack of competitive housing supply to support the middle and upper levels of the market may be an economic development issue. To grow and prosper the City must offer the kinds of housing products the market demands. Retail Because Lewiston-Auburn is clearly the retail, service and employment hub for the region, retail sales are higher than local households’ spending power. Retail sales in the cities accounted for two‐ thirds of the County’s total sales in 2010. Together, retail sales in Lewiston‐Auburn are 64 percent higher than what their residents could spend. With approximately 9,500 households within a five‐min- ute drive of Riverfront Island there is potential for new downtown convenience goods (food and drug stores) specialty retail, and eating/drinking estab- lishments. Office While downtown Lewiston‐Auburn continues to be a business hub, vacancy remains high. Current rents do not cover the cost of new construction. However, business growth will drive the demand for addi- tional office space downtown for both general and medical offices. It is likely that most of this growth will be absorbed in existing office space. There may, however, be an opportunity for new build‐to‐suit office buildings. Riverfront Island is an excellent location for new owner occupied office buildings. Arts & Culture In 2008, arts, recreation and amusement industries accounted for only 0.8 percent of the County’s total jobs. These same industries accounted for 1.5 percent (or more) of employment in the State and • Potential for Housing: Approximately 110–210 market-rate residential units in downtown Lewiston over the next 5 years, and up to 400 units total by 2020— provided that units offer urban amenities such as views of the River, strong connections to downtown and Auburn, and loft amenities like exposed brick walls, wood floors, large windows, and high ceilings. Potential for housing units will increase as amenities and services are developed in the downtown area. • Potential for Convenience Goods: A food-anchored shopping center • Potential for Eating & Drink Establishments: 14,000 square feet of eating and drinking space by 2021 two full-service restaurants and two to five smaller establishments) —provided that the River becomes a recreation destination and the canals a unique urban experience. • Potential for Office Space: 200,000 square feet of office space will be demanded from typical office inclined industries including medical offices. There may be additional office/back-office opportunities that arise from other industries or organizations that decide to have a downtown presence. The key to attracting this investment will be to direct growth to locations that offer good access and a range of services nearby • Potential for Hotel Space: Plans for development of a 100-room hotel on Lincoln Street are underway Market Potential through 2021 ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 15 in Cumberland County (Portland) and Penobscot County (Bangor). Given its size, location, history, the River and canals, and the presence of Bates Col- lege, it appears the Lewiston‐Auburn is not capital- izing on this potential industry. Lewiston‐Auburn has the potential to enhance its economy via the development of the arts and recreation. The arts and the creative economy have proven to be signifi- cant economic development drivers. The creative economy includes artists, craftsmen, technology companies, media companies and a wide range of value‐added industries. These types of uses tend to cluster and often are attracted to inexpensive space in urban locations. Hotel Reportedly, the Hilton Garden Inn in downtown Auburn is performing well as is the newest hotel in Lewiston-Auburn, the Residence Inn. Picking up on the success of these newer hotels, a national hotel network has recently committed to developing a 90+-room hotel on Riverfront Island. Together this new hotel and the Hilton Garden Inn will offer almost 250 quality hotel rooms downtown. As ame- nities are developed on Riverfront Island that attract local and visitor markets, these hotel rooms will help L-A grow the recreation and tourism industry. Light Industry The mills in the riverfront area offer large expanses of space at relatively low cost. These low cost, flex- ible spaces are well positioned to capitalize on the national “maker movement.” The “maker move- ment” is an outgrowth of the DIY (Do-It-Yourself) trend. There is a renewed interest in small business development that has been bolstered by changes in technology, open source hardware, cost reductions in small scale manufacturing and a variety of other social and economic forces. “Makers” bridge the gap between creative arts and cutting edge technology and in most cases they do this through an open, collaborative paradigm rather than the more con- ventional, competitive paradigm. There may be an opportunity to foster entrepreneurship in Lewiston and a “maker community” in the riverfront area— for instance, in the Hill Mill. An interesting example of this is TechShop in Durham, NC. TechShop is a membership organiza- tion much like a fitness center. The difference is that rather than paying to access fitness equipment, in TechShop you access tools and equipment. Tech- Shop provides members with tools and equipment, instruction and a community of creative and sup- portive people. This allows members to build the things they have always wanted to make. Businesses that would benefit from Fiber-Optic Infrastructure Technology access, connectivity and speed have emerged as three of the most important consid- erations for business in the 21st Century. Thus, it is not simply “location, location, location,” but “location, location, connection” in the new econ- omy. Due in large part to the presence of Oxford Networks—a Lewiston-based fiber-optics firm that moved its corporate headquarters to the Southern Gateway area on Lisbon Street, just southeast of Riverfront Island—Lewiston has emerged as one of the few small “fiber” cities, with pervasive high speed fiber-optic infrastructure. There is a real op- portunity to leverage this infrastructure to attract new businesses to the Riverfront Island area and generate regional economic development. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 16 planning context T he neighboring cities of Lewiston and Auburn are so closely linked by geography, history, and economics that they are often re- ferred to collectively as “Lewiston-Auburn” or and thought of by many local residents as a single community spanning the Androscoggin River. The character of both communities’ downtown areas is influenced by both the striking natural environ- ment of central Maine and L-A’s history as a great industrial center. The Great Falls of the Androscog- gin River, which once fueled production of textiles, shoes and more before an era of decline that began in the 1950s, continue to provide a dramatic focal point for both downtowns. The Androscoggin River, once polluted by the industry it fueled, now rolls cleanly between the two downtowns, past emerging riverfront parks. Kayakers and fisherman have be- gun to “discover” this stretch of the Androscoggin, and a growing network of trails link the downtown riverfront to large expanses of state parkland. Historic mill buildings remain a strong presence along both sides of the Androscoggin. On the Lewiston side of the River, within a 5-minute walk of the riverfront, 1.6 million square feet of mill space remains within three major mill facilities: the Bates Mill Complex, the Continental Mill, and the Hill Mill. The network of canals that once powered the mills remains in place. Lewiston’s compact downtown neighbor- hoods occupy the area east of the River. Multifamily housing that once served millworkers is now occupied by a new gen- eration of residents, including Somali and Bantu immigrants. A mix of small businesses (including several restaurants, an auto parts store, a furniture store, and a car wash), mul- tifamily housing, the Conti- nental Mill and vacant lots characterize the area between the redeveloping Bates Mill Complex and the River. Just 1/3 of a mile east of the River is Lisbon Street, Lewiston’s “Main Street.” Once a grand shopping destination that drew visitors from across the region, Lisbon Street’s 2- to 4-story buildings are beginning to see new activity. This planning effort focuses most closely on Riv- erfront Island: Lewiston’s downtown riverfront. By focusing on the area between the Great Falls and Cedar Street, and between Canal Street and the River—an area that includes the River, the Great Falls, the canals, and many of Lewiston’s historic mills—the L-A community can build on recent suc- cesses to strengthen downtown L-A as a whole. © Daniel J. Marquis ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 17 0 200' 400' 800' North The Riverfront Island study area includes much of Riverfront Island and the downtown riverfront. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 18 Recent Successes Today, after an era of disinvestment, Lewiston is in the midst of re-investment. Largely due to coor- dinated public and private investments both large and small, over the past fifteen years, Lewiston has begun to see: • Redevelopment and reuse of over 350,000 square feet of space within the Bates Mill Com- plex, which now houses offices for TD Banknorth and Androscoggin Savings Bank, two destination restaurants (DaVinci’s Eatery and FishBones Amer- ican Grill), a medical office (Bates Mill Dermatol- ogy), a AAA location, a craft beer brewery (Baxter Brewing Company), and more. Forty-eight units of loft housing now under construction within the complex will soon be part of the mix. The Bates Mill Complex has received over $30 million in private investment over the last 5–7 years, and approxi- mately 1,000 people now work within it. • Establishment of Simard-Payne (Railroad) Park at a brownfield site along the Lewiston Riverfront. The park now hosts the Great Falls Bal- loon Festival, which draws 100,000 people annually for the launch of dozens of hot air balloons over the Great Falls, and the Patrick Dempsey Challenge—an annual race and fun- draiser that draws several thousand cyclists, runners, walkers and specta- tors. Efforts to improve access to the park could enhance its value to the community. Bates Mill Complex is a successful model for high- quality renovation of older buildings to house an active mix of new uses. © Daniel J. Marquis Simard-Payne (Railroad) Park has become a key community asset. Annual events like the Patrick Dempsey Challenge and the Great Falls Balloon Festival draw thousands to Simard-Payne Park, but most of the time, the park is underutilized. © Eric potvin ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 19 Several higher-quality apartment units have been provided through renovations on upper floors. Much of this recent investment results from the actions of Lewiston-based entrepreneurs who are embracing the opportunities they see in down- town and along the riverfront. • The Southern Gateway Development, which has brought over 100,000 square feet of new development and nearly 350 jobs to the southern edge of downtown, along the Lisbon Street cor- ridor. Businesses within the Southern Gateway include Kaplan University (which enrolls 650 students in Lewiston through associate and bach- elor degree programs), corporate headquarters for Oxford Networks (a fiber-optic infrastructure and telecommunications firm), Northeast Bank, Key Bank Business Service Center, and VIP Auto. Challenges While a lot has been accomplished, much work still remains. To be fully successful, Lewiston must ad- dress the following challenges: • Transform the River from an untapped asset into the centerpiece of the downtown experi- ence. The River is hard to see and difficult to get to—particularly along the Lewiston side. Water access, e.g., for kayaking and canoeing, is not formally provided. While a walkway has been es- tablished within Simard-Payne Park and along the Auburn side of the River, the trail breaks down in Lewiston near Main Street and beyond the Grand Trunk Railroad Bridge. Simard-Payne and Heri- • Grand Trunk Depot Building Reuse, now underway to transform this long-vacant historic structure on Lincoln Street into a new café. • Construction of two public parking garages, which have leveraged tens of millions of dollars in private investment. These well used garages pro- vide the parking needed for over 1,000 employees in the Bates Mill Complex; for the future residents of the Bates Mill lofts; and for future guests of the hotel that will soon be constructed on Lincoln Street. • Reinvestment in buildings along Lisbon Street, including several new high-profile restaurants (Fuel for dinner, Marché for lunch, and a café/ market called Forage); a wine and craft beer shop (The Vault); a cluster of primarily Somali- and Bantu-owned shops in once-vacant storefronts; conversion of the old Music Hall into the District Courthouse; and several fresh new storefronts (including those for L/A Arts and L-A Magazine). • Transformation of St. Mary’s Church into the Franco-American Heritage Center, a cultural center and high-demand event space that brings 20,000 visitors to the downtown riverfront each year for over 140 events that range from Mid- Coast performances to rock bands and dance parties to galas and weddings. • Evolution of Museum L-A, a dynamic non-profit organization dedicated to telling the story of over 200 years of work, industry and community in Lewiston-Auburn. Museum L-A, which hosts a range of award-winning exhibits and events for people of all ages, is now located within the Bates Mill Complex but has purchased and begun site work at a former mill along the riverfront—adja- cent to Simard-Payne Park—where the Museum plans to build a new home. • Proposed 90+-bed Hotel, on Lincoln Street. Along with the Hilton Garden Inn in Auburn, downtown L-A will soon offer nearly 250 quality hotel rooms. While many storefronts remain vacant, stores and restaurants are beginning to bring new activity to Lisbon Street. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 20 Buildings like Continental Mill, flanked by the River and the Lower Canal, could house new homes or businesses. The network of canals extending through the district could become a unique amenity. Several key streets—like Oxford Street, shown above —feel alley-like in places, but could provide walkable connections to the River and other key destinations. tage Parks are located along the River, but do not engage the River as waterfront destinations that draw people from the community and beyond. • Attract a mix of uses and a critical mass of housing to fuel the area’s transformation into a vital, vibrant district. With so much vacant space, this area lacks the vitality, critical mass, and intensity of uses and destinations needed to make it thrive once again. Some of the vacant mill space—most notably, the 345,000 square feet within Bates Mill #5—is poorly suited to accom- modate most potential uses. • Use the canals to help define this area as unique place to live, work and play. Once lined with trees and paths, the canals today are hidden behind chain link fences and the backs of build- ings. Pedestrian amenities like ample sidewalks, lighting and trees are largely missing. Some exist- ing canal bridges are in poor condition. • Strengthen connections within the district— and to Lisbon Street—for a more walkable downtown. Today, the Lisbon Street area, the riverfront, and Lincoln Street all feel isolated from each other. There are no view corridors or signs to direct people to the River or other key locations— and the configuration of the Bates Mill Complex and canal bridges make pedestrian routes through the district circuitous. Canal Street and Oxford Street serve important destinations but feel alley- like in places. Connections between key destina- tions are often unwelcoming or confusing. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 21 3 The Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 22 plan overview MASTER PLAN This master plan for Riverfront Island builds on this same foundation. Through the successful implementation of this master plan, the Lewiston- Auburn community can advance goals that stretch well beyond the boundaries of the district, strengthening the image and identity of both communities; fostering connections between Lewiston and Auburn’s downtowns centered around the Androscoggin River waterfront; enhancing Lisbon Street as a commercial destination; and improving the quality of life for downtown neighborhoods in both communities through access to jobs and amenities. VISION Lewiston’s Androscoggin Riverfront will become Maine’s premier urban riverfront destination, the centerpiece of a renewed Lewiston-Auburn region, and a showcase of the community’s distinctive past, present, and future. ELEMENTS OF THE VISION The Riverfront Island master plan will be accom- plished through four related goals. • Tap the power of the river—through access to the water’s edge, a more active riverfront, and stronger connections to downtown neighborhoods. • Attract a vital mix of new uses—including new housing, cultural destinations, workplaces, a new Canal Park, and the parking needed to support these new destinations; accommodate new homes and businesses through reuse of older buildings and construction of new ones. • Make the district more walkable—to unlock the potential of Riverfront Island’s many assets. • Insist on quality in both public and private in- vestment—to attract desired businesses and visi- tors, and so that the Riverfront grows as a place the L-A community can take pride in. The following sections of this document are orga- nized in accordance with those goals, and expand upon each. An illustrative master plan summary is shown on pages 24 and 25. Pages 24 and 25 are designed to be viewed together. The summary iden- tifies key initiatives, which are described in more detail in the sections that follow. T oday, successful urban centers across the country are shaping their futures guided by a common formula for success: • They preserve and highlight their unique and authentic characteristics: historic architecture, waterways, streets and public spaces. • They include a vital and diverse mix of uses, including workplaces, restaurants, entertainment venues, homes, and educational, institutional, cultural and recreational uses. • They are walkable places with attractive public spaces and amenities. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 23 © Hillary Dow © MIMI philbrick The Great Falls Community events like the Culture Crawl are helping to draw people and activity to downtown This former rail bridge is now a pedestrian and bike link between Simard-Payne Park in Lewiston and Bonney Park in Auburn, offering striking views of the River. Once a rail yard, Simard-Payne Park is now a large public open space with a path near the River. Bates Mill Complex already includes a diverse mix of uses, including restaurants, a brewery, and offices. High quality sidewalks, lighting, paths, benches and trash receptacles have helped transform Lincoln Street near the Bates Mill Complex. A number of small businesses are located across the district. A quiet renaissance is underway along Lewiston’s downtown riverfront. Over the last ten years, both Lewiston and Auburn’s central areas have begun to reorient themselves to face the Androscoggin River. A great river, once harnessed to produce the power that drew industry to the twin cities, can now again be the spark that defines the communities. The riverfront can become the region’s great urban destination, a place for recreation, cultural activities, work and urban living. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 24 Overlook Great Falls New office/institutional development at Island Point Existing Auburn Riverwalk Riverwalk overlook at Falls New Riverwalk link below Main Street Bridge Existing boat launch New Lincoln Street hotel Destination playground within park New Simard- Payne Park connection to Lincoln Street Main Street streetscape improvements Retail/civic use on redeveloped Bates Mill #5 site New Canal Park with performance area Possible bridge over Upper Canal Expansion of Lincoln Street garage New Canal Walk connection links River to Lisbon Street Create Canal Walk and plant trees along walkways New restaurant at Depot building Incorporate new retail/ commercial infill on Lincoln Street Continued use of Hill Mill for craft businesses/ light industry Master Plan Summary Note: Image and text continues on page 25. u Event / food venues Future home of Museum L-A Enhance Simard- Payne Park; maintain flexibility of use for programs/events Infill housing along Oxford Street Streetscape improvements along Oxford Street and Lower Canal; new bridges New amphitheatre, water steps and boat launch in Simard-Payne Park; kayak rental; bank fishing ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 25 Tap the Power of the River • Create a continuous Riverwalk. • Make Simard-Payne a true waterfront park—with improved amenities and stronger connections to the water and surrounding streets. • Advance development of Museum L-A as a waterfront anchor. Attract a Mix of Uses • Add a critical mass of housing. • Lincoln Street—focus area for new retail and commercial uses; move forward with new hotel. • Oxford Street—new housing mixed with arts/ cultural and open space amenities. • Canal Street—reestablish trees and create a gracious green corridor. Make the District More Walkable • Create a Canal Walk network. • Improve Oxford Street as a walkable place. • Narrow Cedar Street to three lanes and incorporate bike lanes. Insist on Quality • Use design guidelines to shape new development and rehabilitation. Continental Mill reuse as housing Possible kayak launch/ rental facility New Riverwalk along Continental Mill/ Museum L-A Expand use of the River Expansion of Chestnut Street garage t Note: Image and text begins on page 24. elements of the vision Add bike lane to bridge; reduce vehicular traffic to two lanes Franco- American Heritage Center Narrow Cedar Street and add bike lanes Allow two-way traffic on Cedar between Canal and Lisbon Streets; explore allowing left turns from Cedar to Lisbon Reuse of Dominican Block for office/ mixed-use ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 26 T oday the Androscoggin Riverfront remains an untapped resource for the Lewiston- Auburn community. In an era when communities across the country have reclaimed urban waterfronts as vibrant community destinations, Lewiston and Auburn have the potential to create a unique and special place. Creating a continuous and attractive public Riverwalk connecting existing parks, planned destinations, and new waterfront development will be the key to success. The Riverwalk will become a much-loved destination and centerpiece of the downtown providing scenic views of the River and Falls and allowing access to the water’s edge. elements of the vision Tap the Power of the River Establish a continuous public Riverwalk between Island Point and Cedar Street. Transform Simard-Payne (Railroad) Park into a true riverfront park that draws the community and the region. Activate the riverfront with a new home for Museum L-A. Connect new and existing parks throughout the downtown Riverfront. More than a decade of effort has already moved the communities toward this goal of establishing the riverfront as a cultural, recreational and economic centerpiece. By taking the next important steps, this vision can become a reality. A destination riverfront will benefit Lewiston and Auburn most directly if it is strongly connected to the rest of the community and especially to the core of downtown along Lisbon Street. Lewiston’s canal network, open spaces, and connecting streets can strengthen the potential of the riverfront to enhance the community as a whole. © Christina Epperson ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 27 Establish a continuous public Riverwalk between Island Point and Cedar Street. With three parks along the downtown riverfront, Lewiston has already built a foundation for greater public use and enjoyment of the River. But the parks do not function as a connected system, can be hard to see or reach from surrounding city streets, and views of the river are often blocked by vegetation. Through development of a continuous high-quality Riverwalk, existing parks could be connected and used more effectively, views of the River could be opened up, and public access to the water could be greatly enhanced. This new Riverwalk could extend almost ¾ of a mile along Lewiston’s down- town waterfront. Through connections to Auburn’s riverside walking paths, several loop walking trails of 1 to 2 miles could be established, showcasing the riverfront and existing and planned destinations in both communities. Key missing links in the existing network of trails are more fully described on page 30 and 31. While continuity of access is essential, so is the quality and consistency of design elements. Pro- viding high-quality walkways, seating, lighting and signage throughout the waterfront area will contrib- ute directly to the Riverwalk’s appeal and success. A new waterfront amphitheatre and launch area at Simard-Payne Park could become a major community destination on the Riverwalk. