Steering Committee Meeting

A. Summary of June and July happenings-Rochester Area Foundation 5:00pm

1. Schedule
2. Mayo Clinic feedback on recommendations
3. Developer feedback on recommendations

B. Review of Committee Recommendations and Revised Framework Plan 5:30pm

C. Transportation and Lane Configurations on 2nd Street-Richard Freese

D. Streetscape Elements - Bonestroo

E. Announcements and Upcoming Meetings: presentation to the Rochester Planning and Zoning Commission (TBA) presentation to the Rochester City Council at Committee of the Whole meeting (TBA) Wednesday, October 1st 6:30-8:30pm – Second Street Steering Committee Meeting- Implementation

Based on conversations with developers, Mayo Facilities Committee, property owners, Bed & Breakfast operators and City Staff, the recommendations have undergone slight revision. Below are brief highlights of the edits, which are reflected in the revised draft:

• Minor edits and corrections.
• Removed items that were far-removed from the heart of the committee’s work or not thoroughly studied as a part of the Second Street planning project (ex. live-work projects, transit route frequency).
• Realignment of bike route to reflect work done by downtown bicycle facility study.
• Defer to ROCOG recommendations for placement of east-west bike route.
• Remove Mayo shuttle and commuter bus drop-off area south of 11th Ave and 2nd Street intersection.
• Removed recommendation to preserve 5 residential conversions along 2nd Street ("Mansion District" and/or "Bed and Breakfast District") (Plan 2 only).
• Shifted major north-south crosswalk to a new signalized intersection at 12th Ave. Removal of crosswalk and mid-block signal at main entrance of St. Marys. Eliminate pedestrian/bus conflicts at main entrance location (Plan 2 only).
• Shifting location of pocket park/pedestrian plaza to align with new crosswalk in St. Marys District (Plan 2 only).

Second Street Planning Project: Preliminary Recommendations

I. General Recommendations
A. Land use

1. Discourage one-story commercial building forms.
   
2. Encourage mixed-use blocks along 2nd Street with the goal of improving walkability and connectivity.

3. Create transitions between 2nd Street and adjacent neighborhoods by encouraging medium to high density residential facing 1st Street SW.

4. Preserve the character of the existing residential neighborhood along 1st Street SW.

B. Open Space

1. Create several small urban gathering spaces along 2nd Street.

2. Where sidewalks are less than 10’ wide, setback buildings 2-4 feet to create wider sidewalks for outdoor seating and streetscape amenities.

C. Built Form

1. Concentrate density and intensity along 2nd Street.

2. Encourage buildings fronting 1st Street SW to step down 2 1/2-4 stories to meet the existing neighborhoods scale.

3. Encourage buildings on 2nd Street to contain active store fronts and wide sidewalks.

4. New buildings along 2nd Street are encouraged to be designed as Green buildings to meet a minimum of LEED Silver criteria.

D. Pedestrian and Bicycle Recommendations

1. Encourage centralized bicycle parking (such as on-street bicycle corrals) at convenient locations for bicyclists to park their bikes and walk to places along 2nd Street.

2. Work with the neighborhoods to identify inter-neighborhood bicycle routes.

E. Parking

1. Maintain on-street parking.

2. Encourage shared parking practices between complimentary uses which could allow for better utilization of larger lots.

3. Encourage property owners along 2nd Street to combine parking lots in the rear of their buildings and to connect them to side streets allowing for the reduction of curb cuts, the addition of on-street parking, and the reduction of left turn lanes.

4. Maximize the shared parking system through the use of transit.

5. Encourage parking garages to be on the interior of the block with minimal visibility to the street. If the garage face is visible to the street or neighborhood, it should be visually-pleasing and address the detrimental impact of vehicle noise and light to the neighborhood. Encourage active uses on street level of garages.

F. Transportation

1. Establish a task force composed of community leaders that would promote a better management of existing parking resources, promote transit options, and help implement other transportation recommendations along 2nd Street.
2. Support transit by promoting land uses and development densities that create and support transit uses, such as high density housing, employment and retail.
3. Encourage new developments to provide transit facilities (shelters, waiting and boarding areas).
4. Improve streetscape by incorporating more street trees, ornamental lighting, benches, and other street furnishings.
5. Provide a higher level of signing to identify transit stops and to provide riders with information.
6. Lower the development requirements for parking where employer- or landlord-sponsored bus passes are provided.
7. Reduce traffic lanes to 11’ and assign more width to sidewalks.
8. Improve streetscape on cross streets one block north and south of 2nd Street.
9. Improve crosswalks by defining with sidewalk bump-outs and contrasting paving.
10. Consolidate access points where possible.
11. Incorporate a "linear library" within the streetscape from St. Marys to downtown to tell the story of Rochester’s history.
12. Incorporate fixed rail transit (streetcar) to the corridor.

II. Gateway District

A. Land Use

1. Infill vacant lot at the south side of 2nd Street and 16th Ave with a signature building to help define the gateway area.
2. The final plan for Shoppes on 2nd should shape the Gateway to 2nd Street either through building placement, streetscape or both.
3. Maximize the redevelopment potential to the gateway district by consolidating access points and development parcels.
4. Expand mixed-use redevelopment to include all 2nd Street frontage up to the intersection of 14th Ave. Provide shared parking behind buildings. Provide high density residential to face 1st Street.