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 28 Transform Simard-Payne (Railroad) Park into a true riverfront destination. Simard-Payne Park has the potential to be the centerpiece of Lewiston’s public waterfront. The park hosts the Great Falls hot air Balloon Festival, the Dempsey Challenge and other community events and recreational programs but is missing many of the key elements of a true waterfront destination park: access down to the water’s edge is not in place for people or boats; view of the River are limited by vegetation; the park lacks visibility from surrounding streets; park infrastructure and amenities needed to attract people or host events are not in place; and much land around the park is currently vacant or underutilized. Planned development of the new Museum L-A at the edge of the park is a very important step forward but additional steps will be needed both to support the Museum’s success and to create a public destination: • Add an amphitheatre, steps to the water and small-boat dock where the River meets the Cross Canal. This has the potential to be a signa- ture public destination for waterfront events and activities and might include a removable floating dock for waterfront programs and events. • Continue and expand the program of park events/festivals. • Explore the potential for seasonal canoe/ kayak rental within Simard-Payne Park, potentially in conjunction with the proposed Lincoln Street/waterfront hotel. Tap the Power of the River: Continuous public riverfront access, new riverfront destinations, and access to the water’s edge Heritage Park Simard-Payne (Railroad) Park Museum L-A Potvin Park Incorporate a new Riverwalk segment around Island Point that offers unique views of the falls Create a Riverwalk connection below the Main Street Bridge linking Heritage Park to Simard-Payne Park Continental Mill water’s edge The annual Great Falls Balloon Festival draws 100,000 people to the Lewiston-Auburn waterfront. © Daniel J. Marquis ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 29 • Explore the potential of the park to accom- modate seasonal concessions/vendors in small/ temporary structures. Over the long-term, incor- poration of more permanent food venues might be considered along or adjacent to the Riverwalk. These venues should be designed and sited so as not to impede views or access to the River or Riv- erwalk. Service and access should be accommodat- ed in context sensitive ways that do not interfere with public use of the park. Each structure should be no more than one story in height and 3,500 square feet in area. • Selectively trim and manage riverfront vegeta- tion to open up River views. • Incorporate a bank-fishing location as proposed by the Androscoggin River Greenway initiative. • Add a destination playground within the Park, potentially including a fountain and other water activities, drawing kids from downtown neighborhoods and the wider region. • Create a new “gateway” entrance to Simard- Payne Park on Lincoln Street on a publicly owned parcel beside the Depot building; extend a path from Lincoln Street across Oxford Street to the existing Park entrance. • Add a new pedestrian access point to the Park via a new bridge over the canal at the intersec- tion of Oxford and Cross Streets. • Improve the Oxford Street edge to the Park along the Lower Canal. A destination playground in Simard-Payne Park could be a magnet attracting children and their families to the riverfront. Waterfront performances at Bemus Point in upstate New York attract hundreds of people all through the summer. • Improve bridges, vehicular access, and utilities serving the park to sup- port expanded programming, with infrastructure improvements to include repair or replacement of the vehicular and pedestrian bridges at Beech Street. • Foster new development at the Park’s edges. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 30 Island Point: Uninterrupted public access along the each segment of downtown riverfront is critical. The Riverwalk should extend through Heritage Park and along Island Point, linking back to Main Street at the Upper Canal and should be incorporated into future development plans for Island Point. Overlooks along this segment of the Riverwalk could provide dramatic views of the Great Falls. Riverwalk under Main Street: A walkway under the Longley Bridge, beneath Main Street, is critical to continuous access along the River’s edge. On the south side of the bridge, this “sister path” to the under-bridge segment of the Auburn Riverwalk could begin approximately halfway up the grade toward Main Street, bear toward the River traversing the riverbank contours, and then follow the riverbank (likely on an elevated structure) under the bridge before returning to grade in Heritage Park. Simard-Payne Park to Main Street: The Simard-Payne Park segment of the Riverwalk—which now ends abruptly near the intersection of Lincoln and Main streets—could be fully connected to Main Street through a walkway along the top of the riverbank. The existing walkway and handrail in this area could be replaced with a restored stone parapet along the top of the mill walls. Bikepath and Simard-Payne Park access: The Riverwalk will have a major cross axis intersection with the bikepath at the end of the Railroad Bridge, and that location should be a focal point for people gathering and wayfinding. Simard-Payne Park enhancements: Several Simard-Payne Park enhancements are proposed: improved park connectivity with connector walks on the northern end of Oxford street; development of a public amphitheatre facing the River at the northern end of the park; development of a more formal walkway to the water’s edge, also at the northern park area where topography allows. Amphitheatre: A tiered stone amphitheatre for outdoor performances and observing the balloon festivals is proposed on the northwest corner of the park. Water-access steps: Stone steps and a ramp for ADA access and boat walk-in to the shallow shorelines at the ends of the branch canal exit are also proposed so that boats and people can access the waters edge in the park landscape. This location could include a kayak-rental operation. Canal crossing: Placement of a bridge close to the canal terminus is also proposed so that the bridge offers views up and down the River. NORTHERN SEGMENT Island Point to Simard-Payne (“Railroad”) Park central SEGMENT Simard-Payne Park Elements of a Lewiston Riverwalk: Showcasing a Great Riverfront and connecting it to the community ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 31 Cedar Street/ Peace Bridge Gateway: Create a Riverwalk gateway that defines the pedestrian entrance to the area, provides parking for Riverwalk users as part of the Continental Mill redevelopment, reclaims old paved areas as greenspace for the pathway, provides overlooks to the River, and includes reclamation of a natural riverbank environment and integration of stormwater treatment for the Continental Mill property. Continental Mill yard crossing for the Flume gateway and water access: Open the back yard of the mill to pedestrian access to the River and the unique “flumes” that carry exiting waterpower from under the mill. Rehabilitate the open area where the flumes were blasted open for a sewer line project. The collapsed flumes offer access to the River for paddlers in a dramatic yet protected way. The flumes that exit through the stone arches monitor safe water levels (if the water level of the River is too high, they are impassible). Stabilization of the slopes with stonework and other retention will make the area safe for access via an elevated walkway and ramp/stair system to the water level. A drop of approximately 20–25’ into the chamber will be required, and a way to sluice kayaks into the basin will need to be devised. Once in the basin, kayakers can paddle through the flumes to the main River for river tours and recreation. A Southern SEGMENT Cedar Street to Simard-Payne Park kayak-rental outlet could also be staged from this location. Branch canal crossing: Crossing from the Continental Mill site to the Museum L-A Property and Simard-Payne (Railroad) Park requires a bridge over the canal. Recent site clean-up on the Museum L-A site elevated grades to a long gradual slope, so the bridge will need to be sited and designed to fit an exit path at ADA grades and to meet the grade of the path at the Railroad Bridge entrance. It would also be desirable for the pathway to have a sight line of visibility from the walkway at the Continental Mill to the Museum L-A site. The elevated grade for the bridge will require its Continental Mill end to meet an equal elevation. Many types of bridges could be considered for this site, with cost and design being strong influences. River overlooks: A unique river-over- look opportunity exists above the stone- arched-flume exits to the Androscoggin where kayaks and canoes can access underneath. An elevated platform could offer dramatic views up and down the river and interpret the site’s waterpower history. Museum L-A Access and Branch Canal walk: At the Museum L-A side of the canal, walkways would head in two directions: along the branch canal towards Oxford Street and toward Simard-Payne Park. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 32 Activate the riverfront with a new home for Museum L-A • Support Museum L-A’s ambitious plans for redevelopment of the recently purchased Camden Yarns Mill, beside Simard-Payne Park: Ensure that Museum L-A is able to move forward with development of its new home, which will provide an important anchor for the riverfront. • Help Museum L-A to activate Simard-Payne Park: Leverage opportunities to tell the story of the riverfront and the history of the L-A community through events, programs, and an interpretive signage project already in progress. Museum L-A is a nonprofit organization dedicated to telling the story of over 200 years of work, industry and community in Lewiston-Auburn. Museum L-A hosts a range of award-winning exhibits and events for people of all ages and is currently located within the Bates Mill Complex. Museum L-A has ambitious plans for a new home at the Camden Yarn Mill site—adjacent to Simard-Payne Park and along the River. The new museum will serve as an important anchor for the downtown riverfront, drawing people, programs, and activity to the River and the park. Strong community support will help to move this important project forward. Museum L-A ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 33 Connected open spaces: A network of new and existing parks linked by the Riverwalk and Canal Walk bring vitality to the district Heritage Park Simard-Payne (Railroad) Park Potvin Park Kennedy Park New Canal Park connects District to downtown/Lisbon Street New canal bridge provides pedestrian access to Simard-Payne Park New park creates gateway to Simard-Payne Park from Lincoln Street LISBON ST Connection through Bates Mill complex Ash ST cedar st chestnut st Lincoln ST The Riverwalk will enhance the value of Lewiston’s three existing riverfront parks by linking them into a single network, allowing park users a better experience and opening up the river to the larger community. In order to fully tap the potential of the parks, they need to be more visible and accessible from major streets and destinations. Connected Public Spaces Connect new and existing parks throughout the downtown Riverfront. • Create a Canal Walk network with new pedestrian and bicycle connections along the canals: Use the canals to link Lincoln Street and Lisbon Street to the River. (see Canal Walk, p. 43) • Add a new Canal Park at the intersection of the Upper Canal and the Cross Canal: Incorporate a new Canal Park that links Lisbon Street to the riverfront area. The Park could include a performance space and potentially a restaurant along the canal. Include a new bike/ped bridge linking the Park to downtown and develop a Canal Walk segment linking to Main Street. View towards Bates Mill from Simard-Payne Park. New gateway to Simard-Payne Park on Lincoln Street. (See p. 29) ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 34 elements of the vision Attract a vital mix of new uses Since 2000, dramatic progress has been made in bringing new uses and activities to Riverfront Island. Establishment of the Franco-American Heritage Center has created a new cultural anchor for the area; the successful reuse of portions of the Bates Mill Complex has brought new offices, restaurants and medical uses. These new uses complement the existing mix of businesses and residences that are an essential ingredient of success. Today, Riverfront Island is home to four restaurants with another currently planned. With the development of new lofts currently under construction at the Bates Mill Complex, the addition of a planned new hotel on Lincoln Street, renovation of the Grand Trunk Depot building as a restaurant now underway, and continued development of Museum L-A’s new home on the waterfront, the district will take a dramatic further step. New amenities such as creation of a Lewiston Riverwalk will further enhance the district’s appeal and attract more uses to the area. Lively downtown neighborhoods need a critical mass of people living within them, and Riverfront Island is no exception. Over time, attracting a critical mass of new housing (a minimum of 400 new units) will be especially critical to the success of the area. Both the Bates Mill S uccessful urban riverfront districts incorporate a vital mix of uses that are drawn to a riverfront location while also attracting new people and events. The mix of uses must support activity over the course of the day, weekdays and weekends, in all seasons. The right mix of uses combines workplaces, arts, cultural, educational and recreational uses, retail, restaurants and hotels, and a strong residential mix. Riverfront Island already includes several of these uses but in combination they have not yet reached the critical mass needed to be fully successful. Reuse of Riverfront Island’s Mill Buildings Adaptive Reuse of Other Key Historic Structures Island Point Infill Development Institutional Anchors Get Creative with Parking ---PAGE BREAK--- Lisbon Street is Lewiston’s commercial “Main Street” with smaller stores, civic and institutional uses, restaurants and some new housing; activity generated in Riverfront Island can spill over the canal and benefit Lisbon Street. Canal Street can have the feel of an alley today, but with improvements to the canals it can become a gracious, pedestrian-friendly corridor lined by a diverse mix of uses, including housing; improvements along the canals can change the feel of this street from a divider to a connector. Mill Street can become more fully developed as a pedestrian spine linking a number of mill complexes. Oxford Street can feel like a forgotten alley today but has great potential for transformation as a vital pedestrian-friendly street that combines arts and cultural activities (Franco-American Heritage Center and Museum L-A) with major new housing and open space amenities. riverfront island master plan 35 Organization of the district: The riverfront area is structured around a series of streets that run approximately parallel to the River. The master plan establishes a general framework for determining the future character and mix of uses appropriate to each street. People drawn to recreational and cultural activities along the River can filter back to Lincoln Street and Lisbon Street with their restaurants, retail and other service businesses. Lincoln Street is the district’s commercial and vehicular spine, with major office space, restaurants, retailers, and two parking garages. With a planned hotel and potential for more food-oriented retail uses, Lincoln Street can strengthen its primary role for the district. Complex and Continental Mill are excellent locations for loft housing, while the areas along Oxford Street and Simard-Payne Park have the potential to include new townhouse development overlooking the park. The properties and potential uses described on the following page of this section are key to accomplishing the goals of the master plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 36 Reuse of Riverfront Island’s Mill Buildings Bates Mill Complex This approximately 700,000 square foot mill com- plex extends from Chestnut Street to the Cross Canal and between Canal Street and Lincoln Street. It is the cornerstone of the district’s success to date with major tenants including offices for TD Bank and Androscoggin Savings Bank, Bates Mill Dermatology, Baxter Brewing Company, AAA, and two restaurants (DaVinci’s Eatery and Fish Bones American Grill). As of 2009, the complex had at- tracted $30 million in private sector investment and employed 1,000 people. Renovation of this property has been done to the highest standards and is a model for other buildings within the district. The recently completed atrium space, accessed from the intersection of Canal Street and Pine Street, al- lows pedestrians to travel through the building between the Lis- bon Street area and Riverfront Island. With 48 units of loft housing due to be completed in late 2012, the complex will continue its evolution as a major anchor of the district. Future planned uses for the roughly 200,000 square feet of remaining mill space include retail amenities as well as continued growth of office and residential uses. Much of the remaining available space is located on the east side of the building facing Canal Street. As this portion of the building sees use once again, it will present a more lively face to downtown and Canal Street. Development of a Canal Walk with trees and lighting will be essential in linking the Lisbon Street area to the riverfront. Bates Mill #5 Bates Mill #5 has been a focus of public discussion for years within Lewiston. The City of Lewiston acquired Bates Mill #5—located near the intersection of Main and Lincoln Streets—in 1992 following cessation of most manufacturing activities and nonpayment of taxes. The mill is a 346,000-square-foot, two-level building designed by noted architect Albert Kahn and completed in 1914. Since 1997, in order to preserve the mill structure and secure a new use that could serve as an important anchor for the downtown, the City has studied the feasibility of uses such as a convention center; advertised the availability of the structure for reuse as private-sector redevelopment; invested in stabilization of the facility; established a task force to evaluate reuse options; and most recently, supported reuse of the building as a casino facility— which failed to attract necessary voter support on a statewide ballot initiative in 2011. The City continues to incur costs associated with repairs and insurance. It is estimated that approximately $20 million would be needed to stabilize the exterior envelope in advance of any reuse. The building’s layout, large and deep floor plates make it generally unsuitable for most uses, including office or residential. Having remained unused for over 10 years—after several decades of very limited use— the building’s condition continues to deteriorate, increasing the barriers to viable reuse. Over the course of this master planning process, extensive public discussion has centered around the future use of the Bates Mill #5 site. Several possible reuse scenarios were considered: reuse of the structure for a major downtown anchor; partial or complete demolition and replacement with a new signature park; or demolition and replacement with a new structure to house retail uses and associated parking in line with likely near-term market potential. While there was not unanimous public agreement © Daniel J. Marquis The Bates Mill Complex can add to its mix of restaurant, housing, and office uses over time. Bates Mill #5 presents significant barriers to reuse. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 37 on any of these options, most participants favored replacement of the structure with a distinctive new park space combined with a mix of development, potentially including retail and civic uses. Public sentiment over the future of the Bates Mill #5 structure reflects a skepticism over finding a viable reuse following fifteen years of strong efforts by the City and other advocates, and continuing public cost associated with ownership. While a final decision on the future of the building rests with Lewiston City Council, the master plan envisions demolition of most of the structure and replacement over time with a mix of open space and new development. A portion of the building along the Cross Canal is owned by NextEra Energy (formerly Florida Power & Light) and may need to remain intact. Should the City Council decide to move forward with demolition in the near term, the site should be cleaned up and held until such time as full redevelopment can be advanced. In the interim, the site should be used as an open space and should not be used for surface parking. Continental Mill This five-story 560,000-square-foot mill building is particularly well suited to a residential reuse. Its mix of high ceilings, large windows and wood floors are ideal for loft housing. With its waterfront setting and river views, reuse of the building could anchor the waterfront, bringing life and activity year-round. 250–500 residential units could be accommodated, depend- ing on unit size and other variables. Like the Bates Mill Complex, this large building has the potential to be developed in a number of phases in response to market demand. Portions of the building could also be devoted to complementary uses, including office space. Most if not all necessary parking could be accommodated on site, with the possibility of ac- commodating some indoor parking on the ground level of the building. Overflow parking to the extent required could be provided at the Chestnut Street garage or within a future garage addition. At a minimum, all parking needed to cover several initial phases of development can be provided on site. Through cooperative agreements with the mill’s owners, a public riverwalk could be constructed along the property edge in advance of development. Development of this segment of Riverwalk as a pub- lic amenity could enhance the attractiveness of the property and serve as a development catalyst. Use of federal and state historic tax credits could substan- tially enhance the feasibility of development of this property. Continental Mill is an important and very attractive landmark on the River. Hill Mill The present mix of small- and medium-sized light industrial and craft businesses located within this 400,000-square-foot mill complex are an excellent complement to other uses within the district, and can continue to play an important role in the future of the area. The Hill Mill continues downtown Lewiston’s tradition as a place where goods are produced; brings employees and customers to downtown; and provides space where emerging businesses and craft-related enterprises can operate within reach of each other. The Hill Mill is well positioned to be the hub of the region’s “maker movement.” Interior of Bates Mill #5 © Daniel J. Marquis Continental Mill would be an ideal place for loft housing. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 38 Adaptive Reuse of Other Key Historic Structures Dominican Block This 4+-story, approximately 25,000-square-foot brick building at the corner of Lincoln Street and Chestnut Street was built in 1882 to house retail space, classrooms, and a large community room. The Dominican Block has recently been rehabilitated to a very high standard and is well-suited for cultural/educational, retail, office and/or restaurant use. The building is especially notable for its large upper floor assembly/performance space, which features 17-foot-high ceilings. The building’s elegant proportions and fine details make it especially attractive and noteworthy. Grand Trunk Depot Building An adaptive reuse renovation now underway at the former railway depot will create a unique new res- taurant space on Lincoln Street. Establishing a new gateway to Simard-Payne Park on the undeveloped lot next to the Depot building will help link the River to Lincoln Street. Island Point North of Main Street and adjacent to the Great Falls, the area known as Island Point is one of the city’s most prominent and visible locations. It offers exceptional views of the Falls and River. Formerly the site of the Libbey Mill Complex, destroyed by fire in 1999, Island Point is now home to Heritage (Veteran’s) Park, a hydro facility, and Pedro O’Hara’s, a restaurant, bar and banquet facility. There is significant potential for new high-profile development on Island Point—particularly on land overlooking the Falls, where the mill buildings once stood. Much of the property is publicly owned. Island Point is well-suited to accommodate a substantial medical facility, a major “build to suit” corporate office building, housing, and/or retail. Island Point is not considered an appropriate location for large-format “big box” retail stores. Because the topography of Island Point rises dramatically from Heritage Park, it offers opportunities to reduce the cost and visibility of structured parking that would serve uses on the property. Future development of the property should: • Accommodate extension of the Riverwalk, providing continuous public access to the water’s edge from the Longley (Main Street) Bridge, around the point, and on toward Canal Street to enable a strong pedestrian link to the Upper Canal • Advance efforts to make this segment of Main Street more walkable, with buildings that front Main Street • Help to reinforce Heritage Park as an accessible, inviting, and attractive destination for the community and region. Island Point and the Great Falls before demolition of the Libbey Mill Complex. Dominican Block in 1882 and today. © Lyme Properties © Lyme Properties © Dave gudas The long-vacant Grand Trunk Depot building, built in 1899 and once known as the “Ellis Island” of Lewiston- Auburn, is being renovated as a restaurant space ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 39 Infill Development Lincoln Street Hotel A new 90-plus-room hotel currently planned for Lincoln Street near its intersection with Main Street will further strengthen the mix of uses within the riverfront area, add life to the Riverwalk, and sup- port businesses by increasing the customer base for area restaurants and attrac- tions. The hotel can also help generate activity around the edges of Simard- Payne Park, improving its attractiveness and visibility. Use of the “red house” over the Cross Canal as a café or boat-rental facility as contemplated by the hotel has great merit and can also contribute to bringing this area to life. Lincoln Street infill development The portion of Lincoln Street between Main and Cedar has undergone significant change over the last decade, with removal of several structures and significant investment in streetscape, site and ment along Lincoln Street. On-street parking on Oxford Street, however, could help accommodate visitors to the park. Institutional Anchors Museum L-A Museum L-A is working to construct a new home along the riverfront, beside Simard-Payne Park. Museum L-A would be a tremendous anchor for the riverfront area. Franco-American Heritage Center The Franco-American Heritage Center is a key an- chor within the riverfront area. As a cultural destina- tion and event venue, the Center draws 20,000 people annually. The Franco-American Heritage Center will continue to play an important role in the area’s vital- ity, and should continue to receive strong support. building improvements. Over time, attracting new uses to vacant parcels will help to further activate the riverfront area, and better connect the River to the Bates Mill Complex. Stand-alone retail, service, or office space will likely be attracted to Lincoln Street because of its traffic volume and visibility. The central portion of Lincoln, between the proposed hotel site and Chestnut Street, represents an optimal location for a small grocery store. The corner of Lincoln and Cedar is another potential location. These land uses should be developed on the Lincoln Street edge with parking adjacent or behind the buildings. Lincoln Street uses must allow for additional buildings to abut Oxford Street, and parking for Lincoln Street building should not extend to the edge of Oxford Street. Oxford Street infill opportunities Over time, Oxford Street can develop with a particu- lar focus on residential development at the Conti- nental Mill and other locations. Improvements adja- cent to Simard-Payne Park and its associated street edges will make Oxford Street more appealing as a site for infill development. Additional infill housing would be an especially attractive use in this location, benefitting from the amenity of the park and provid- ing a round-the-clock presence at the edge of the park, overcoming it current isolation from the area. Parking should not be provided on lots along the street edge in this location, particularly any parking associated with commercial or residential develop- Preliminary site plan for the proposed Lincoln Street hotel. © FRANCO-AMERICAN HERITAGE CENTER The Franco-American Heritage Center is an important anchor for the riverfront area. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 40 Bates College, USM Lewiston-Auburn College & Kaplan University Colleges and universities can be important in downtown redevelopment efforts, drawing people and activity. Opportunities for locating college- related functions within the riverfront area—for instance, administrative offices, performance ven- ues, housing, and continuing education centers that may benefit from a downtown location—should be explored on a regular basis with Bates College, USM Lewiston-Auburn College and Kaplan University. Central Maine Medical Center & St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center Currently, most medical offices are located within the hospital complexes on the other side of Lewis- ton’s downtown. Demand for medical-related office space in the region is projected to grow. Some of this growth may be suitable for locations within with Riverfront Island area (for instance, a new facility on Island Point). Get Creative with Parking Parking is a key issue for Lewiston, as it is for all downtowns. The City of Lewiston has been proactive in developing parking structures within the down- town area to advance economic development goals. Today, five public parking structures serve the down- town area. The two parking structures built by the City on Riverfront Island since 2001—the 610 space Chestnut Street Garage and the 337 space Lincoln Street Garage—have been integral to the success of recent redevelopment efforts in the Bates Mill Complex), providing nearby parking for employees and visitors. Today, those structures are well used during the work week, with peak weekday utiliza- tion rates of 85% and higher. During weekends and evenings, significant capacity remains available. As redevelopment of the Riverfront Island area continues—with potential for more retail, office, and housing—new destinations will, over time, bring Heritage Park Simard-Payne (Railroad) Park Potvin Park Kennedy Park LISBON ST Ash ST cedar st chestnut st Lincoln ST Expand Lincoln Street garage Expand Chestnut Street garage Parking Strategy • Develop Shared Use Agreements with owners of underutilized private parking lots • Improve signage to, around, and within public parking areas • Refine shared parking provisions in zoning to maximize availability of parking spots for multiple uses • Expand Chestnut & Lincoln Street garages when needed to support additional development (approx 700 additional spaces) Parking expansion: Additions to public parking structures and increased utilization of existing parking can meet increased demand as the district evolves ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 41 demand for more parking. When the district’s public parking supply is operating at full capacity during peak periods, additional structured parking will likely be needed if the area is to continue to attract new businesses and housing. Additional structured parking can be provided through expansion of Riverfront Island’s existing parking garages. In total, expansion of the Lincoln Street and Chestnut Street Garages could provide approximately 700 additional parking spaces, with roughly 2/3 of the total expan- sion occurring at the Chestnut Street Garage. During high demand periods when Riverfront Island’s public parking garages are nearing capacity, there are well over 1,000 available parking spaces within the district in privately owned surface lots. Many of these spaces will ultimately be needed to serve the buildings they are adjacent to Continental Mill, Hill Mill). In the interim, how- ever, property owners, the City, and the Riverfront Island area could benefit from an arrangement that allowed temporary public use of private lots as an interim alternative to more structured parking. Con- tracts called Shared Use Agreements—used across the country in places such as Albany, NY and San Diego, CA—enable temporary public use of private lots under terms agreeable to both cities and owners. Shared Use Agreements with key property owners would enable Lewiston to make sure that, as de- mand for parking grows, the area’s existing parking supply is fully used, to the extent possible, before the significant expense of building structured parking is undertaken. Parking demand varies across use and time of day. For instance, peak parking demand for housing oc- curs at night and on weekends, when residents are home, but decreases significantly during weekday mornings and afternoons—when demand is highest for most businesses. Lewiston’s zoning ordinance allows for shared use of parking areas, enabling developers to pledge the same space to two different uses if they can demonstrate that the two uses have different periods of peak demand. To ensure that parking is not overbuilt—at a cost of valuable land and dollars—or under-built, which could threaten the area’s ability to attract new businesses, residents and activity, Lewiston could refine this approach by: • Using models developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE), which can calculate parking needs for proposed uses based on the precise use and time of day. • Maximizing the extent to which parking is avail- able to all, rather than dedicated to particular uses or destinations. • Improving signage to, within, around downtown public parking areas, which will help maximize use of the existing parking supply. Design of parking structures can have a significant impact on streetscapes. Riverfront Island’s two well-used parking structures were designed to fit in with their surroundings. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 42 elements of the vision Make the district more walkable Riverfront Island is a compact place. Distances between destinations are short—you can walk almost any place within the district within 5–7 minutes. The biggest chal- lenge is the quality of these connections for pedestrians and bicyclists. The same can be said of connections to the district from surrounding areas: walking distances are short, but it’s hard to get from Lisbon Street to Riverfront Island and the River. Poor walking conditions along the canals and the need to travel around rather than through the 2.5 block long Bates Mill Complex are particularly significant barriers. To unlock Riverfront Island’s many assets for the Lewiston- Auburn community to fully enjoy—as well as to attract a next wave of residents, businesses and visitors—providing an easily walkable, inviting, and well-connected environ- ment is critical. Reclaiming the Cross Canal as an attrac- tive, tree-lined place to walk—from Canal Street all the way to the River at Simard-Payne Park—will be particu- larly important. Making key streets like Oxford, Main, and Cedar more walkable will also be important. T hriving downtowns benefit from strong walkable connections between destinations. When destinations aren’t clustered or well connected, downtowns generally lack the critical mass they need to remain lively places. Lewiston’s new Canal Walk Improve Oxford Street Continue development of an L-A Heritage Trail Make Main Street a Better Gateway Continue to improve Lincoln Street Make the Cedar Street & the Peace Bridge More Walkable, Bikeable Places Link to local and regional trails ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 43 Lewiston’s new Canal Walk Lewiston’s network of canals harnessed the Androscoggin to power the city’s great mill complexes. Today, the canals play almost no role in power generation but continue to be owned by a power company (NextEra Energy, formerly Florida Power & Light). Early photographs and postcards show the canals as gracious tree-lined waterways that were a unique and attractive amenity for the city. Today the tree canopy is much deteriorated and the canals are frequently treated primarily as safety hazards, surrounded by unattractive fences and other barriers. The City of Lewiston is working with NextEra to acquire ownership of the canal network, opening the door to reestablishing the canals as attractive and unique community amenities. Through establishing walking and bike paths along the canals, Lewiston can create much stronger and more inviting connections among key destinations, highlighting a unique community asset in a new way. Oxford Street could become a much more walkable and attractive place through creation of a canal walk and development of new infill housing around Simard-Payne Park. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 44 Lewiston can reestablish the network of tree- shaded paths that once lined the canals. Full development of a comprehensive Canal Walk network will take time and will likely require phased implementation as funding becomes available. At the point that the City acquires ownership of the canals it will be possible to begin this effort. • The initial phase of work might focus on Oxford Street along the edges of the Lower Canal and Simard-Payne Park extending to the Continental Mill. • The second phase of work could focus on creat- ing an attractive walkway along the Cross Canal beginning at Simard-Payne Park and extending to Canal Street and Lisbon Street via Ash Street. This pathway would connect through a new Canal Park at the Bates Mill #5 site, travel past the Lincoln Street Garage (opposite Fishbones) and meet the River near the proposed hotel. In order to ensure that the Canal Walk network has a cohesive design identity, work on the initial design phase should establish a consistent vocabulary of elements—paving, lighting, fencing, trees, and signage that can be used throughout the network in subsequent phases. City ownership will also open the door to consideration of use of the canals themselves for water-based recreation—in small boats, for ice skating and other purposes—further enhancing the appeal of canal edges for pedestrians. Each form of water-based recreation will have its own needs and constraints, and the feasibility of these uses will need Richmond has restored its downtown canals as a high amenity pedestrian network that has helped attract investment to that part the city. to continue to be considered as the City works with the power company to ensure that adequate water is provided within the canals to preserve their amenity and facilitate use. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 45 A network of sidewalks, trees, lighting and overlooks along both sides of the canals— built in segments over time—would transform these waterways into special places for the L-A community. A new ped-bike bridge to Simard- Payne Park at Oxford and Cross streets, along with rehab of bridges that already serve the park, would link the riverfront to Lewiston’s downtown neighborhood. Heritage Park Simard-Payne (“Railroad”) Park Potvin Park Kennedy Park New Canal Park connects District to downtown/Lisbon Street. Extend streetscape improvements on Main Street to make a better gateway. A Canal Walk network of paths, trees, lighting, and decorative fences lines the canals, linking destinations throughout the district. An L-A Heritage Trail highlights key destinations throughout downtown L-A. Streetscape improvements on Oxford Street link the Park, the River, and cultural destination. Museum L-A Franco-American Heritage Center LISBON ST Connection through Bates Mill complex Ash ST cedar st chestnut st Lincoln ST Make the district more walkable: A Canal Walk network, an L-A Heritage Trail, and improvements to key streets knit downtown neighborhoods to the Riverfront. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 46 Improve Oxford Street Today, Oxford Street is an alley-like place in an important location. Oxford Street is the route to key destinations: to Simard-Payne Park and the River, to the Franco-American Heritage Center, to the future home of Museum L-A, and to the Continental Mill. Yet, north of Chestnut Street and along the edge of Simard-Payne Park, Oxford Street offers no trees, few street lights, many overhead wires, and no buffer between the asphalt sidewalk and the curb. With some improvements, as suggested in the rendering on page 43, Oxford could become a great street that draws new investment and helps link some of the downtown riverfront’s most important places. • Add trees, lighting, and improved sidewalks: Just as Lincoln Street once did, Oxford Street needs streetscape improvements: trees, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and lighting. Plantings at the elbow of Cross Street and Oxford Street, where the Lower Canal meets the Cross Canal, are a good first start. • Invest in the Canal Walk: Trees, lighting and improved sidewalks and fencing along the Lower Canal—at the edge of Simard-Payne Park—will link the park back to the neighborhood, and link the neighborhood to the River. Trees, lighting and improved sidewalks and fencing along the Cross Canal will link the park and the River to emerging destinations as far east as Lisbon Street—includ- ing the proposed hotel and “Red House” reuse project; restaurants and businesses in the Bates Oxford has the ingredients to become a great street, linking the Continental Mill, the Franco-American Center, Museum L-A and Simard Payne-Park. Mill Complex; and a potential new Canal Park at the Upper Canal. • Add a new Lower Canal pedestrian bridge: A new pedestrian bridge across the Lower Canal at the elbow of Oxford and Cross Streets will enhance use of the park and open a new connection to the River’s edge. • Rehabilitate or replace the Lower Canal bridges serving the southern end of Simard- Payne Park and the future home of Museum L-A: The pedestrian and vehicular bridges that link this portion of Oxford Street to the riverfront are in poor condition, and should be repaired or replaced. Along with continued pedestrian and bike access, access for school and tour buses as well as for emergency and service vehicles should be supported. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 47 Continue development of an L-A Heritage Trail For many, the L-A community’s past and recent triumphs remain well-kept secrets. Build on efforts by Museum L-A, Bates students, the Androscoggin Land Trust, the Chamber of Commerce, and others to formalize and promote an L-A Heritage Trail that highlights key destinations within the Riverfront Island area. The trail could incorporate themes such as River Ecology, Pre-History, Mills and Canals, and Immigrants’ Journey. Create a map and locate interpretive signage near key sites. Use the trail to showcase L-A’s past, present, and future. Possible route for L-A Heritage Trail Interpretive signage can help tell the story of a community’s past, present, and future, while highlighting key sites. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 48 • Historic buildings the Continental Mill, the Dominican Block, the Grand Trunk Depot Building) Make Main Street a better gateway Main Street should be an inviting gateway to the City and the riverfront. It is important that this key cor- ridor provide safe and convenient travel. Today, Main Street is a source of frustration across many modes: difficult to cross on foot, subject to congestion during rush hour, and without accommodations for bikes. Walking Audits led by the Androscoggin Land Trust highlighted a series of concerns related to the Long- ley Bridge, which connects Main Street in Lewiston and Court Street in Auburn, including: an absence of safe bicycle accommodations, high vehicle speeds, narrow sidewalks and an uncomfortable pedestrian environment. Over time, Main Street can become a place that better reflects the L-A community’s goals for the downtown and the riverfront. • Improve Main Street for pedestrians and cyclists: At the Lincoln Street intersection, Main Street features trees, plantings, and decorative street lights. Continue this treatment on both sides of the street as far as Lisbon Street, as proposed several years ago, to announce arrival in the downtown riverfront district and provide a more welcoming walking environment. Provide crosswalks and pedestrian crossing lights at all four corners of the Main-Lincoln intersection. Provide paths linking the Riverwalk to this Explore opportunities to light Riverfront Island destinations at night Attractive, creative, well-designed lighting could enhance the pedestrian environment and highlight and connect the district’s many assets. Cities such as Quebec City (Quebec, Canada), Cambridge (MA), Providence (RI) and Bethlehem (PA) have found that imaginative and effective exterior lighting can contribute to a lively urban experience that extends into the evening and night, and highlight a city’s unique environment in a creative way that draws people from within a community and beyond. Lighting programs need not be comprehensive or permanent. For instance, up-lighting trees along a path or within a park can have a dramatic impact on the feel of an area at night. Temporary or seasonal installations—for instance, lighting the Falls as a component of the Balloon Festival—could supple- ment community events. A larger-scale effort should be supported by a lighting plan that addresses ap- proach and financing. Potential locations for creative lighting within the district might include: • Waterfronts and waterfront paths the Riverwalk, the Great Falls, the Canal Walk) • Bridges the trestle bridge linking Simard- Payne Park to Bonney Park) • Key open spaces the proposed Canal Park) ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 49 Cedar Street could be narrowed from four lanes to three lanes, with improved pedestrian crossings. intersection, as well as a Riverwalk connection below the Longley (Main Street) Bridge. Provide connections to the new bike path linking Main Street to Sunnyside park. • Improve Main Street for cars: Investigate adjustments to signal timing on Main Street that could reduce peak hour queuing near Lincoln. Add capacity for more left turn movements at the Lincoln Street-Main Street intersection when/ if needed to support additional redevelopment along Lincoln Street and on Island Point. Evalu- ate feasibility and impacts for multiple options, including widening the street at intersections and adding roundabouts (also likely to require street widening at intersections). Incorporate bike and pedestrian improvements into the project. Continue to improve Lincoln Street Lincoln Street has improved in recent years as a re- sult of many actions including streetscape improve- ments, particularly along the Bates Mill frontage. As additional development occurs, careful attention will be needed to continue to improve the pedes- trian environment. Control of curb cuts associated with any new development will be very important as will extending existing streetscape amenities. Make the Cedar Street and the Peace Bridge more walkable, bikeable places Today, 4-lane Cedar Street has more lane capacity than is needed to accommodate current and pro- jected traffic volumes, and weight loads on the Peace Bridge have become a concern due to the age and condition of the structure. No bike accommodations are currently provided. • Add bike lanes on Cedar Street and the Peace Bridge: Reallocate the street’s 42’ curb-to-curb dimensions by restriping it to accommodate two 11’ travel lanes, a center turn lane, and striped bike lanes. The center turn lane could include a median/pedestrian refuge island at pedestrian crossings (e.g. at Cedar and Oxford Streets). • Consider enabling left turns from east-bound Cedar Street onto Lisbon Street: To strengthen ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 50 street connections between Riverfront Island and Lisbon Street, investigate the potential of 2-way travel on Cedar Street between Canal and Lisbon Streets—a segment that is now one way in the direction of River. Link to local and regional trails Strong, well-signed connections to bike corridors and trails will help link Riverfront Island to the rich network of open spaces that serves the region. Of particular importance are trail links identified within the Androscoggin River Greenway Study, an Androscoggin Land Trust led initiative conducted at the same time as the Riverfront Island master plan process. These trail links connect the Riverfront Island master plan area to the region, and include: Riverwalk / bike path connections from Potvin Park to Gaslight Park, and on to Mount Hope Cemetery and the Exit 80 interchange; Riverwalk / bike path connections from Island Point to Sunnyside Park, and on to the Gulf Island Dam; and water trail con- nections from Dresser Rips past Gulf Island Point. Riverwalk and Canal Walk signage should provide clear links to the trails noted above as well as to the East Coast Greenway, which is routed to pass through Riverfront Island along Lincoln Street. A long term plan for a Rail-Trail to Brunswick creates the opportunity for the Riverfront Island to become a trailhead of access and activity around what would be a significant regional bike corridor. The Rail-Trail could connect along Mill Street across the district, all the way to Island Point—or could be routed beside the River along the Riverwalk. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 51 Greenway Study Draft Priorities The Androscoggin Greenway study establishes a regional framework for pedestrian and bike connections, open space links, river trails and boat access. The Riverfront Island master plan focuses on a key segment of this larger framework. Continued coordination between these efforts can ensure that benefits to Lewiston, Auburn, and the broader community are maximized. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 52 elements of the vision Insist on quality Through the design of public investment and infrastructure, and through its review of private sector development proposals, the City of Lewiston will need to ensure that high standards prevail. A particular concern is that development within the district not follow generic suburban formats poorly suited to a downtown location or incompatible with the district’s best architecture. Draft Guidelines for Urban Design Review Overlay District In December 2007, the City of Lewiston developed draft guidelines for an urban design review overlay district that includes Riverfront Island. Though not formally adopted, these guidelines provide a very thoughtful and valu- able framework for shaping design proposals within the district. Proponents of development projects would benefit greatly from consulting these guidelines to understand the City’s goals for development within the district. Zoning Modifications Some modest changes in the City’s zoning ordinance could be helpful in advancing this master plan. • Modifications of parking regulations could provide specific standards for determining parking requirements when parking is shared by several uses with different peaking requirements. • Revised shoreland zoning for Island Point could reduce current setback requirements as long as public access is accommodated at the water’s edge. Such a change would allow buildings at the water’s edge consistent with the location of the former Libbey Mill buildings, which were damaged by fire. • Relaxation of side-yard setback requirements in the Riverfront district may enhance opportunities for townhouse development on Oxford Street. A high standard of quality for design and construction within the downtown riv- erfront has been established through renovations at the Bates Mill Complex and structures such as the Dominican Block. Continuing that commitment to quality in every new investment—both public and private—that is made in the district is critical. High- quality design, building materials, and construction will be essential to Lewiston’s success in establishing the district as a special place and a distinctive urban destination. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 53 4 Implementation ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 54 Implementation Steps This master plan provides an overall framework for guiding change within the riverfront area over the next several years. The master plan is shaped by an overarching vision but will be implemented in several steps—big and small. The following represent key next steps in moving from planning to implementation: • Seek formal City Council support for the plan. The Lewiston City Council will play a key role in advancing several aspects of the master plan in the years to come. Council support will be very important to advancing the plan. While several elected officials have contributed to development of the plan, the completed plan should be present- ed to the council for its endorsement. • Incorporate the plan into the City’s comprehensive plan. Seek Planning Board approval for adopting the Riverfront Island Master Plan as part of the City of Lewiston’s comprehensive plan. Seek planning board support for advancing key master plan initiatives. • Continue to work closely with Auburn to establish a strategy for ongoing collaboration in implementing the plan. Effective implementation of the master plan will provide significant benefits for both Lewiston and Auburn. Many members of the Auburn community have participated in shaping the plan. Lewiston and Auburn should discuss possible mechanism for more formal collaboration in moving the plan forward to include fundraising and other aspects. • Identify who will be responsible for marketing, monitoring, and advancing the plan. The master plan advisory committee has played a key role in shaping this plan. It is critical that the L-A community help to sustain the momentum needed for implementing the plan over the months and years to come. A group will be needed to help pursue initiatives such as the Riverwalk, amphitheater steps/small boat dock, the Oxford Street Canal Walk, and the Cross Canal link to Lisbon Street. The group could help the City in evaluating design options for infrastructure improvements. The group could support the City in evaluating development proposals for Bates Mill #5 and other key sites. • Take steps to resolve the future of Bates Mill #5 site. The City of Lewiston has worked for many years to preserve and reuse the Bates Mill #5 building and incorporate it as a centerpiece of the riverfront district. Despite these efforts, securing an economically viable reuse of the building has remained elusive for two primary reasons: the layout of the structure is not optimal for most potential reuses, and the very high cost of rehabilitating the exterior. The master plan explored several options for reusing the property and concluded that the most viable option will involve its demolition and redevelopment for a mix of open space, retail and possibly civic uses. Lewiston City Council should consider moving forward with authorizing demolition and preparation of the site for future redevelopment. In the period immediately following demolition, the site should be used for open space on an interim basis. Over time it is anticipated that the City will issue a Request for Development Proposals for redevelopment of portions of the property, potentially in conjunction with development of a new Canal Park and possible civic use. • Advance the downtown hotel proposal—and pursue other public-private partnerships—to bring additional high-quality development to the district. Continue to coordinate with the hotel developers and other private sector entities to ensure that de- velopment is consistent with the goals of this plan. • Explore potential for institutional participation within Riverfront Island. The city’s major medical and educational insti- tutions currently have no presence or visibility within Riverfront Island, which can become the region’s defining public space and a cornerstone in shaping Lewiston’s evolving identity. Major insti- tutions across the nation are increasingly playing a prominent role in downtown-revitalization ef- forts. The presence of these major Lewiston insti- tutions within the riverfront area would serve as a boost for the city and the district, showcasing the prominent role of these institutions in the city’s future. The City of Lewiston should initiate and ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan 55 continue discussions with potential institutional partners—e.g., Bates College, Central Maine Medical Center, Kaplan University, St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center, and USM’s Lewiston- Auburn College—to explore interest and ability to assist in moving the plan forward. • Seek funding for key public improvements. Use this plan as a tool for communicating the goals and vision for the downtown riverfront. Seek state, federal and other sources of funding. • Move forward with a public-private partnership program to secure use of available private parking to meet district needs. Through cooperative efforts with property owners, the City should develop a program that ensures efficient use of private parking spaces for an interim period in a manner than benefits property owners and the city. • Develop key zoning amendments for consideration by the Council. Draft zoning changes related to shared parking regulations; Riverfront District side-yard set- backs; and shoreland zoning river setbacks for Island Point. • Continue to work to secure public control and ownership of canals. Continue to explore a variety of approaches to securing control of the city’s canal network for a variety of public purposes. • Support Museum L-A’s efforts to move forward with its waterfront site. Museum L-A will serve as an important new anchor for the riverfront, and every effort should be made to assist it in moving forward • Work cooperatively with waterfront property owners to incorporate a Riverwalk on private property in advance of property development. Development of the Continental Mill segment of the Riverwalk as a public amenity could enhance the attractiveness of the property for reuse and serve as a development catalyst. • Continue efforts to coordinate downtown planning with regional entities such as the Androscoggin Land Trust and the Androscoggin Valley Council of Government. For instance, seek to maximize the impact of improvements within the downtown riverfront area through links to regional open space and trail networks. • Focus on advancing near-term catalyst projects. Completion of quickly do-able, high-visibility will provide benefits that all can enjoy and bring momentum to advance longer-term projects. Phasing of Improvements Work on implementing the master plan will move forward in many steps, and sequencing will to some extent be determined by funding availability and other variables. Key priorities will reflect plan themes around establishing a Riverwalk, attracting new uses with a particular focus on housing and development of Museum L-A, and strengthening connections within the district. Key first steps may include: • Focus on enhancing Simard-Payne (Railroad) Park. > Improve the visibility of the River from the park and provide access to the water’s edge. Add a boat launch. > Improve the River’s visibility from and connection to Lincoln Street through development of a small park / Simard-Payne Park “gateway”, adjacent to the Grand Trunk Depot building and Lewiston House of Pizza. > Improve the Oxford Street streetscape along the edge of Simard-Payne Park. Establish a Canal Walk “demonstration project”—including paths, trees, lighting and upgraded fencing— of approximately 200’ in length along the edge of the park. • Establish an L-A Heritage Trail with maps and interpretive signage that tells the story of Lewiston-Auburn and links destinations. Assume 2 area-wide maps and 12 interpretive signs installed at specific locations. • Restripe Cedar Street to accommodate three vehicular lanes and two bike lanes; add pedestrian crossing improvements at Oxford Street to support the Riverwalk and connections to Potvin Park. ---PAGE BREAK--- 56 Existing Auburn Riverwalk Riverwalk overlook at Falls New Riverwalk link below Main Street Bridge Existing boat launch New Lincoln Street hotel Destination playground within park New amphitheatre, water steps and boat launch in Simard-Payne Park; kayak rental; bank fishing New Simard- Payne Park connection to Lincoln Street Continental Mill reuse as housing Possible kayak launch/ rental facility New Riverwalk along Continental Mill/ Museum L-A Expand use of the River Retail/civic use on redeveloped Bates Mill #5 site New Canal Park with performance area Possible bridge over Upper Canal Expansion of Lincoln Street garage New Canal Walk connection links River to Lisbon Street Create Canal Walk and plant trees along walkways New restaurant at Depot building Incorporate new retail/ commercial infill on Lincoln Street Continued use of Hill Mill for craft businesses/light industry Expansion of Chestnut Street garage Master Plan Summary Event / food venues Future home of Museum L-A Enhance Simard- Payne Park; maintain flexibility of use for programs/events Infill housing along Oxford Street Streetscape improvements along Oxford Street and Lower Canal; new bridges Overlook Great Falls New office/institutional development at Island Point Main Street streetscape improvements Add bike lane to bridge; reduce vehicular traffic to two lanes Franco- American Heritage Center Narrow Cedar Street and add bike lanes Allow two-way traffic on Cedar between Canal and Lisbon Streets; explore allowing left turns from Cedar to Lisbon Reuse of Dominican Block for office/ mixed-use riverfront island master plan Tap the Power of the River • Create a continuous Riverwalk. • Make Simard-Payne a true waterfront park—with improved amenities and stronger connections to the water and surrounding streets. • Advance development of Museum L-A as a waterfront anchor. Attract a Mix of Uses • Add a critical mass of housing. • Lincoln Street—focus area for new retail and commercial uses; move forward with new hotel. • Oxford Street—new housing mixed with arts/cultural and open space amenities. • Canal Street—reestablish trees and create a gracious green corridor. Make the District More Walkable • Create a Canal Walk network. • Improve Oxford Street as a walkable place. • Narrow Cedar Street to three lanes and incorporate bike lanes. Insist on Quality • Use design guidelines to shape new development and rehabilitation. elements of the vision ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan This document was developed as part of the Riverfront Island Master Plan process to highlight information, analysis, and potential opportunities related to key master plan issues. Following public discussion and review of concepts by committee members and public officials, many but not all of the potential opportunities identified within this document were incorporated into the master plan. The full document is provided here. This document was prepared by W-ZHA. APPENDIX A ECONOMIC CONTEXT & MARKET POTENTIAL ---PAGE BREAK--- MEMORANDUM: RIMP ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK INTRODUCTION This Technical Memorandum summarizes key aspects of the economy within which the Riverfront Island functions. The Technical Memorandum highlights market opportunities given W‐ZHA’s understanding of local and regional market forces. Issues related to Riverfront Island’s ability to capitalize on market opportunities are presented as well as planning issues to consider. ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK With its strong interstate access, Androscoggin County is within a half hour drive of 50 percent of Maine’s population. Androscoggin County is less than one hour from the ocean, the mountains, Portland, Augusta and Freeport. As the second most urbanized area in Maine, Lewiston‐Auburn is a regional center serving the large trade area of central and western Maine. Androscoggin County is also known as the Lewiston‐Auburn Metropolitan Area. With a population of 107,700, the Lewiston‐Auburn Metropolitan Area is the smallest of Maine’s three Metropolitan Areas. Population % of State Maine 1,328,360 100% Metropolitan Areas Portland Metropolitan Area 281,675 21% Bangor Metropolitan Area 153,925 12% Lewiston‐Auburn Metropolitan Area 107,700 8% Major Cities Portland 66,195 5% Lewiston‐Auburn 59,645 4% Bangor 33,040 2% Source: US Census; W‐ZHA f:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[lewiston demo.xls]Sheet3 Population Maine, Major Metropolitan Areas and Cities 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 2 ‐ Lewiston is the second largest City in Maine. Together Lewiston‐Auburn contains 58,745 people. This is less than the population of Portland (66,190 people), the State’s largest City. Given its size alone, Lewiston‐Auburn’s success is important to Maine’s economic development. Between 2000 and 2011, Androscoggin County and the cities of Lewiston and Auburn grew at a slower rate than the State. Most of Androscoggin’s growth occurred outside of the two cities. Where Androscoggin County accounted for 8 percent of the State’s population and households, it accounts for 10 percent of the State’s jobs. As it was for the entire State of Maine, there was no job growth over the last decade in the County. Change 2000 2011 # Average Annual Maine Population 1,274,923 1,328,261 53,338 0.4% Households 518,200 568,070 49,870 0.8% Androscoggin County Population 103,793 107,702 3,909 0.3% Households 42,028 45,100 3,072 0.6% Auburn Population 23,203 23,055 ‐148 ‐0.1% Households 9,764 10,223 459 0.4% Lewiston Population 35,690 36,592 902 0.2% Households 15,290 15,589 299 0.2% Source: Claritas, Inc.; US Census; W‐ZHA f:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[lewiston demo.xls]Sheet1 Population and Household Change Maine, Androscoggin County and Lewiston 2000‐2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 3 ‐ Over 80 percent of the County’s jobs were located in Lewiston‐Auburn . Downtown Lewiston‐Auburn (as defined by Census Tracts 101 and 201) contained approximately 14 percent of the County’s jobs in 2010. There were approximately 4,410 jobs in Downtown Lewiston. Share of Jobs Downtown Lewiston‐Auburn and Remainder of Androscoggin County 2010 Source: US Census; W‐ZHA Employment 2000 2010 # Annual Average Maine 590,750 577,755 (12,995) -0.2% Androscoggin County 47,420 47,165 (255) -0.1% Source: State of Maine; W-ZHA F:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[employment.XLS]Sheet4 Change Jobs Maine and Androscoggin County 2000-2010 Downtown Lewiston‐Auburn Androscoggin County ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 4 ‐ The Androscoggin County’s jobs to labor force ratio is very good at .88. This typically indicates that residents do not have to travel far for employment. This is an important quality of life indicator. Jobs to Labor Force Ratio Androscoggin County 2010 Source: County Business Patterns; US Census; Claritas, Inc.; W‐ZHA Employment Lewiston‐Auburn is a regional center for health care, education, culture and shopping. As such, the Lewiston‐Auburn Metropolitan Area has a diverse economic base. The economic base is similar to Maine’s, except Lewiston‐Auburn has a higher concentration in financial activities and professional and technical employment. Lewiston‐Auburn’s key industries include health care, high‐precision manufacturing, transportation and logistics, and financial services. Bates College is also a very important anchor in the Lewiston‐Auburn economy. ‐ 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Jobs Labor Force Jobs Labor Force ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 5 ‐ Industry Mix Maine and Androscoggin County 2009 Source: County Business Patterns Employment A real challenge as it relates to employment, particularly in professional and technical industries, is the low educational attainment of Androscoggin County residents. Almost 90 percent of Maine’s residents over the age of 25 have a high school degree, while in Androscoggin County less than 85 percent of residents do. Less than 18 percent of the County’s residents over the age of 25 have a Bachelors degree, as compared to 26 percent in the State. As the following graph illustrates, Lewiston residents have particularly low educational attainment. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Share of Jobs Maine Androscoggin County ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 6 ‐ Educational Attainment Among Residents Age 25 Years and Older Maine, Androscoggin County, Auburn and Lewiston 2010 Source: Claritas, Inc. Education and 25 Low educational attainment may explain why the income among County households is below the State average both on a per capita and median income basis. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Maine Androscoggin Auburn Lewiston Share of Population 25+ Yrs Old High School Degree Bachelors or Higher Degree Per Capita Median Income Maine $24,426 $45,708 Androscoggin $22,577 $40,653 Auburn $25,582 $39,818 Lewiston $20,173 $35,323 Source: US Census; W‐ZHA f:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[lewiston demo.xls]Sheet2 Income Maine, Androscoggin County, Auburn and Lewiston 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 7 ‐ According to projections developed by Moody’s Analytics, by 2020, there will be approximately 2,000 more jobs in Androscoggin County. The highest growth industries include health care, professional and business services, accommodations and food service. 2011 2020 # Avg Ann Total Employment 49,256 51,182 1,926 0.4% Construction 2,282 2,000 (282) -1.5% Manufacturing 4,956 4,912 (44) -0.1% Retail 6,449 6,473 23 0.0% Information 663 772 109 1.7% Financial Activities 3,049 3,029 (20) -0.1% Professional and Business Services 5,836 6,204 368 0.7% Education 1,456 1,561 105 0.8% Health Care 10,398 11,888 1,490 1.5% Arts, Leisure and Recreation 394 406 12 0.3% Accommodation and Food Services 2,971 3,243 272 1.0% Source: Moody's; W-ZHA f:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[employment.XLS]Sheet6 Change Employment Projections: Total and Select Industries 2011-2020 Androscoggin County ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 8 ‐ LAND USE OPPORTUNITIES HOUSING Even though there are a lot of family households, one and two‐person households account of two‐thirds of all County households. In Lewiston, 73 percent of the households consist of one or two people. Lifestage and lifestyle data indicates that a significant share of the County’s households is either young or old. As compared to the State as a whole, Androscoggin County has about the same share of young households, but fewer older households. Household Types Androscoggin County and Lewiston 2010 Androscoggin County Households* Family 65% 1‐ and 2‐Person 66% Non‐Family 35% 2+ Person 34% Lewiston Households* Family 56% 1‐ and 2‐Person 73% Non‐Family 44% 2+ Person 27% * Does not include College students. Source: Claritas, Inc. f:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[household size.xls]Sheet1 ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 9 ‐ “Younger Years” households are typically between 18 and 40 years of age and mostly childless. “Family Life” households typically have children residing at home. “Mature Years” households are empty nesters and retirees without young children residing at home. Even with the predominance of one‐and two‐person households, 55 percent of the housing stock in Androscoggin County consists of single family homes. Androscoggin County YOUNGER YEARS 37% 37% Midlife Success 13% 14% Young Achievers 6% 5% Striving Singles 19% 18% FAMILY LIFE 19% 24% Accumulated Wealth 1% 0% Young Accumulators 2% 5% Mainstream Families 13% 16% Sustaining Families 3% MATURE YEARS 44% 39% Affluent Empty Nesters 5% 3% Conservative Classics 11% 11% Cautious Couples 15% 15% Sustaining Seniors 14% 9% Source: Claritas, Inc.; W‐ZHA f:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[residential analysis.xls]lifestage Maine Household Lifestage and Lifestyle Characteristics Androscoggin County 2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 10 ‐ Housing Stock By Units in Structure Androscoggin County and Lewiston 2010 Source: Claritas, Inc. housing type.xls]Sheet1 As would be expected from the County’s and City’s relatively slow household growth, a small share of the housing stock is new. Only 4 percent of Lewiston’s housing stock was constructed in the last decade. As a point of reference over 9 percent of the State’s housing stock was built over the last decade. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Single Family Detached Single Faily Attached Multifamily Androscoggin County Lewiston ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 11 ‐ The local economy and age of the housing stock contributes to the County’s low cost of housing. According to Sperlings Cost of Living index, housing in Lewiston is 53 percent less expensive than housing in Portland. There is no new urban residential product in either Lewiston or Auburn. Share of Housing Supply By The Year Built Androscoggin County and Lewiston 2010 Androscoggin County Lewiston 2000+ 8% 4% 1990‐1999 10% 5% 1980‐1989 13% 8% 170‐1979 12% 9% 1960‐1969 9% 13% 1950‐1959 9% 12% 1940‐1949 7% 11% <1940 31% 39% Median Age of Dwelling Unit 1963 1950 Source: Claritas, Inc. f:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[housing year built.xls]Sheet1 ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 12 ‐ Cost of Housing Index Portland, United States and Lewiston 2010 It appears that Lewiston does not have an affordable housing issue. In fact, it may be the lack of competitive housing supply to support the middle and upper levels of the market may be the economic development issue. To grow and prosper the City must offer the kinds of housing products the market demands. The following map is from Trulia, a web‐based residential market research firm. It illustrates those Maine counties that were queried the most by Trulia users. This is a measure of popularity. Androscoggin County is in the second highest category for “hits” related to residential inquiries. The County’s central location and low prices are attractive to prospective home owners and renters. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Lewiston National Average Portland ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 13 ‐ Residential Website “Hits” by Maine County Maine October, 2011 Source: Trulia, W‐ZHA trulia As in many urban environments, there is an opportunity to capitalize on the mis‐match between household type and the housing stock in Lewiston. Over 40 percent of Androscoggin County households are in the target market for urban living. These households are retirees, empty nesters and younger singles and couples and small families with tastes and preferences aligned with urban living. Applying average move rates by household type, approximately one‐quarter of these households will move over the next five years. Assuming appropriate residential product is available Downtown, the Downtown has the potential to capture a portion of these moving households. ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 14 ‐ Even at very low capture rates, over the next five years, we conclude that there is the potential for approximately 110 to 210 market rate residential units in Downtown Lewiston. Additional residential potential will exist after 2015 and will increase as amenities and services are developed in the Downtown Area. Assuming the right residential product, the market can support between 100 to 400 units in the Downtown Area between now and 2020. Part of this demand is pent‐up demand. There is no supply of contemporary urban housing product in Downtown Lewiston today. The right product would need to have views of the River, strong connections to the Downtown and Auburn, and urban loft amenities like exposed brick walls, wood floors, large windows, and tall ceilings. The Bates Mill residential project will be the first project to offer loft‐style living on Riverfront Island. There are 48 units currently being developed at Bates Mill, with 15 of these units market rate. Bates Mill and the Continental Mill are excellent candidates for residential re‐use because of their location and building layout. Bates Mill #5 is not a strong candidate for residential re‐use because of its physical dimensions – the building is too wide. RETAIL Because it is service and employment center for a large region, retail sales are higher in Androscoggin County than local households’ spending power. The following table illustrates that in 2010 approximately 12 percent of the County’s retail sales were “inflow” sales. Target Markets Moving Over Next 5 Years Conservative Moderate Low High Young Households 7,210 3,084 3% 5% 93 ‐ 154 Empty Nesters 4,561 1,097 1% 3% 11 ‐ 33 Retirees 7,607 805 1% 3% 8 ‐ 24 Total 110 ‐ 210 Source: Claritas, Inc.; W‐ZHA f:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[residential analysis.xls]Sheet2 Capture Rate On Movers Market Rate Residential Potential Downtown Lewiston‐Auburn 2011‐2016 Units ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 15 ‐ Almost all of the County’s “inflow” occurs among shopper’s goods stores. These types of stores include department stores, general merchandise stores, apparel stores, book and gift shops. Many of these types of stores are clustered around the Route 4/Mt. Auburn Avenue intersection. Although people come to the County to shop they do not appear to be eating and drinking in the County. Resident spending potential is essentially the same as eating and drinking sales – there is minimal inflow. The cities of Lewiston and Auburn are clearly the retail and service hub for the region. Retail sales in the cities accounted for two‐thirds of the County’s total sales. With malls and newer, large scale retail, Auburn is a shopping destination for the region. Retail Sales Inflow/Outflow Androscoggin County 2010 Population 107,702 Per Capita Income $22,577 Total Income $2,431,588,054 Spending Potential Estimated Sales Inflow/(Outflow) Vehicle Sales and Gas 13% $313,158,500 $352,415,900 $39,257,400 13% Shoppers Goods 23% $564,899,200 $976,443,000 $411,543,800 73% Convenience Goods 10% $246,043,400 $222,437,100 (23,606,300) ‐10% Eating & Drinking 5% $133,499,600 $134,689,300 $1,189,700 1% Total 52% $1,510,842,105 $1,685,985,200 $175,143,095 12% Source: Claritas, Inc.; W‐ZHA F:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[androscoggin county.xls]Sheet2 ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 16 ‐ Together retail sales in Lewiston‐Auburn are 64 percent higher than what their residents could spend. The most pronounced “inflow” occurs in vehicle sales/gas and shopper’s goods. There is also a moderately strong inflow in the eating and drinking category. Retail Sales Inflow/Outflow City of Auburn and Lewiston 2010 Population 23,055 Per Capita Income $25,582 Total Income $589,793,010 Potential Actual Inflow Vehicle Sales and Gas 13% $75,958,000 $194,773,777 $118,815,777 156% Shoppers Goods 23% $137,018,900 $336,746,131 $199,727,231 146% Convenience Goods 10% $59,679,000 $84,461,284 $24,782,284 42% Eating & Drinking 5% $32,381,000 $46,160,640 $13,779,640 43% Total 52% $305,036,900 $662,141,832 $357,104,932 117% Population 36,592 Per Capita Income $20,173 Total Income $738,170,416 Potential Actual Inflow Vehicle Sales and Gas 13% $95,067,200 $117,712,300 $22,645,100 24% Shoppers Goods 23% $171,489,500 $203,294,600 $31,805,100 19% Convenience Goods 10% $74,692,700 $92,786,200 $18,093,500 24% Eating & Drinking 5% $40,527,200 $49,440,100 $8,912,900 22% Total 52% $381,776,700 $463,233,100 $81,456,400 21% Source: Claritas, Inc.; W‐ZHA F:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[auburn retail expend.xls]Sheet1 Auburn Lewiston ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 17 ‐ Resident Spending Potential Versus Actual Sales Cities of Lewiston and Auburn 2010 Source: Claritas, Inc.; W‐ZHA City retail inflow Convenience Goods Food and drug stores make up the convenience goods store category. These types of stores address day‐to‐day shopping needs. Therefore, they are typically located near population and household concentrations and on major transportation routes. Within a five‐minute drive of Riverfront Island there are approximately 9,500 households! Many of these households do not own cars. Today, the convenience goods stores serving the Downtown population are located on Main Street, Sabbatus Street, and East Avenue. Most of this retail supply is older. Given the excellent access afforded by Lincoln and Main Streets and the land available, there may be the potential to develop a food‐anchored shopping center on Riverfront Island. Shoppers Goods Potential Downtown Lewiston and Auburn are currently not competitive locations for conventional shopper’s goods stores. Shopper’s goods sales in the Downtown census tracts, only represented 5 percent of the Cities’ shopper’s goods sales. Like many Downtowns that have lost their retail, Downtown Lewiston‐ Auburn will need to target specialty retail stores. $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 Vehicle Sales and Gas Shoppers Goods Convenience Goods Eating & Drinking Sales (Millions) Resident Spending Potential Estimated Sales ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 18 ‐ Specialty stores are typically “one‐of‐a‐kind” stores that sell unique merchandise like jewelry, yarn, pottery, art, etc. Stores are often owned and managed by independent operators. These businesses typically go to Downtown because Downtown is centrally located, rent is low, and there is already a critical mass of retail activity. Downtown Lewiston offers the central location and low rent, however, there is no critical mass of retail stores. The existing condition is a real constraint to store success. To develop this niche, stores need to be clustered on Lisbon Street in existing storefronts where many students, employees and residents already come for the restaurants. Galleries, arts supplies, and accessory stores are often the initial pioneers into the Downtown. The potential of these uses can be greatly enhanced with a Riverfront Island District that is a resident and visitor attraction. Eating and Drinking Potential A reasonable primary trade area for Downtown restaurants is the area within a half an hour drive from the Downtown (see the following map). The primary trade area typically accounts for 70 to 80 percent of a store’s sales. Primary Trade Area (30‐Minute Drivetime From Downtown Lewiston‐Auburn) Eating and Drinking Establishment ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 19 ‐ Currently, Downtown Lewiston and Auburn capture 4.7 percent of this trade area’s eating and drinking sales potential. This is a strong capture rate. Destination Downtowns typically capture between 5 and 10 percent of their region’s eating and drinking sales. What is impressive is the level of eating and drinking capture and the lack of amenity or range of services currently available in Downtown Lewiston‐Auburn. With the exception of festival days, patrons to the restaurants are either business‐related or individuals that come for the sole purpose of the restaurant (Bates parents, primary market households, etc.). Additional attractions or reasons to come to the Downtown would enhance the restaurant economy considerably. With additional amenities generating regional “buzz”, Downtown Lewiston and Auburn can increase their capture of the primary market’s eating and drinking spending. Assuming the River becomes a recreation destination and the canals a unique urban experience, the Downtown Lewiston‐Auburn has the potential to attract additional 14,000 square feet of eating and drinking space by 2021. This equates to two full‐service restaurants and two to five smaller establishments. Eat/Drink Existing Trade Area Capture Lewiston‐Auburn Downtowns 2010 Population 145,635 Per Capita Income $25,115 Total Income $3,657,623,025 Eat/Drink Expenditure Potential 5% $200,811,681 Existing Downtown Sales* $9,465,621 Capture Rate 4.7% * Downtown Lewiston‐Auburn is defined as census tracts 101 and 201. Source: W‐ZHA f:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[retail eat drink pot.xls]ed exist ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 20 ‐ For planning purposes, a target Downtown capture rate for Lewiston‐Auburn is likely eight percent of the primary trade area’s eating and drinking spending potential. While some Downtowns achieve a 10 percent capture rate, this was not assumed because Downtown Portland is equally convenient for some of the trade area households. OFFICE Although there is limited data on the office/business market in the Lewiston‐Auburn area there has been activity recently. The Central Maine Medical Center has a $42 million campus expansion underway. St. Mary’s Hospital completed a $15 million expansion. The Bates Mill has successfully leased a significant amount of space to TD Bank and the Androscoggin Savings Bank with the City supporting the project with parking. The Southern Gateway project has transformed this part of Lisbon Street and attracted Oxford Networks and Northeast Bank. CBRE in its 2011 Office Market Survey, states that while Downtown Lewiston‐Auburn continues to be a business hub, vacancy remains high. Interviews with office property owners indicate that premiere office space in Lewiston‐Auburn rents at $16.00 per square foot per year and most space rents at far less. Current rents do not cover the cost of new construction. Business growth will drive the demand for additional office space Downtown. Employment projections from Moody’s Analytics, indicate that Androscoggin County office‐inclined industries will require over 2011 2021 High Amenity Population 145,635 149,279 149,279 Per Capita Income $25,115 $25,115 $25,115 Total Income $3,657,623,025 $3,749,130,662 $3,749,130,662 Share Eat/Drink 5% $200,811,681 $205,835,655 $205,835,655 L‐A Downtown Potential Capture 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% Potential Sales $12,048,701 $14,408,496 $16,466,852 Less: Existing Sales ($9,465,621) ($9,465,621) ‐$9,465,621 Primary Trade Area Opportunity $2,583,080 $4,942,875 $7,001,231 Square Feet @ $350 /sf 7,000 14,000 20,000 Source: W‐ZHA F:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[retail eat drink pot.xls]ed pot Eat/Drink Near Term Market Opportunity Lewiston‐Auburn Downtowns ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 21 ‐ 110,000 square feet by 2020. Office‐inclined industries include the information, professional, scientific and technical, and financial industries as well as civic and professional organizations. It is likely that most of this growth will be absorbed in existing office space. Logical locations for Downtown office space are Bates Mill and existing office space in Downtown Lewiston and Auburn. Given existing rent levels it is unlikely that a new multi‐tenant office building will be feasible. There may, however, be an opportunity for new build‐to‐suit office buildings. Riverfront Island (particularly sites on Lincoln Street or the River) is an excellent location for new owner occupied office buildings. Most of the medical doctors in the County are housed by the Hospitals. However, there are medical practitioners who need office space in the County. Employment growth among ambulatory care professionals will generate demand for an estimated 75,000 square feet of office space. Riverfront Island is an excellent location for this type of office space because it is centrally located and has great road access. 2011 2020 Growth Office‐Inclined Industry Employment 9,960 10,440 480 Space per Worker (Square Feet) 250 New New Square Feet 120,000 Source: Moody's Analytics; W‐ZHA f:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[employment.XLS]Sheet8 1. Office‐inclined industries include the information industry, the professional, scientific and technical industry, financial industry, and other industries as well as civic and professional organizations. Office Potential Androscoggin County 2011‐2020 ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 22 ‐ Central Maine Hospital is immediately north of Riverfront Island on Main Street. The medical campus appears to have limited land available for expansion. Over time, Riverfront Island, particularly Island Point, would be an excellent location for a new Hospital building. A new state‐of‐the‐art medical building with views to the River would create a great Gateway to Lewiston‐Auburn. To our knowledge the Hospital does not currently have plans for such a building. To summarize there are 200,000 square feet of office space that will be demanded from typical office‐ inclined industries. There may be additional office/back‐office opportunities that arise from other industries or organizations that decide to have a Downtown presence. The key to attracting this investment will be to direct growth to locations that offer good access and a range of services nearby. ARTS AND CULTURE There are a number of arts and cultural assets in Lewiston‐Auburn. The major facilities include Bates’ Museum of Art, the Franco‐American Heritage Center, the Public Theatre, the Little Community Theater and the L‐A Museum. Riverfront Parks include West Pitch, Great Falls, Bonney, and Festival Plaza in Auburn and Railroad, Veterans and St. Marys Park in Lewiston. These parks are supplemented by a strong trail system. Major festivals and events are also hosted Downtown like the Balloon Festival and the Patrick Dempsey Challenge. Even with this infrastructure, as of 2009, jobs in the arts, recreation and amusement industries accounted for only 0.8 percent of the County’s total jobs. These same industries accounted for 1.5 percent (or more) of employment in the State and in Cumberland County (Portland) and Penobscot County (Bangor). Given its size, location, history, the River and Canals and the presence of Bates College, it appears the Lewiston‐Auburn is not capitalizing on this potential industry. Lewiston‐Auburn has the potential to enhance its economy via the development of the arts and recreation. 2011 2020 Growth Health Employment 10,400 11,890 1,490 Share Ambulatory Care 25% 375 Space per Worker (Square Feet) 200 New New Square Feet 75,000 Source: County Business Patterns; Moody's Analytics; W‐ZHA f:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[employment.XLS]Sheet9 Doctor's Office Potential Androscoggin County 2011‐2020 ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 23 ‐ The arts and the creative economy have proven to be significant economic development drivers. The creative economy includes artists, craftsmen, technology companies, media companies and a wide range of value‐added industries. These types of uses tend to cluster and often are attracted to inexpensive space in urban locations. With the Hill Mill and the Continental Mill as well as other buildings, Lewiston‐Auburn is well‐positioned to attract creative industries. Educational institutions often play a prominent role in developing the creative industry. Educational institutions have provided Downtown programs, studios, schools, and incubators to develop this industry. Bates College, USM, and other schools could play a prominent role in supporting this industry downtown. The River and the Canals and an integrated trail system are an obvious untapped recreation opportunity. To leverage these assets they must be accessible and managed as attractions. HOTEL According to interviews the Hilton Garden Inn and the Residence Inn in Auburn are performing well. Employment projections Moody’s Analytics forecast an increase in hotel employment by 2020. As the commercial center of the Metropolitan Area, Downtown Lewiston‐Auburn is an appropriate location for additional hotel rooms and meeting space. CONCLUSIONS Lewiston‐Auburn has many assets. What Lewiston‐Auburn needs is growth. Growth can come from capitalizing on existing market opportunities as well as developing or strengthening existing market niches. In terms of the Downtown, areas of interest include medical‐related investment; additional office space; tourism, recreation, arts and entertainment uses; and housing. 2009 Maine 1.5% Cumberland County 1.5% Penobscot County 1.7% Androscoggin County 0.8% Source: County Business Patterns; W‐ZHA F:\8000s, misc\80071 Lewiston\[arts employment.xlsx]Sheet1 Share of Employment in Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Maine, Cumberland, Penobscot and Androscoggin County ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 24 ‐ To capitalize on these market opportunities will require that initiatives be coordinated and investment be leveraged to generate maximum spin‐off. To follow the Bates Mill example, there needs to be an over‐arching emphasis on quality, particularly since Lewiston‐Auburn will need to shed its old image. Initiatives need to be coordinated because opportunities may be limited in the near‐term, but sustaining Lewiston‐Auburn’s current market “buzz” is very important. Investments need to be clustered to build on the Downtowns’ Only with critical mass can Downtown offer a multi‐purpose, enriching experience. Lewiston has an image as an old manufacturing town, it must now evolve into a “hip”, diverse urban destination. Markets are attracted to places that invest in quality, whether the investment is in buildings, amenities or infrastructure. RIVERFRONT ISLAND’S AND WEAKNESSES W‐ZHA toured Riverfront Island and conducted a series of interviews with business owners, property owners, residents, brokers, City staff and others knowledgeable about the Lewiston‐Auburn economy. The following paragraphs highlight what W‐ZHA considers to be the and weaknesses of Riverfront Island from a market, economic and development perspective.  Access: Lincoln Street and Main Street are major vehicular arteries. It is easy to access the Riverfront Island from Interstate 95, particularly via Cedar Avenue to Lisbon Street to Exit 80. The Study area has the Main Street bridge, the Cedar Street bridge, and the pedestrian bridge make Auburn a natural connection. Because of its access, Riverfront Island is particularly well positioned for hotel and retail investment.  The Androscoggin River: The River connects Lewiston‐Auburn Downtowns. It is navigable and pristine. This untapped resource could become a major driver in the Lewiston‐Auburn recreation and tourism economy.  The Canals: The Canals and sluices are a unique Downtown Lewiston feature. These waterways have the potential to be amenities that help to organize land use and the pedestrian/bike experience. They are important connectors between Lisbon Street and the Androscoggin River.  The Bates Mill: The Bates Mill renovation to date is an emblem of quality construction and historic preservation. The Bates Mill and the strong public/private partnership supporting its development have generated “buzz”. This publicity signals to the market that positive change is happening in Lewiston‐Auburn. ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 25 ‐  Existing Older Buildings: The Hill Mill and the Continental Mill contain a significant amount of flexible space at low rent. The Hill Mill is already home to furniture companies, cabinetmakers, and other craft industries. It is well positioned to attract arts and craft production uses and become an anchor to Lewiston‐Auburn’s emerging creative economy. With a location on the River, the Continental Mill is an excellent candidate for residential adaptive re‐use . With the Lewiston‐Auburn’s current rents and price points, initial residential development will have to occur in renovated space underwritten by the state and national historic tax credits and other incentives.  Vacant Land: There is a considerable amount of vacant land in the Riverfront Island Study Area. Large parcels allow for self‐parked, build‐to‐suit development. CHALLENGES  Access to the River: There is no access to the Androscoggin River from Riverfront Island. To capitalize on recreation opportunities, the River must be a tangible component of Riverfront Island’s land use mix. The planning effort needs to consider how the River can be accessed to leverage maximum land use value.  Linkage between Lisbon Street and Riverfront Island: The pedestrian link between the northern portion of Lisbon Street and Riverfront Island is poor. To get to Railroad Park or the River from Lisbon Street, the pedestrian must walk around or through Bates Mill. There must be better pedestrian links between the River and Lisbon Street to allow synergy between land uses.  Vacant Land: Existing office and residential rents will make it economically difficult to develop new residential or multi‐tenant office buildings. There may be, however, the potential to develop new retail and hotel uses on Riverfront Island’s vacant sites. A potential challenge may be to protect the Island from suburban‐style development.  Riverfront Island’s Redevelopment Capacity: There is plenty of space and land available to absorb growth on Riverfront Island. This is an opportunity, but it also poses a challenge. Developing a critical mass of land uses that build on one another may be difficult in such a large area. Planning efforts may need to prioritize certain locations and connections.  The Canals: Fences block the canals from the land uses and people around them. For the Canals to enhance property value and serve as amenities, Canal investment may be required to allow for the removal of these safety devices.  Bates Mill Bates Mill #5 is 300,000+ square foot historic, vacant building. It is located on a highly visible site at the gateway to Lewiston‐Auburn. From a market perspective, this building ---PAGE BREAK--- ‐ 26 ‐ is a challenge because of its size. It is too wide for residential adaptive re‐use. It contains more space than the office market can absorb and it is not suitable for retail or hotel use. The only kind of use suited for Bates Mill #5 is a land use that requires a large, flat floor area. These uses are very limited and, so far, the candidate uses either require City subsidy (convention center) or new state law (a casino). This vacant building at this visible location does not send the signal to the market or investment community that Lewiston‐Auburn is transforming.  Lincoln and Main Street Intersection: There is a lot of under‐utilized land adjacent to the Lincoln and Main Street intersection. Traffic volumes are already high here and it is a challenge for pedestrians to cross the road here. The planning process must be address how traffic and circulation can be managed to allow for adjacent property redevelopment.  Shared Vision and Commitment among the Stakeholders: The purpose of the Riverfront Island Master Plan is to work with the community to develop a future Vision for Riverfront Island. To be successful, residents, policy‐makers and the major institutions in Lewiston‐Auburn must not only support the Vision, but become meaningful participants in its implementation. While there are market opportunities, market driven development must be supplemented by institutional investment. Meaningful investments by area corporations, the hospitals, Bates College and other major local and regional stakeholders can significantly enhance Riverfront Island’s market potential and transformation. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan This document was developed as part of the Riverfront Island Master Plan process to highlight information, analysis, and potential opportunities related to key master plan issues. Following public discussion and review of concepts by committee members and public officials, many but not all of the potential opportunities identified within this document were incorporated into the master plan. The full document is provided here. This document was prepared by Smart Mobility. APPENDIX B TRANSPORTATION: ANALYSIS & OPPORTUNITIES ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Transportation This report views transportation, accessibility, and connections to the Riverfront Island Master Plan area. There have been many recent studies considering related issues, so the first section provides a summary of some of the most relevant materials. Following that is a review of concepts that could improve some of the Riverfront Island’s street corridors and connections for all modes of travel. Past Studies and Plans There have been numerous transportation-related studies and plans of the downtown Lewiston/Auburn area in the past 15 years or so. The following seem to have the most relevance to the RIMP. 2005 Walkable Communities Workshop: A series of workshops and walk audits were conducted in Lewiston and Auburn, and led to the development of a long list of concepts for consideration in future projects. The following concepts were supported in the document, and may be relevant for the RIMP:  Interest in improving the Canal Street corridor for walking and biking. It was not clear, however, which side of the canal was preferred, and later plans show a bicycle facility on the island side of the canal, rather than along Canal Street.  Rails to Trails for the line to Brunswick.  Interest in exploring the concept of narrowing the travel lanes on Main Street to 11 feet wide, in order to provide more room for bicycles and/or pedestrians.  Downtown bike events and bicycle races should be planned and promoted  Strong support for making the major arterials more bicycle friendly  Consider adding bike lanes to the Peace Bridge  Strong support for improving the pedestrian environment on Main Street, including crossing the street to the riverfront point. LA CBD Traffic Study, 2007: This was a traffic engineering study of the entire circulation system of both downtowns. First, there are a few limitations to the conclusions of this study, due to changed circumstances since it was conducted:  The traffic forecasts were developed using the ATRC (Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center) regional model, and assumed the proposed downtown connector was in place, a new turnpike interchange and bridge crossing which has since been abandoned. The downtown connector project would result in significant changes in traffic patterns. For example, the study forecasts significant traffic growth and congestion on Lincoln Street, and recommends expansion of the Lincoln/Cedar intersection. However, this expansion would be unnecessary without the downtown connector.  The regional model used at the time did not account for several important factors in urban transportation planning, including mode choice for walking, biking or transit. It is not clear to what extent development was considered on the Riverfront Island area. ---PAGE BREAK---  For the critical intersection of Lincoln and Main St, the study recommended re-aligning Lincoln Street to meet up with Mill Street as a major recommendation. However, this is no longer possible with the construction of the parking garage adjacent to Mill so the study does not offer any specific recommendations for this intersection that are feasible with the situation as it stands today. However, despite the above limitations, this study offers a number of useful concepts and data for the RIMP.  Very few intersections in the area are actually approaching capacity. Poor operations could be alleviated by improved signal timing and coordination, and do not require additional lanes or capacity.  Conversion of one-way to two-way streets is feasible in many locations, and would have traffic circulation benefits by improving accessibility. The following graphic shows the street segments that are recommended for conversion to two-way with yellow double arrows.  The under-utilized Peace Bridge (Cedar Street) bridge could be reconfigured to have bicycle lanes, with one lane in each direction for vehicle traffic. ---PAGE BREAK---  Pedestrian crossings of Main Street, particularly to Riverfront Point, are needed and should be incorporated into intersection improvements.  A Roundabout intersection at Canal/Lisbon, combined with making each corridor a two-way street, appears feasible and improves accessibility to downtown. (However, they do not recommend making Lisbon a two-way street for its entire length, only up to Cedar). The following is a summary of potential roadway improvements recommended for Lewiston, but keep in mind that traffic patterns will be different than shown. Recommendations that may no longer be applicable due to changes since this plan was written are shown with a red strikethrough. Bridging the Gaps Long Range Bicycle Facilities Plan for the ATCR Region: This is a comprehensive bicycle/pedestrian plan, which lays out a proposed network of routes and corridors and discusses possible types of facilities. An excerpt from their vision map is shown below, and shows limited bicycle access between Auburn and the Riverfront Island. There seems to be both interest and merit in considering additional bicycle routes across the river, either on the Longely Bridge (Main Street) and/or the Peace Bridge (Cedar Street), to better connect the two communities and link the network together. The following findings from this plan should be considered in the RIMP process:  There have been several accidents with bicyclists on Main Street either riding on sidewalks or riding against traffic. This indicates that the environment is uncomfortable for bicyclists, causing riders to use the sidewalk instead of the street, where they risk collisions with side street traffic ---PAGE BREAK--- that does not expect a bicycle. There is a clear need for safe bicycle facilities along the Main Street corridor.  The plan identifies the concept of “Pedestrian District.” They are not mapped, but these characteristics and design guidelines are appropriate for the RIMP area.  The plan identifies appropriate pedestrian and bicycle design concepts and implementation opportunities, though not necessarily tied to specific projects or streets. Below is an excerpt from the Vision Map from this plan for the RIMP area and surroundings. Other Big Ideas There have been several regional concepts that seem to share the goal of improving access to Downtown Lewiston to promote its economy. These include the following: L-A Downtown Connector (2005): This study evaluated options to improve access between the Turnpike and the L-A downtowns. Alternatives included new interchanges, and a new bridge crossing south of the Cedar St bridge. The concept does not have funding to go forward, and is currently inactive. However, the need for improved access from the Turnpike into downtown Lewiston remains, and other, less costly means to address this need should be explored. The graphic on the following page illustrates some of the concepts considered in this study. ---PAGE BREAK--- Passenger Rail Service: The Vision of Western Maine Rail includes the concept of extending passenger rail service from Portland up to Lewiston/Auburn (most likely downtown Auburn). From this location, future extensions to Bethel, Maine and eventually to Montreal are envisioned. The Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) is currently evaluating alternatives for extending the Downeaster Amtrak service, including to Brunswick and to Auburn. Connections The Riverfront Island would benefit from improved connections to nearby important locations, including downtown Auburn, Lisbon Street, nearby residential neighborhoods, Kennedy Park, and Hospital area, and Bates College. Safe and attractive streets that work well for all modes of transportation will contribute to the revitalization of the Riverfront, and are a backbone of the plan. Visitors to Lewiston and the Riverfront Island should have a street system that makes them feel welcome, with clear circulation patterns and wayfinding. The streets should be safe and comfortable for driving, walking or bicycling, which will help support redevelopment and investment on the Riverfront Island. Existing Conditions and Observations: Based on observations of the consulting team, input received from the public and stakeholders, and a review of existing available plans and documents, there are currently several major issues with the current street system as it affects the Riverfront Island district: 1. Traffic congestion is a concern on Main Street, but not on the other primary corridors providing access to the Riverfront Island. The Main Street congestion has been the subject of recent studies by the City, which have concluded that better signal timing and coordination can resolve ---PAGE BREAK--- the congestion. The existing and likely future traffic volumes do not warrant additional capacity or road widening. 2. The quality of the vehicular connections varies considerably among the Riverfront Island’s different gateways. From Main Street, it is relatively easy to find the Riverfront Island. The approach from the Maine Turnpike and Lisbon Street from the south could use improvement, as it is circuitous and not very intuitive due to the one-way street system. 3. The railroad bridge provides a great pedestrian and bicycle connection to the Auburn Riverwalk and downtown Auburn. However, pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Riverfront Island are generally poor for all the other major gateways. The pedestrian environment on Canal Street and Lisbon Street south of Cedar is hampered by high traffic speeds resulting from the one-way, two-lane configuration that allows passing. 4. The connection between the Riverfront Island and the Lisbon Street shopping district is very weak, for all modes of transportation as well as visually. This is particularly true of the stretch between Main Street and Chestnut Street, where there are no effective vehicle or pedestrian connections between the Mill complex and the heart of the downtown retail area. Street Design Recommendations With the above goals and observations in mind, a series of street design concepts are offered as design alternatives. Cedar Street and Peace Bridge Based upon traffic analysis of volumes, there is an opportunity to:  Reduce the loads on the Peace Bridge.  Improve safety and comfort for bicycle traffic crossing the bridge.  Create safer pedestrian crossing of Cedar Street at Oxford Street.  Enhance the look and feel of the street as a handsome city gateway that accents the views of the river, the city and the entrance to the mill district and downtown. Design Alternative: Cedar Street Road Diet- The above objectives could all be achieved in a cost effective and easily-implemented manner through a “Road Diet”. Presently Cedar Street has more capacity than the traffic volumes require, even considering potential future growth scenarios. The road right-of-way could be reallocated from its current configuration of 2 lanes in each direction to a “3 Lane” cross section. This conversion, often called a “Road Diet,” is an optimal configuration for Cedar Street, given the traffic volumes and goals expressed in the RIMP process. These conversions are increasingly popular nationwide, and there are ample statistics available showing that this is also a safer arrangement for all users. A road diet would reallocate the existing 42’ curb to curb width to three lanes - one 11’ travel lane each direction, a center turn lane for left - turning vehicles at side streets and major driveways. There would also be designated bike lanes along both curb lines. The center lane could also be designed as a landscaped median refuge island for enhanced safety at pedestrian crossings. ---PAGE BREAK--- Canal Street Walkways Presently Canal Street has two southbound travel lanes. The one-way/two-lane configuration encourages passing and speeds in excess of posted 25 mph, making pedestrian crossings unsafe. The additional lane also consumes valuable canal-front right of way that might have more valuable uses. Two alternatives can be considered: 1. Redesign Canal Street to be a two-way street. This would double the frontage exposure for businesses, create an easier access to the Riverfront Island District from the Maine Turnpike, and reduce the travel speeds by eliminating the passing lane. To improve walking along the canals, the limited on-street parking along the canal could be reallocated into a pedestrian promenade. (There are same challenges to this scenario from Ash Street to Main Street because of narrowed widths.) 2. Maintain Canal as a one-way street, but remove the second travel lane and reallocate that space for widened canal walkways. 3. A hybrid of the above could be developed where Canal Street is two-way south of Ash or Cedar Street, and one-way/one-lane north of Ash or Cedar Street. In any case, some investment to the streetscape on the canal side could create a safer and more comfortable canal experience as a pedestrian than the present narrow sidewalks and guard railed/chain link fenced edges. Oxford Street Crossings While a quiet side street from a vehicular perspective, pedestrian access along and across Oxford Street to RR Park and the western part of the riverfront Island District to the Androscoggin riverfront, the Continental Mill, the Lewiston Mills (to become Museum LA) can be significant pedestrian access points for future development of public riverfront connections. The following are potential crossings of Oxford Street and the canal: 1. North of the “elbow” of Oxford to connect to Lincoln Ave. and eventually to Bates Mill #5 area. This could be a relocated bridge. 2. Re -deck and enhance the Grand Truck RR bridge over the canal to directly connect to the Depot and Lincoln Street Gateway and Pedestrian crossings. 3. Relocate a historic bridge from another location to orient parallel to Oxford Street across the branch canal to Continental Mill site. 4. Rehabilitate the Continental Mill pedestrian bridge to the row houses on Oxford Street. 5. Develop a pedestrian connection from the tower of the Continental Mill towards the Hill Mill. Connecting to Downtown Enhanced connections between the Riverfront Island and downtown Lewiston could potentially include:  Ash Street which connects the Bates mil #5 to downtown  Chestnut Street which connects City Hall and Kennedy Park to Oxford Street ---PAGE BREAK--- Lincoln Street crossings Functioning relatively well as the anchoring two-way street for the district, Lincoln Street has adequate travel lanes, designated bike shoulders, and on - street parking, and needs relatively few improvements. Pedestrian crossings could be improved by better delineation and enhancement of crosswalks, particularly to the Grand Trunk Railroad Depot and Railroad Park. These crosswalks are significant pedestrian gateways to the Riverfront Island District, and are key for pedestrian access orientation and wayfinding to the River and Museum LA-s future site, and providing central access to many current and new businesses in the district. Main Street and Longley Bridge The Longley Bridge, connecting Main Street in Lewiston and Court Street in Auburn, has been the subject of Walking Audits performed by consultants to the Androscoggin Land Trust. The key findings were the absence of safe bicycle accommodations, high vehicle speeds and narrow sidewalks combining to make an uncomfortable pedestrian environment, which makes a walk across the bridge seem to be longer. The bridge’s current width of 74 feet currently accommodates 6 feet wide sidewalks on each side, and four through travel lanes. The excess width is used as right-turn lanes on the bridge as it approaches either side, making the bridge in effect have 5 lanes of traffic. However, based on a review of traffic volume data, the right turn lanes are not necessary to serve the current or future traffic volumes. Therefore, the bridge could be reconfigured to have four through lanes of traffic, with each lane being 11 feet wide. This would provide about 18 feet of bridge width that could be used for bicycle or pedestrian accommodations. Also, the narrower lanes and elimination of the right turn lanes would somewhat reduce travel speeds, thereby improving the pedestrian environment at either end of the bridge. There are at least two possible ways to accommodate bicycles on the bridge: 1. Designate six feet bike lanes in each direction, travelling with the flow of traffic. These would need to have logical transitions beyond the bridge to continuing bikes lanes or separate bike paths in both Lewiston and Auburn. 2. Consider a “cycle track,” which is a separated two - way bike path that would be aligned on one side of the bridge. The cycle track would be ten to twelve feet wide, and protected from through traffic by a two-feet buffer zone. Either of these reconfigurations are possible and cost effective based on current and expected traffic volumes, and the transition between the bridge and the surrounding bicycle network should be considered in the selection. Gateway from the Maine Turnpike/Lisbon Street South The access to the Riverfront Island from the Maine Turnpike is challenging due to Lisbon Street’s one- way configuration. Previous studies by the City of Lewiston recommended converting both Canal and Lisbon Streets to two-way operation south of the Cedar Street intersection, and a roundabout intersection where the two streets converge, making access to the Riverfront Island much more clear and intuitive. In addition, Cedar Street could be a two-way street for its entire length, improving the connection between the Riverfront Island and downtown. ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan This document was developed as part of the Riverfront Island Master Plan process to highlight information, analysis, and potential opportunities related to key master plan issues. Following public discussion and review of concepts by committee members and public officials, many but not all of the potential opportunities identified within this document were incorporated into the master plan. The full document is provided here. This document was prepared by Desman Associates. APPENDIX C PARKING: ANALYSIS & OPPORTUNITIES ---PAGE BREAK--- DESMAN ARCHITECTS  ENGINEERS  PLANNERS  PARKING CONSULTANTS  RESTORATION ENGINEERS A S S O C I A T E S 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Amy Kohn and David Spillane, Goody Clancy CC: Norman Goldman, DESMAN Associates FROM: Andrew S. Hill, Senior Consultant – DESMAN Associates DATE: April 13, 2012 SUBJECT: Final Analysis – Riverfront Island Master Plan BACKGROUND The Riverfront Island area is a nine-block district in Lewiston, Maine fronting the Androscoggin River. The area has historically supported a number of industrial uses, including large textile mills driven by a series of canals diverted off the river. Multi-unit residential properties sprung up along the ‘foot’ of the district, along with a number of commercial businesses and eateries to support the local populace. The mills fell into disuse in the mid-20th century. The Bates Mill complex has experienced a renaissance in recent time as a developer has emerged to convert the space into professional offices, clinical space, restaurants and retail shops. The 250,000 square-foot Hill Mill has been partially occupied with craftsmen and light industrial uses including cabinet makers, guitar makers and t-shirt printers. The 500,000 square-foot Continental Mill, currently occupied by light industrial uses, has been identified for possible redevelopment into a residential complex. In addition, work on a former mill building fronting the river has commenced to convert it to the new home of the Museum of Lewiston-Auburn. The Bates Mill #5 building was proposed for redevelopment into a casino complex. However, that ballot item was defeated in the fall of 2011. Efforts continue to attract new land uses to the 200,000 square feet of vacant space within Bates Mill complex (exclusive of Bates Mill Potential new uses may include a mix of office space, medical clinics, residential space and commercial uses. A new hotel has been proposed for the parcel at Lincoln and Water Streets. The City of Lewiston was seeking assistance in developing a holistic plan for guiding growth in the area. GoodyClancy was recruited to lead the effort to develop a vision and guidelines for managing redevelopment across the district. DESMAN was recruited, as part of the GoodyClancy team, to review current parking conditions across the area and assist in developing methods for pro-actively provided for future demand. The following memo presents DESMAN’s work-to-date on the engagement and initial thoughts on the three development scenarios proposed by GoodyClancy. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE CURRENT CONDITIONS DESMAN divided the study area into nine blocks and performed an initial supply inventory across this area on November 11, 2011. Figure 1: Defined Study Area Table 1: Parking Supply Inventory GRAND BLOCK # On-Street Garage Lot Total Garage Lot Total TOTAL 1 0 610 62 672 0 374 374 1,046 2 0 81 0 81 64 288 352 433 3 0 337 123 460 0 28 28 488 4 0 0 78 78 0 69 69 147 5 8 0 0 8 0 194 194 202 6 19 0 77 96 0 180 180 276 7 28 0 0 28 0 222 222 250 8 13 0 0 13 0 74 74 87 9 0 0 0 0 0 474 474 474 TOTAL 68 1,028 340 1,436 64 1,903 1,967 3,403 PUBLIC PRIVATE BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 BLOCK 3 BLOCK 4 BLOCK 5 BLOCK 6 BLOCK 8 BLOCK 9 BLOCK 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE DESMAN counted a total of 3,403 spaces, approximately1. Roughly 42% of all supply in the area was contained within publicly owned facilities, with the preponderance located in the Lincoln Street and Chestnut Street Garages. Approximately 58% of the supply was held by private owners, largely in surface lots abutting businesses and residences. DESMAN performed sample occupancy counts across this same area on Monday, December 12th to establish an estimated of current use and utilization. Peak observed utilization across the area occurred at noon, with a total of 43% of the available supply in use. As a general rule, utilization of the public supply was substantially higher than private supply use. With very few exceptions (noted in red), utilization of any given facility never exceeded 80% of available capacity and no facility reached capacity on the survey day. Table 2: Survey Day (12/12/11) Occupancy and Utilization 1 In several instances, striping of stalls in existing asphalt lots was too worn or faded to distinguish. Additionally, several lots were not paved at all. In these situations, DESMAN relied on scaled aerial photographs and Lewiston Zoning Code (Appendix A, Section 17) to estimate capacity of these facilities, if properly striped. GRAND GRAND BLOCK # On-Street Garage Lot Total Garage Lot Total TOTAL BLOCK # On-Street Garage Lot Total Garage Lot Total TOTAL 1 0 161 0 161 0 40 40 201 1 0% 26% 0% 24% 0% 11% 11% 19% 2 0 37 0 37 47 109 156 193 2 0% 46% 0% 46% 73% 38% 44% 45% 3 0 210 55 265 0 10 10 275 3 0% 62% 45% 58% 0% 36% 36% 56% 4 0 0 2 2 0 4 4 6 4 0% 0% 3% 3% 0% 6% 6% 4% 5 1 0 0 1 0 5 5 6 5 13% 0% 0% 13% 0% 3% 3% 3% 6 10 0 43 53 0 17 17 70 6 53% 0% 56% 55% 0% 9% 9% 25% 7 0 0 0 0 0 17 17 17 7 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 8% 7% 8 1 0 0 1 0 15 15 16 8 8% 0% 0% 8% 0% 20% 20% 18% 9 0 0 0 0 0 39 39 39 9 0% 0% 0% #DIV/0! 0% 8% 8% 8% TOTAL 12 408 100 520 47 256 303 823 TOTAL 18% 40% 29% 36% 73% 13% 15% 24% GRAND GRAND BLOCK # On-Street Garage Lot Total Garage Lot Total TOTAL BLOCK # On-Street Garage Lot Total Garage Lot Total TOTAL 1 0 366 2 368 0 72 72 440 1 0% 60% 3% 55% 0% 19% 19% 42% 2 0 55 0 55 55 130 185 240 2 0% 68% 0% 68% 86% 45% 53% 55% 3 0 287 59 346 0 10 10 356 3 0% 85% 48% 75% 0% 36% 36% 73% 4 0 0 1 1 0 4 4 5 4 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 6% 6% 3% 5 1 0 0 1 0 7 7 8 5 13% 0% 0% 13% 0% 4% 4% 4% 6 12 0 50 62 0 23 23 85 6 63% 0% 65% 65% 0% 13% 13% 31% 7 0 0 0 0 0 19 19 19 7 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 9% 8% 8 2 0 0 2 0 17 17 19 8 15% 0% 0% 15% 0% 23% 23% 22% 9 0 0 0 0 0 57 57 57 9 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 12% 12% TOTAL 15 708 112 835 55 339 394 1,229 TOTAL 22% 69% 33% 58% 86% 18% 20% 36% GRAND GRAND BLOCK # On-Street Garage Lot Total Garage Lot Total TOTAL BLOCK # On-Street Garage Lot Total Garage Lot Total TOTAL 1 0 518 1 519 0 68 68 587 1 0% 85% 2% 77% 0% 18% 18% 56% 2 0 63 0 63 59 162 221 284 2 0% 78% 0% 78% 92% 56% 63% 66% 3 0 301 66 367 0 10 10 377 3 0% 89% 54% 80% 0% 36% 36% 77% 4 0 0 3 3 0 4 4 7 4 0% 0% 4% 4% 0% 6% 6% 5% 5 3 0 0 3 0 4 4 7 5 38% 0% 0% 38% 0% 2% 2% 3% 6 13 0 49 62 0 28 28 90 6 68% 0% 64% 65% 0% 16% 16% 33% 7 1 0 0 1 0 22 22 23 7 4% 0% 0% 4% 0% 10% 10% 9% 8 5 0 0 5 0 23 23 28 8 38% 0% 0% 38% 0% 31% 31% 32% 9 0 0 0 0 0 63 63 63 9 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 13% 13% TOTAL 22 882 119 1,023 59 384 443 1,466 TOTAL 32% 86% 35% 71% 92% 20% 23% 43% UTILIZATION OCCUPANCY UTILIZATION OCCUPANCY UTILIZATION PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE OCCUPANCY 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE These results, as well as our observations, suggest several conclusions:  While utilization of public facilities is high, there is still available capacity, even at the peak hour.  Utilization of the public lots and garage space dedicated to supporting the redeveloped Bates Mill complex suggest that the demand projected by the ratios outlined in the agreement with the City may be overstated.  Utilization of the private lots serving the Bates Mill complex, and controlled by card access systems, suggests there may be additional available capacity within those facilities.  Many private lots in the study area are substantially underutilized. Some of these are adjacent to mill structures which may be revitalized in the future, but are currently sitting empty and idle. If the City could establish Shared Use agreements with the owners of the underutilized private facilities, the publicly available supply across the area could be substantially increased to support redevelopment on other pads.  Utilization of individual facilities appears to be driven largely by proximity, not price. Review of the City’s rate system for both hourly and parking indicates that currently the same rates are collected in all municipal garages and lots, regardless of location and utilization. This runs counter to parking industry best practice, which is to price more utilized and popular facilities at a higher rate and reduce cost to entry at less used facilities to balance demand across a district. GRAND GRAND BLOCK # On-Street Garage Lot Total Garage Lot Total TOTAL BLOCK # On-Street Garage Lot Total Garage Lot Total TOTAL 1 0 477 2 479 0 69 69 548 1 0% 78% 3% 71% 0% 18% 18% 52% 2 0 59 0 59 51 147 198 257 2 0% 73% 0% 73% 80% 51% 56% 59% 3 0 288 55 343 0 9 9 352 3 0% 85% 45% 75% 0% 32% 32% 72% 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 3% 5 2 0 0 2 0 6 6 8 5 25% 0% 0% 25% 0% 3% 3% 4% 6 13 0 52 65 0 19 19 84 6 68% 0% 68% 68% 0% 11% 11% 30% 7 0 0 0 0 0 21 21 21 7 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 9% 8% 8 1 0 0 1 0 15 15 16 8 8% 0% 0% 8% 0% 20% 20% 18% 9 0 0 0 0 0 66 66 66 9 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 14% 14% TOTAL 16 824 109 949 51 356 407 1,356 TOTAL 24% 80% 32% 66% 80% 19% 21% 40% GRAND GRAND BLOCK # On-Street Garage Lot Total Garage Lot Total TOTAL BLOCK # On-Street Garage Lot Total Garage Lot Total TOTAL 1 0 368 0 368 0 51 51 419 1 0% 60% 0% 55% 0% 14% 14% 40% 2 0 44 0 44 49 127 176 220 2 0% 54% 0% 54% 77% 44% 50% 51% 3 0 266 51 317 0 9 9 326 3 0% 79% 41% 69% 0% 32% 32% 67% 4 0 0 1 1 0 8 8 9 4 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 12% 12% 6% 5 1 0 0 1 0 3 3 4 5 13% 0% 0% 13% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6 9 0 50 59 0 12 12 71 6 47% 0% 65% 61% 0% 7% 7% 26% 7 0 0 0 0 0 18 18 18 7 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 8% 7% 8 0 0 0 0 0 14 14 14 8 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 19% 19% 16% 9 0 0 0 0 0 54 54 54 9 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 11% 11% TOTAL 10 678 102 790 49 296 345 1,135 TOTAL 15% 66% 30% 55% 77% 16% 18% 33% OCCUPANCY UTILIZATION OCCUPANCY UTILIZATION 4:00 PM PUBLIC PUBLIC PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE 2:00 PM PRIVATE PUBLIC PRIVATE ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 5 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE PARKING REQUIREMENTS The City of Lewiston has adopted off-street parking standards that are applied to each development permit within the municipality. Redevelopment of the Bates Mill complex is also subject to a set of parking standards outlined in the agreement with the City. DESMAN documented some of these standards – specifically those referenced as either current land uses within the district or proposed future uses – and compared them against the parking demand ratios recommended by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table 3: Comparison of Parking Requirements There appears to be general agreement between the standards outlined in Lewiston zoning and those referenced in Schedule 1 on the Bates Mill Agreement, with the exception of the standards SCHEDULE 1 - ULI/ITE LAND USE LEWISTON CODE PARKING AGREEMENT STANDARDS Mutli-unit Residential 2.0 spaces per every 3+ bedroom unit 1.4 spaces per every 1,000 SF GFA 1 1.50 spaces/unit for rental tenants 1.5 spaces per every 1 or 2 bedroom unit 1.70 spaces/unit for owner occupied properties 1.0 space per every studio unit 0.15 spaces/unit for visitors 0.2 spaces per dwelling unit Motels/Hotels 3.0 spaces - plus - n/a 1.0 space per room for guests 1.0 space per every 3 rooms 0.25 spaces per room for employees Rooming House 1.0 space per every 3 bedrooms n/a n/a Medical Clinics 2.0 spaces per treament room n/a 4.50 spaces/ 1,000 SF GFA Retail 1.0 space per every 250 SF GFA 1.0 space per every 250 SF GFA 2.60 - 6.10 spaces/ 1,000 SF GLA 3 (4.0 spaces/KSF GFA) (4.0 spaces/KSF GFA) (4.0 spaces/KSF GFA) 4 Eating/Drinking Establishments 1.0 space per every three seats 1.0 space per every 200 SF GFA 10.0 - 20.0 spaces/ 1,000 SF GLA 5 (5.0 spaces/KSF GFA) (16.0 spaces/ KSF GLA) 6 Drive-In Restaurants 10.0 spaces - plus - n/a 14.0 - 15.0 spaces/ 1,000 SF GLA 7 1.0 space per every 100 SF GFA Professional/ Business Offices 1.0 space per every 300 SF GFA 1.0 space per every 300 SF GFA 2 2.8 - 6.0 spaces/ 1,000 SF GFA 8 (3.33 spaces/ KSF GFA) (3.33 spaces/ KSF GFA) (2.95 spaces/ KSF GFA) 9 Laboratories 1.0 space per every 500 SF GFA n/a n/a (2.0 spaces/ KSF GFA) Light Industry 1.0 space per every 500 SF GFA up to n/a 1.57 spaces/ 1,000 SF GFA 3,000 KSF - plus - 1 space per every 1,000 SF GFA beyond n/a Community Centers 1 space per every 200 SF of assembly area n/a 6.0 spaces/ 1,000 SF GFA (5.0 spaces/ KSF GAA) 1. Amendment dated 26 August 2004 2. The agreement also references a provision for "back office" space at 1 space per 240 SF 3. ULI and ITE recognize five diffferent classes of retail store as well as variation in demand according to day of week. 4. The most common general standard for retail under both ULI and ITE is 4.0 spaces per every 1,000 SF of Gross Leasable Area 5. ULI and ITE recognize five different types of eating/ drinking establishment, as well as variations in demand according to day of week. 6. The average of all types is 16.0 spaces/KSF Gross Leasable Area. 7. Equates to Fast Food Restaurants as documented by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 8. ULI/ITE recognizes demand varies according to the tenant and total square footage of office building. 9. A 400,000 SF office structure typical exerts demand equivalent to 2.95 spaces/ KSF GFA at peak. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 6 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE for Residential uses and Eating/Drinking Establishments, which apply different metrics. Comparison of these local standards to the recommended ratios developed by the ULI and ITE shows substantial variances. This is a matter of some concern to DESMAN. The ULI and ITE have developed their standards from direct observation of live land uses and how they accumulate parking demand. In some cases, hundred and even thousands of studies have been performed of individual office buildings, residential complexes, hotels, medical clinics, retail stores, restaurants and other land uses to establish the relationship between parking demand and the land use. Because the parking demand ratios developed from these studies are based on empirical observation and research, they are considerable reasonably reliable predictors of future need in new development. The genesis of the Lewiston zoning requirements is not clear. This is not to discount completely the reasonableness and reliability of Lewiston standards as they are currently employed. Lewiston zoning, like most standards, mandates that a project will provide a fixed number of parking spaces on-site or in reasonable proximity to the project site to support the development. The total number of parking spaces needed is calculated by applying the zoning requirements to the development program. The fact that some local zoning requirements appear significantly understated2 relative to ULI/ITE standards, while others are overstated3 may result in a total parking supply that is relatively appropriate if the overstated and understated uses are combined in the same project. However, in sole use developments, this could result in a project being chronically under- or over-supplied with parking. In addition to not being clear on how the Lewiston standards were developed, DESMAN also has reservations for the general calculation method for establishing parking need. Parking demand is a fluid and variable element; the total amount of parking needed for a development will vary according to the land uses making up the development, the time of day and time of the year. An office building may need every space allocated to it on a January weekday, but need none of them on the following Saturday or only 85% of them on the same weekday in July. A hotel’s greatest need occurs late at night, when all the guests are checked in and on site; at mid-day the lot may be more than half-empty. Zoning calculations do not necessarily account for this give- and-take between land uses; instead the zoning calculation stipulates a fixed provision for X spaces per unit for each land use. This notion of ‘shared use’ of parking between land uses is referenced within the Lewiston Zoning Code4, which allows a developer to pledge the same space to two different uses if the applicant can demonstrate the two uses have complimentary5 use patterns. This is good first step towards recognizing the variability of need in different land uses, but falls short of truly embracing the potential of ‘shared use’ in that it still mandates a pledge of X spaces for each use. 2 Motels, Medical Clinics and Eating/Drinking Establishments being the most notable. 3 Residential and Office Space. 4 Appendix A, Article XII, Section 17 – Joint use of parking facilities. 5 That is, one land use does not need use of the parking space at the time the other does, and vice versa. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 7 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE A ‘shared parking’ study, as described by the ULI, uses the base parking demand ratios developed through empirical observation to calculate an initial gross parking demand for the project, much the same way zoning calculations work. However, the methodology moves forwards to input reductions in this gross demand to account for variations in demand for each land use according to user group6 and the impact on demand for each land use and user group according to time of day, day of week and time of year. This statistical modeling, based on empirical observations and/or proxy factors7 specific to each land use, projects parking demand for each land use relative to its projected need according to the time of day, day of week and time of year. This modeling allows a planner to see how a project or district works as a holistic entity, rather than an assembly of disparate parts. The planner can identify the busiest hour of the busiest day of the year for the project as whole and quantify the number of parking space needed to satisfy the project at that point in time. In a ‘shared parking’ environment, parking demand for individual land uses may rise above or fall below the demand attributed to them at the identified peak hour. However, when this occurs, another land use within the same project will be proportionately rising or falling, essentially ‘balancing’ the demands of the first use. As long as the project has enough parking to meet its needs at the identified ‘peak hour’, the supply will be adequate to meet needs the remainder of the year if all the parking spaces are equally accessible to all users. This is an important factor to note relative to both Lewiston Zoning and the existing Bates Mill Agreement. Both documents mandate provision of parking spaces for exclusive use; the first by an identified land use, the second by an identified development. In parking, exclusion is, by definition, inefficient as it assumes the parking spaces dedicated to a given user or land use will be needed constantly. Practical experience suggests that not only can two or more land uses share the use of single parking space, but also that the demands of a single land use can also fluctuate substantially day-to-day8. It does not appear that the Lewiston Zoning Code nor the Bates Mill Agreement adequately recognize this factor in their current forms. DESMAN would recommend the following actions:  The City of Lewiston should initiate a series of site studies of various land uses covered under the current parking requirements to ‘test’ the accuracy and reliability of current standards as outlined in the Zoning Code.  Parking provisions for the Bates Mill complex should also be tested against observed occupancy to determine accuracy of requirements as stipulated in Schedule 1.  The Bates Mill Agreement should be revised to reflect provision of parking spaces adequate to meet needs, rather than for exclusive use, within the defined areas. 6 Employees, visitors, guests, patrons, etc. 7 Such a cinema ticket sales, retail sales, reported hotel occupancy rates, restaurant sales, etc. 8 Parking operators recognize this in the form of ‘oversell’ for permits. Operators know that, of a body of leaseholders, up to 25% may not be present on a given day due to illness, travel, vacations, etc. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 8 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE  The Lewiston Zoning Code should be revised to accept waivers against parking requirements if supported by a ‘shared parking’ study conducted in compliance with ULI standard methodology. Exhibit A, included at the conclusion of this document, is sample Shared Parking agreement that could be brokered by the City between private parties to compel greater sharing of available parking capacity between complimentary land uses. Exhibit B is sample recommended Zoning Code for parking the City may want to consider when revising their existing codes in the future. REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS In response to feedback from the community, GoodyClancy has developed three Master Plan scenarios, all focused around the disposition of the Bates Mill #5 site in the wake of November’s casino referendum. Scenario #1 assumes conversion of the 345,000 SF Bates Mill #5 building into a mix of high- intensity land uses which could include offices, convention/meeting space or indoor recreation uses. GoodyClancy proposes to support this redevelopment by expanding the Lincoln Street Garage vertically and laterally to accommodate an additional 700 parking spaces. As an alternate, GoodyClancy has identified the potential to develop up to 1,200 structured spaces at Island Point to support the Bates Mill #5 redevelopment, plus a 50,000 SF standalone office building adjacent to the structure. Scenario #2 assumes the Bates Mill #5 building is demolished and the pad converted to a public park. GoodyClancy proposes to support major events at the park, as well as the continuing redevelopment of the adjacent Bates Mill complex, through the 700-space expansion of the Lincoln Street Garage. This scenario also proposes development of a 150,000 SF office/clinical building at Island Point supported by a 600-space parking structure. Scenario #3 proposes razing the Bates Mill #5 building and redeveloping the site into a retail center with a grocery store and surface parking. Parking demand that could not be accommodated on-site would be absorbed by the 700-space expansion of the Lincoln Street Garage. This scenario also proposes development of a 150,000 SF office/clinical building at Island Point supported by a 600-space parking structure. All three scenarios feature common components which include:  200,000 SF of rehabilitated office, clinical, retail and restaurant space and residential units in the Bates Mill complex. It is assumed that the 700-space expansion of the Lincoln Street Garage will help to support this new demand.  Conversion of the 500,000 SF Continental Mill into residential units and mixed-use space. Based on Lewiston Zoning Code, DESMAN estimates the site could support up to 474 parking spaces by resurfacing and striping the existing asphalt and gravel surfaces surrounding the existing building. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 9 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE  Continued absorption of vacant space in the 250,000 SF Hill Mill. Based on Lewiston Zoning Code, DESMAN estimates the site could support up to 374 parking spaces by resurfacing and striping the existing asphalt and gravel surfaces surrounding the existing building.  Relocation of the Museum of Lewiston-Auburn to the former Camden Yarns Mill building. Based on Lewiston Zoning Code, DESMAN estimates the site could support up to 132 parking spaces by resurfacing and striping the existing gravel surfaces on the front and back of the building.  A new 100 room hotel at Lincoln and Water Streets. Drawings provided by the City of Lewiston show the surface lot adjacent to the building site could support up to 146 parking spaces.  Targeted (but unspecified) rehabilitation of existing land and buildings in the blocks located between Oxford and Lincoln Streets. No specific land uses, new parking demand, or parking provisions were identified with these developments.  Improved access to the river and extension of the riverwalk all the way to the Broad Street bridge. No new parking demand was specifically noted with this improvement, but DESMAN identified an opportunity to develop up to 28 new angled parking spaces fronting Railroad Park as part of larger effort to repave and improve the roadway approaching the Camden Yarns Mill/ Museum L-A building once complete. The most pressing and immediate need appears to be to continued redevelopment of space within the Bates Mill complex. Per the Agreement between the developer and the City of Lewiston, the City is obligated to provide a fixed number of dedicated parking spaces for every new phase of redevelopment. These spaces can be located in one of three geographic areas surrounding the building, with the allowance for each area strictly dictated within the agreement. As referenced in the prior review of zoning requirements, DESMAN has multiple reservations regarding the terms of this agreement. The most significant concern is the requirement that the parking pledged against the redevelopment be “available for the exclusive use of Developer’s tenants and guests.” This requirement, while a benefit to leasing efforts, runs counter to parking industry best practices and results in inefficient development and use of parking assets. Paired with the fixed ratio method of calculating parking requirements contained in both the Agreement and the Lewiston Zoning Code, the result is a parking supply which may be both overbuilt and underutilized at times. Again, DESMAN recommends both the Developer and City considering amending the terms of this agreement to allow for “provision of available capacity” rather than dedication of spaces for exclusive use and recognition of ULI/ITE Shared Parking methodology as an appropriate alternate to Agreement ratios and Lewiston Zoning Code requirements. If the Developer and the City are willing to renegotiate the terms of the Agreement, DESMAN has noted several interim options for providing additional capacity to support the continued redevelopment of the Bates Mill complex within the boundaries of Area 1. These include the following: ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 10 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE  Based on Lewiston Zoning Code, DESMAN estimates that Oxford Street could be restriped to accommodate up to 60 permit only spaces along its length between Railroad Park and Cedar Street.  As noted previously, the areas surrounding the Hill Mill and Continental Mill are both poorly conditioned and utilized currently. Using Lewiston Zoning Code, DESMAN estimates a total of 848 parking spaces could be accommodated on the two sites, of which only about 20% (170 vehicles) is in use at any given time. While neither of these assets is publicly owned, if the City could broker a ‘shared use’ agreement with the current owners in return for resurfacing and improving the lots9, they could have up to roughly 675 parking spaces to pledge against new demand within the Bates Mill complex as a substantially lower cost10 than building new structured parking.  Depending on the timing of the hotel project, the City has indicated the gravel pad at Lincoln and Water Streets could be improved to support a 146-space parking lot. This site also falls within the Area 1 limits and could be an interim facility until such time as the hotel project moves forward.  Based on DESMAN’s limited field observations, there is available capacity in the Chestnut Street Garage (100 spaces) and Lincoln Street Lot spaces) on a daily basis. If the City and the Developer are unable to reach an accommodation on these terms, it is DESMAN’s opinion that the expansion of the Lincoln Street Garage is superior to the option to laterally expand the Chestnut Street Garage for the following reasons:  The Lincoln Street Garage is better designed to support phased expansion. Based on cursory review of the design, the structure could be initially expanded laterally (towards Bates Mill without compromising vertical vehicle flow or impacting use of the structure11. The design appears to then support additional vertical expansion, if needed, without closing off significant portions of the facility.  If the Chestnut Street Garage were expanded, it could only occur laterally, towards Canal Street. This would require the expansion to span the canal, requiring substantial engineering to place footings to not disrupt the waterway. In the best case scenario, the City would have to acquire rights to build over the gravel lot adjacent to the Hill Mill. A more expensive alternate would be to remove the adjacent industrial/commercial building between the garage and the Lincoln Street lot.  The Lincoln Street Garage site has more options for adding additional entry and exit points and longer queue areas for entering vehicles than the Chestnut Street Garage site. Expanding capacity in the later garage could result in long vehicle queues on Chestnut or 9 Until such time as the buildings are rehabilitated and/or have need for the additional capacity. 10 Costs will vary, depending on the extent of improvements. In the New England market, resurfacing and striping and existing asphalt parking lot can cost roughly $2,500/space, while converting a gravel pad to a formal parking lot (including lighting and drainage) can cost up to $5,000/space. This is still substantially less expensive than base construction costs of $12,500-$17,500/space for structured parking. 11 The City would lose the capacity contained in the adjacent surface lot as well as two lanes of access off that side. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 11 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE Cedar Streets in the morning as users enter the area. The Lincoln Street Garage site has more capacity to move these queues onto the property and off Lincoln or Main Street. DESMAN does not support development of a stand-alone parking structure on Island Point for the following reasons:  Main Street represents a substantial and physical obstacle for pedestrians. In order to successfully support 1,200 daily users, the proposed garage would need to be linked to the Bates Mill #5 by a dedicated (and possibly elevated) pedestrian walkway.  Structured parking is far from the highest, best use of the site, given its natural features.  Simultaneous traffic movements out of the Lincoln Street Garage and a proposed 1,200- space structure at Island Point could result in regular gridlock on Main Street. Development of a parking structure in conjunction with a resident use, such an office building and clinical space, appears to be a better use for the site. If structured parking could be integrated within the building base, rather than a standalone structure, this would be a further improvement on the design. Using structured parking a ‘pedestal’ to higher, better uses on the upper story would serve to help ‘hide’ the parking below sightlines off Main Street and improve views from the offices above. Placing parking and new development on the same parcel would reduce pedestrian travel across Main Street. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS According to records provided by the City of Lewiston, the City is currently carrying roughly $17.7M in bonded debt associated with the development or repair and maintenance of municipal parking assets. This debt will be retired between January 2013 and March 2028 and has a total value at closing of roughly $22.7M. As of the close of Fiscal Year 2010, the City had collected roughly $800,000 in parking revenues against approximately $347,000 in annual operating expenses, leaving a net cash flow of roughly $453,000 to pledge against debt service12. Convention wisdom13 in the parking industry argues that all parking functions (i.e. operations, management, planning, maintenance, enforcement, etc.) should be consolidated within one department and all associated revenues and expenses associated with parking should be accounted in a single Enterprise Fund. The rationale behind this approach is that consolidating functions will lead to greater efficiencies and centralizing accounting will force a municipality to recognize the true cost of parking14. 12 It does not appear that parking violations revenues, nor the expense of parking enforcement officers, are included within this accounting. 13 Most specifically espoused by Dr. Donald Shoup (UCLA) and Todd Litman (Victoria Transportation Policy Institute) in various publications. 14 The extension of this philosophy, most clearly detailed in Shoup’s The High Price of Free Parking, is that once municipalities realize how much it costs to supply parking as a public asset, they will raise fees and rates to a point where the operation can cover its total costs. The resultant rise in the cost of parking will cause individuals to reexamine their transportation choices and result in a reduction in the use of single- occupant vehicles. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 12 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE Lewiston does not currently consolidate parking functions within a single department, but DESMAN could find little evidence of inefficiency that would warrant a change in structure. In point of fact, Lewiston has been highly aggressive in controlling operating costs for a municipality of its size, electing to automate revenue collection in all its parking structure to reduce operating overhead and manage the majority of its public lots through a permit system. These two actions substantially cut down on labor costs, which is typically the largest line item and percentage of operating expenses in a municipal parking system. As noted, the current fee structure for municipal parking facilities runs counter to parking industry best practices. The best practices include the following:  Parking rates should vary according to the popularity or typical utilization of each facility. Facilities with higher regular utilization rates should command a higher fee for use; facilities will lower rates should charge lower fees. This creates incentives to ‘balance’ demand across a given area.  Parking fees for curbside parking (i.e. meters) should be roughly double the cost to park for the same length of time in an off-street facility. Because curbside spaces offer the greatest ease of access to most destinations, their value should be recognized. In addition, setting fees higher for curbside spaces compels turnover, keeping these spaces open for discretionary visitors (i.e. shoppers, diners, tourists, etc.) who need ‘line of sight’ wayfinding to a particular destination15.  Fines for abusing curbside parking privileges should be at least double the cost for parking a standard business day (8 hours) and should be higher for meter violations than time limit areas16.  permits or passes should represent a reasonable proportion17 of the calculated cost for parking and paying by the day in the same facility. The current practice in Lewiston is to adopt the same transient rate structure for all municipal parking facilities18. Metered parking is set at a city-wide rate of $0.50/hour, while off-street parking starts is free for stays of less than one hour and $1.00/hour thereafter. The fine for violating a time limit in a metered area is just $12.00 versus $17.00 for overstaying a posted time limit in an unmetered area. Municipal pass/permit rates range from $42.00/month up to $55.00/month against a potential ‘pay-by-the-day’ cost of $120.00/month. Finally, the City offers several pass/permit programs for various user types, but the cost of these passes or permits appears to vary according to user type, not by a particular facility. 15 Mandated visitors (i.e. employees, residents) are given an incentive, in lower prices, to park off-street. 16 The theory being that violating a posted time limit can sometimes occur inadvertently, whereas staying past the time consciously paid for at a meter constitutes a more willful act and should carry a higher penalty. 17 This proportion varies from municipality to municipality, but is rarely less than 50% of total cost or greater than 75% of total cost. For example, if it costs $6.00/day to parking in a public garage, the total cost [paying by the day] would be $120.00 ($6/day x 20 working days/month). With these rules of thumb, it should cost between $60.00 and $90.00/month for a permit in one of Lewiston’s garages. 18 $1.00/hour, up to $6.00/day. Stays of less than one full hour are free (no charge). ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 13 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE Overall, all the municipal facilities within the study area appear to be well-maintained and in good running condition. A critical challenge to increasing utilization of these facilities for discretionary users is wayfinding. “Wayfinding” refers to a system of signage that guides individuals unfamiliar with the area into the district, then into a parking facility and finally from the parking facility to their ultimate destination. Trailblazing signage brings users from main arterial roadways to a district. These signs are usually developed along a single, set theme of unique materials, graphics and colors and are mounted at each decision point between the arterial roadway and the district. Both Bates College and St. Mary’s Medical Center have strong trailblazing signage packages directing drivers exiting the Maine turnpike to their campuses. Currently, no trailblazing signage exists directing drivers from the turnpike to Riverfront Island and the signage directing drivers to downtown Lewiston is weak. Identifying signage helps direct drivers into a parking facility once they enter the district. The most universally recognized identifying signage for parking facilities is a white against a blue background. These signs are normally mounted at the driver’s eye level (between 36” and 72” above the ground) at key intersections approaching the entrance of a facility19 and again on the face of the parking facility at or directly over the entrance. While the municipal facilities in the study area are signed or labeled, the placement of the signage and general theme could be improved. Wayfinding signage helps orient pedestrians once they have exited their vehicles and direct them to their destinations. The most common application of wayfinding signage in parking facilities is typically the “you are here” graphic maps mounted in elevator lobbies showing the facility’s position relative to popular area destinations. DESMAN did not this kind of signage in evidence in any of the municipal parking facilities within the study area. Exhibit C includes a conceptual wayfinding program for improving connections between the Maine Turnpike and the Riverfront Island district, facilitating driver movements into public parking garages and improving pedestrian connections between parking and their final destination. Lighting was also a concern within the study area. The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) prescribes lighting standards for a variety of environments. IESNA advocates for an average of 4.0 – 5.0 footcandles20 (fc) for parking structures, 0.6 – 0.9 fc for parking lots and 0.2 – 1.2 fc for pubic walkways. DESMAN did not take light meter readings, but cursory field testing indicates the municipal parking facilities meet these standards currently. However, observed lighting levels along sidewalks fronting Oxford Street, Cross Street and lower Chestnut Street suggest that additional street lights may be needed to support increase pedestrian movement through these areas after dark. 19 Normally at least 75’ prior to the entrance to allow the driver adequate note to position their vehicle to enter the facility. 20 A unit of illuminance that is one foot from a uniform point source of light of one candle and equal to one lumen per square foot. For reference, a typical sunny day measures 5,000 – 10,000 fc, an average living room measures 30 fc and a full moon can provide 0.2 fc without cloud cover. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 14 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE EXHIBIT A – Model Shared Parking Agreement between Private Parties This Shared Use Agreement for Parking Facilities, entered into this day of between __(Primary Landlord)_, hereinafter called lessor and _(Secondary User)_, hereinafter called lessee. In consideration of the covenants herein, lessor agrees to share with lessee certain parking facilities, as is situated in the City of Lewiston, County of Androscoggin and State of Maine, hereinafter called the facilities, described as: __(Facility Name)_ , a (Type of Facility) containing spaces located at The facilities shall be shared by the lessor and lessee according to the terms contained here commencing with the day of and ending at 11:59 PM on the day of for an agreed fee of dollars per space per month OR other considerations as outlined in the agreement herein. The lessee agrees to submit any compensation due at __(Landlord’s Permanent Address)__to lessor by the day of each month unless otherwise dictated within this agreement. The lessor hereby represents that it holds legal title to the facilities The parties agree: 1. USE OF FACILITIES The lessor will make spaces available for use to the lessee and the lessee’s employees, residents, customers, visitors or other designated users for the hours of to between and . a. DESIGNATED AREA: The lessee agrees to restrict use of the subject facility to the area described as at presented in Exhibit 1 (attached). b. APPROVED USE: The lessee agrees that the defined area for use only for the storage of functioning, privately-owned motor vehicles and will not be employed for any other use without the expressed written permission from the lessor. 2. MAINTENANCE ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 15 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE The lessee agrees to maintain and care for the property in a manner consistent with parking industry best practices. a. IMPROVEMENTS: In return for consideration of use, the lessee agrees to make the capital improvements to subject property as outlined in Exhibit 2 and having a total cost and/or value of in exchange for the rights of use as presented. b. MAINTENANCE: The lessee agrees to adhere to the agreed schedule of daily, weekly, semi-annual and annual maintenance tasks as presented in Exhibit 3. The lessee will bear % of total annual maintenance costs, with the balance to be paid for by the lessor. c. SNOW REMOVAL: The lessee agrees to clear the portion of the facility dedicated to its exclusive use within four hours of the commencement of a snowfall in excess of 1” in average depth at its own cost. Plowed snow will be stored at 3. UTILITIES and TAXES The lessee agrees to reimburse the lessor for % of all utility costs and semi-annual property taxes, consistent with the portion of total area for the lessee’s use relative to the total square footage of the subject facility. 4. SIGNAGE The lessee will, solely at their own expense, install signage in and around the subject facility that will: a. Define the boundaries of the designated parking area allotted for the lessee’s use; b. Present the parameters of use to parkers; c. Detail penalties for violation of the posted parameters; d. Identify the party responsible for enforcement of posted parameters. 5. ENFORCEMENT The lessee will, solely at their own expense, undertake the following actions to ensure their parker’s compliance with posted usage parameters: ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 16 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE a. Issue to each registered parker a sticker, hangtag, or other visual indicator that they are approved to park in the lessee’s designated area. b. Assign personnel to periodically patrol the subject facility to ensure compliance with posted parameters and issue formal notices of violation. c. Retain the services of a bonded, insured towing company to remove violating vehicles from the property within twenty-four (24) hours of issue of a violation notice. 6. COOPERATION Lessor and lessee agree to cooperate to the best of their abilities to mutually use the facilities without disrupting the other party. The parties agree to meet on occasion to work out any problems that may arise to the shared use. 7. INSURANCE Lessee shall carry and maintain at their sole cost, the following insurance coverages: a. Worker’s Compensation insurance in compliance with the dictated standards for the State of Maine as appropriate. b. Garage liability insurance on an occurrence form basis with limits of not less than $50,000 per occurrence with an annual aggregate limit of $1,000,000 per location. c. Garage keeper’s legal liability insurance (if applicable) insuring any and all automobiles that are parked at the premises for which a bailment otherwise is created, with limits of liability not less than $50,000 per occurrence. d. Umbrella liability insurance, in excess following form, with an annual aggregate limit of not less than $2,000,000. e. The liability policies affording the coverages described above shall be endorsed to cover Lessor and its employees, agents, directors and officers as additional insureds. f. All such insurance shall be with companies as shall be reasonably satisfactory to Lessor, and all such policies shall provide that they may not be cancelled or adversely altered without at least thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to Lessor. Lessee shall deliver satisfactory certificates of insurance to Lessor and renewal ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 17 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE policies shall be obtained, and certificates delivered to Lessor, at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration. g. Lessor hereby waives all claims for recovery from Lessee and its employees, agents, directors and officers for personal injury and/or loss or damage to Lessor’s property of the type covered by insurance actually carried by Lessor or which is commonly covered under an “all-risk” of direct physical loss insurance policy of the type customarily available in Lewiston, Maine, in either case irrespective of applicable deductibles. h. Lessee shall obtain Lessor’s written permission to waive or modify any of the above insurance requirements. Lessee shall obtain and keep on file certificates of insurance showing that all of Lessee’s subcontractors are so insured. 8. INDEMNIFICATION Subject to the limitations set forth in this herein, each party each agrees to indemnify and save harmless each other party from and against any and all losses, liabilities, expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable fees and disbursements of counsel), claims, liens, damages or other obligations whatsoever (collectively, "Claims") that may actually and reasonably be payable by virtue of or which may actually and reasonably result from the inaccuracy of any of their respective representations or the breach of any of their respective warranties, covenants or agreements made in this Agreement or in any certificate, schedule or other instrument delivered pursuant to this Agreement; provided, however, that no claim for indemnity may be made hereunder if the facts giving rise to such Claim were in writing and known to the party seeking indemnification hereunder, such facts constituted a breach of the conditions to closing of the party seeking indemnification and the party seeking indemnification elected in any event to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. In addition, to the extent that applicable insurance coverage is available and paid to the party seeking indemnification hereunder with respect to the Claim for which indemnification is being sought, such amounts of insurance actually paid shall be deducted from the amount of the Claim for which indemnification may be sought hereunder and the indemnified party may recover only the amount of the loss actually suffered by the party to be indemnified. To ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 18 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE the extent that such insurance payment is received subsequent to payment by the indemnifying party hereunder, the indemnified party shall reimburse the indemnifying party, up to the amount previously paid by the indemnifying party, for the amount of such insurance payment. 9. TERMINATION If lessor transfers ownership, or if part of all of the facilities are condemned, or access to the facilities is changed or limited, lessee may, in its sole discretion terminate this agreement without further liability by giving Lessor not less than 60 days prior written notice. Upon termination of this agreement, Lessee agrees to remove all signage and repair damage due to excessive use or abuse. Lessor agrees to give lessee the right of first refusal on subsequent renewal of this agreement. 10. SUPPLEMENTAL COVENANTS This section should contain any additional covenants, rights, responsibilities and/or agreements. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date Set forth at the outset hereof. (Lessor) (Lessee) (City Official) (Organization) (Organization) (Title) (Date) (Date) (Date) ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 19 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE EXHIBIT B – Model Zoning Regulations for Parking Parking Definitions: Aisle: The driving portion of the parking area. The aisle provides access to each space. Angled: Any parking space that is not parallel to the curb or aisle. Bikeway: Any road, street, path, or way, which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designed for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. Big Box Retail: Single retail sales facility that has greater than 20,000 square feet of gross floor area and is contained in a single building. BMPs (Best Management Practices): structural, vegetative, or managerial practices designed to treat, prevent, or reduce degradation of water quality due to stormwater runoff and snow-melt. Downtown Zone: the major business district in a community or area of highest concentration of commercial activity and often including the local government center; often referred to as the ‘downtown’. Free Standing Retail: Single retail sales facility of up to 20,000 square feet in size that is situated independently on a building lot and for which associated parking serves exclusively that facility Gross Floor Area: The total floor area of a building. Impervious Surface: A ground cover such as cement, asphalt, or packed clay or rock through which water cannot penetrate. Indoor Recreation Facilities: Uses such as bowling alleys, billiard parlors, and skating rinks Industrial Plant: Structure or complex of structures used for manufacturing, assembling, fabricating, warehousing, and related activities. Mixed Use: A development that provides multiple compatible uses in close proximity to one another. And/or a land use pattern that seeks to increase concentrations of population and employment in well- defined areas with a mix of diverse and compatible land uses Off-Street Parking: Parking spaces provided outside of the right-of-way of a street or highway. On-Street Parking: Parking spaces provided within the right-of-way of a street or highway Outdoor Recreation Facilities: Uses such as golf courses, amusement parks, miniature golf courses, and water slide parks. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 20 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE Parking Area: That portion of a Lot set aside, marked, posted, or intended for parking, including total of circulation areas, loading and unloading areas, parking spaces and aisles, landscaped areas, bikeways, and walkways. Parking Stall or Space: A space in which a single car is parked. Parking Supply: The actual number of spaces provided and legally available at a land use. Personal Services: Establishments primarily engaged in providing services involving the care of a person or a person’s personal goods or apparel. It includes uses such as barber shops, beauty salons, shoe repair shops, and dry cleaners Pervious Surface: Ground cover through which water can penetrate at a rate comparable to that of water through undisturbed soils. Shared Parking: When parking spaces are shared among different structures or uses, or among mixed uses, and can include properties with different owners. Shopping Center: An area that is comprised of three or more commercial establishments, the purpose of which is primarily retail sales, that has a combined gross floor area of 20,000 square feet or more, that is owned or managed as a unit. Sight Distance: The distance visible to a driver from his/her position to other objects or vehicles, when at a point of turning or when stopping a vehicle. Walkway: Any path or way, which in some manner is specifically designated exclusively for pedestrian travel. Village Center Zone: The traditional center of the community, typically comprised of a cohesive core of residential, civic, religious, and commercial buildings, arranged along a main street and intersecting streets. Section PG General Parking Requirements Section PG.1 Number of Parking Spaces Off-street parking shall be provided and maintained in connection with the use, substantial change in use, construction, conversion, or increase in intensity of use of buildings or structures, such spaces to be provided in the following amounts per 1000 square foot (sf) of Gross Floor Area (GFA): ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 21 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE Land Use Maximum Minimum Bank 5 3 Big Box Retail 5 3 Drive-Thru Restaurant 12 2 Free Standing Retail 5 2 General Office Building 5 2 Industrial Plant 8 2 Medical Office Building 10 2 Nursing Home 4 1 Restaurants 12 6 Small Shopping Centers 6 3 Bed and Breakfast 1.2 space per guest room or suite 1 spaces per guest room or suite Personal Services 3 2 Day Care Centers 1 space per 4 children at max. capacity 1 space per 8 children at max. capacity Churches and Places of Worship 1 space per 3 seats in portion of the building used for services 1 space per 5 seats in the portion of the building used for services Museums and Libraries 2 1 Social, Fraternal Clubs and Organizations 4 3 Elementary, Middle and High Schools 1 space per 3 seats in the auditorium 1 space per 5 seats in the auditorium Hotels and Motels 1.2 space per guest room or suite 1 spaces per guest room or suite Warehouse 1 1 Self Service Warehouse 1 space per 10 compartments 1 space per 20 compartments Home Occupation 4 per dwelling unit plus 1.5 per non-resident employee 2 per dwelling unit plus 1 per non- resident employee Multi-Family Residences 2.5 per dwelling unit 1 per dwelling unit Commercial Kennel 3 1 Automotive Sales and/or Rental 3 1 Automotive Repair and/or Service 4 2 Gymnasiums, Physical Fitness Centers, Health Spas, Martial Arts Centers and Dance Studios 4 2 Indoor Recreation Facilities 5 5 Outdoor Recreation Facilities As determined by the Commission based on a parking demand study As determined by the Commission based on a parking demand study ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 22 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE For uses not listed in this section, the minimum and maximum number of parking spaces required shall be comparable to the closest other similar use as determined by the Commission. Section PG.2 Handicapped Parking Space Requirements All off-street parking areas shall include paved handicapped accessible parking spaces. Accessible parking spaces shall be at least 15 feet wide including 3 feet of cross hatch. Handicap accessible parking spaces and access aisles shall be level, not exceeding 2% slope in all directions. Handicap accessible parking spaces shall be provided in the following amounts relative to the total number of spaces provided in the parking area: TOTAL PARKING SPACES IN LOT REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE SPACES 1-25 1 26-50 2 51-75 3 76-100 4 101 –150 5 151-200 6 201-300 7 301-400 8 401-500 9 501-1000 2% of total 1001 and over 20 plus 1 for each 100 over 1000 Section PG.3 Waivers and Exceptions Section PG.3.a Intent It is the intent of these regulations that all structures and land uses be provided with a sufficient amount of off-street motor vehicle parking, while allowing for some flexibility of site design to accommodate the unique characteristics of individual properties. This section of the regulations is intended to set standards for conditions under which a waiver or exception from the general parking requirements may be allowed. The Commission may require the submission of a parking demand analysis as part of any request for a waiver or exception from the general parking requirements. Section PG.3.b Waivers ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 23 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE Except for buildings or parts of buildings used or occupied for residential use, all or part of the off-street parking requirements may be waived by the Commission where the proposed site planning, design, and construction includes the following: 1. Sufficient publicly owned parking spaces within 500 feet of the proposed development site. 2. Access to a regularly scheduled transit stop within 500 feet of the proposed development, with service available during commuting hours 3. Direct access from a bikeway to the proposed development 4. Provision of a regularly scheduled, municipally supported shuttle bus service from the development to an alternate safe, secure, and convenient parking facility Section PG.3.c Parking Reduction Requests In the case that an applicant believes that the required parking amounts are in excess of what is needed for the proposed use, the applicant may submit a request with justification to the Commission for a reduction in parking space requirements. The Commission will consider and act on this request concurrent with and as part of the full development application process. Section PG.3.d Parking in the Central Business Zone or Village Center Zone All requirements for number of off-street parking spaces as listed in Section PG.1 above shall be reduced by 25% where the use and associated required parking would be located within the Central Business Zone and/or Village Center Zone. Section PG.3.e Parking for Mixed-Use Developments In Mixed-Use developments, or developments where parking is affected by cooperative agreements between different land uses, for any proposed use, substantial change in use, construction, conversion, or increase in intensity of use of any buildings or structures, the applicant shall submit a parking demand analysis that demonstrates parking demand patterns. The parking demand analysis must be approved by the Commission and will serve as the basis for determination of required parking at the mixed-use site. Section PG.3.f Parking In Excess of the Maximum ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 24 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE The Commission may approve parking lots with more spaces than the allowed maximum provided all of the spaces above the maximum number are composed of a pervious surface, and where adequate stormwater management is provided. The Commission may also approve parking lots with additional impervious parking spaces above the allowed maximum where the use of pervious spaces would not be environmentally sound and where an aggressive stormwater management plan is included with the application and implemented, employing, at a minimum, the stormwater management measures. Section PG.3.g Parking Space Held on Reserve For phased developments, the Commission may provide that up to 50 percent of the parking spaces required by this section will not be immediately constructed and may be kept in reserve. Such reserve parking areas must be kept planted and maintained rather than surfaced for parking until such time the additional parking space is necessary to serve completed phases of the associated development. No above ground improvements shall be placed or constructed upon such reserve parking area. The area designated as reserve parking must be clearly depicted on the phased development site plan and the terms and conditions of phasing of the parking area completion as determined by the Commission, must be clearly set forth in notations on the approved site plan. Section PG.4 Parking Lot Design Parking lots shall be designed to achieve the greatest efficiency of use of space practicable. In general, the preferred layout should have: 1. 90 degree parking 2. Parking provided around the periphery of the site with no parking located between the building and the street 3. Parking provided with one of the site layout options as shown in Figure 1 on Page of these regulations. PG.4.a Minimum Design Requirements At a minimum, all parking lots shall: 1. Have a minimum stall size of 9’ x 18’ 2. Have rectangular parking stalls 3. Have aisle widths and parking angles in a minimum ratio as shown as follows: ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 25 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE Parking Angle Minimum Aisle Width Direction of Flow 45o 12’3” One way 50o 12’9” One way 55o 13’3” One way 60o 14’3” One way 65o 15’2” One way 70o 16’ One way 75o 24’ Two way 90o 24’ Two Way 4. Have no greater than 5% slope 5. Have a number and location of access drives compatible with traffic circulation patterns both within the site and on the abutting street system 6. Provide sufficient stacking area (area where cars may need to wait in line to exit onto the street or to enter to circulate in the parking lot) for 2 vehicles at the inbound access drives to the site 7. No parking space shall be designed to allow a vehicle to protrude or overhang a sidewalk or any landscaped area. 8. Minimize potential conflict points between pedestrians, bicycles, and motor vehicles. Required off-street parking facilities shall be maintained as long as the use or structure exists for which the facilities are designed to serve. Section PS: Shared Parking PS.1: Shared Parking The Commission encourages parking lots for different structures or uses, or for mixed uses, to be shared in any zoning district. At the applicant’s request, shared parking may be provided, subject to the following provisions: 1. A reciprocal written agreement has been executed by all the parties concerned that assures the perpetual joint use of such common parking, a copy of which has been submitted to and is acceptable to the Commission. The Commission may forward such agreements to the town legal counsel for review. 2. The Commission may require the applicant to provide a parking study with all information deemed necessary to its decision-making on a shared parking arrangement. This information includes but is ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 26 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE not limited to a) the type and hours of operation and parking demand, for each use, b) a site plan displaying shared use spaces in the lot and walking distance to the uses sharing the lot, c) a description of the character of land use and parking patterns of adjacent land uses, and d) an estimate of anticipated turnover in parking space use over the course of 12 to 24 hours at the site. 3. Parking spaces to be shared must not be reserved for individuals or groups on a 24-hour basis. 4. Uses sharing the parking facility do not need to be contained on the same lot, but shall be a maximum of 500 feet from the closest parking space in the parking lot which is to be used and allow for safe, convenient walking for most parkers, including safe pedestrian crossings, signage, and adequate lighting. A waiver of the maximum allowable distance from the use to the parking may be approved by the Commission with written justification and supporting information provided by the applicant. 5. If the conditions for shared parking become null and void and the shared parking arrangement is discontinued, this will constitute a violation of zoning regulations for any use approved expressly with shared parking. The applicant must then provide written notification of the change to the Zoning Enforcement Official and, within 60 days of that notice, provide a remedy satisfactory to the Commission to provide adequate parking. PS.2: Reduction in Parking Space Requirements for Shared Parking: Where shared parking is provided among a mix of land uses, the Commission may allow the following, at the applicant’s request: 1. Up to 30% of the parking spaces required for the predominant use on a site may be shared with other uses operating during the same time of day and days of the week. The predominant use is considered to be that which requires the most parking of those sharing the parking facilities. 2. Up to 75% of the parking spaces required for uses such as theaters, public auditoriums, bowling alleys, movie theaters, and similar predominantly evening uses may be shared with uses such as banks, offices, and similar predominantly daytime uses. 3. Up to 75% of the parking spaces required for uses such as churches and other uses exclusively in operation during the weekend may be shared with uses such as medical offices, banks, and other similar uses predominantly in operation on weekdays. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 27 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE EXHIBIT C – Conceptual Wayfinding Program Trailblazing Signage = Identifying Signage = Wayfinding Signage = ---PAGE BREAK--- DESMAN ARCHITECTS  ENGINEERS  PLANNERS  PARKING CONSULTANTS  RESTORATION ENGINEERS A S S O C I A T E S 18 TREMONT STREET – SUITE 300, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 PHONE 617 / 778-9882 FAX 617 / 778-9883 A DIVISION OF DESMAN INC.  NEW YORK  CHICAGO  WASHINGTON D.C.  LAS VEGAS  BOSTON  CLEVELAND  HARTFORD  BALTIMORE ---PAGE BREAK--- riverfront island master plan This document was developed as part of the Riverfront Island Master Plan process to highlight information, analysis, and potential opportunities related to key master plan issues. Following public discussion and review of concepts by committee members and public officials, many but not all of the potential opportunities identified within this document were incorporated into the master plan. The full document is provided here. This document was prepared by ORW Landscape Architects & Planners. APPENDIX D PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY IMPROVEMENTS: ILLUSTRATIVE IMAGES ---PAGE BREAK--- A Canal Walk network with trees, lighting, and attractive fencing would transform the district’s canals into special places. ---PAGE BREAK--- A continuous path could extend all the way from the pedestrian bridge at Simard-Payne Park to Lincoln Street and the Bates Mill Complex. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Riverwalk could extend beneath the Langley (Main Street) Bridge, connecting Heritage Park to Simard-Payne Park. ---PAGE BREAK--- A new amphitheater and steps to the River would help transform Simard-Payne Park. ---PAGE BREAK--- A new pocket park alongside the Grand Truck Depot building would provide a new Lincoln Street gateway to Simard-Payne Park. ---PAGE BREAK--- A new bridge could establish a Riverwalk link between Continental Mill and the future home of Museum L-A. ---PAGE BREAK--- Overlooks would provide views of the River and help activate the Riverwalk. ---PAGE BREAK--- Overlooks would provide views of the River and help activate the Riverwalk. ---PAGE BREAK--- A new bridge over the branch canal could link Continental Mill to the future home of Museum L-A.