B. Open Space

1. New buildings to have a build-to line a minimum of 14 ft. from street curb to provide more sidewalk space.
2. Provide open space at SE corner of Hwy 52 and 2nd Street for a small sculpture/gateway monument.

C. Transportation

1. Incorporate a bike lane linking HWY 52 bridge to preferred east/west bike route (West Center Street/First Street).
2. South: Close 15th Ave & 16th Ave south of 2nd Street. Reconnect these via a new 16th Ave signalized intersection to meet up with 16th going north. Connect new Third Street to 14th Ave SW.

III. St. Marys District

A. Land Use

1. Infill 2-6 story mixed-use building at NE corner of 12th Ave and 2nd Street. Look for opportunities for shared parking with adjacent properties.
2. Encourage 2-6 story mixed-use buildings along 2nd Street. Step down to 2 1/2-4 story residential uses facing 1st Street.
3. Encourage medium to high-density residential buildings fronting on 1st Street at the intersection of 12th Ave.
4. Redevelop properties at NE corner of 13th Ave and 2nd Street to include 2-6 story mixed-use building. Look for opportunities for shared parking.

B. Open Space

1. Widen the sidewalk/boulevard in areas where the traffic lane is away from the curb line, but the distance is too narrow for a parking lane.
2. Improve streetscape by incorporating more street trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, benches and other street furnishings.
3. Provide new pocket park just west of St Marys crosswalk between 12th and 13th Avenues (Plan 1).
4. Provide pedestrian plaza along 12th Ave between 2nd Street and 1st Street (Plan 2).

C. Transportation

Maintain parallel parking along north side of 2nd Street.

Expand city bus drop-offs to 2+ bays in each direction.

Provide a bike route on 11th Ave from Cascade Trail to St. Marys.

Improve crosswalk at St. Marys entry by defining with sidewalk bump-outs and contrasting paving (Plan 1).

Move St. Marys crosswalk east to 12th Ave intersection. Define with bump-outs and contrasting paving. Signalize intersection (Plan 2).

IV. East District

A. Land use

1. South: infill Mayo Properties with Mayo/office facilities and structured parking.
2. North: Maintain SF dwellings on northside between 6th and 10th Avenue and infill medium density residential between 7th and 8th Avenue.
3. North: 2-6 story mixed-use/residential facing 2nd Street between 6th and 7th Avenue, parking at interior of block.
4. NE corner of 11th and 2nd Street: Mayo Administration building. Structured parking at interior of block.
5. North: 2-6 story mixed-use commercial/residential along 2nd Street frontage up to Chardonnay. Half-block depth with structured and underground parking as feasible. Improved buffers between existing SF dwellings and parking areas.

B. Open Space

1. 9th Avenue extension: Provide a bike and pedestrian link between 2nd and 1st streets off-set from existing 9th Avenue. Extend connections north of 1st Street to West Center Street.
2. Urban pocket park off-set at the intersection of 9th Ave extension and 2nd Street. Some commercial uses to front directly on park.

C. Transportation

1. Incorporate an alley and shared parking behind new businesses on north side of 2nd Street.
2. Maintain on-street parking throughout district (north side only).

Envisioning the Future of the 2nd Street Corridor: Development-Related Questions

1. As a developer, what is the most attractive aspect of redevelopment in this corridor? Location-near St. Marys, between St. Marys and Mayo Clinic/downtown; the presence of a comprehensive plan for the area; design standards (especially building materials)--confidence that a laboriously-conceived and well-designed project will not be adjacent to a cheap-looking project; the location is the gateway/door to the Clinic and downtown

2. What is the least attractive aspect of redevelopment of the corridor? Providing adequate parking within individual development sites; the lack of alternative modes of transportation: any increase in development creates large demand for parking; old and hodge-podge buildings currently along the street

3. What land uses do you see as most viable (by district) Clinic-Related Retail (not destination retail)/Service/Specialized Housing in St. Marys District; Housing/Institutional Support/Specialized Housing in East District; Office/Hotel in Gateway District; Destination retail; should be viewed as an extension of downtown

4. What competing developments might hinder development on Second Street? Downtown or other high-density housing development: Condos, etc.; too many hotels

5. What are your thoughts about current market conditions as they relate to the Second Street Project? It’s a great time to be planning

6. What would be the minimum parcel size that could feasibly be developed in this area?

a. What is the feasibility of developing the half-block depth lots in the East District? Feasible-but parking on site is challenging; higher density residential along 1st is challenging due to the parking needs of residents; current lot sizes are not sized to develop anything of significance that meets the vision-City should be VERY aggressive in acquisition; it is nice to have courtyards in the middle of blocks, only very limited amount of half-block development is feasible
b. What thoughts do you have regarding the placement of a new alley in the East District? Essential if only half-block development; Needed for dumpsters etc.; don’t know;

Is the proposed structured parking feasible? Would the market bear the required lease rates? Yes-apparently works for Canadian Honker and hotels;

What are the barriers to developing shared parking opportunities with other uses on the street? In the St. Marys District where parking is most needed, potential for shared parking is not great because the redevelopment that has already occurred has provided its own parking: there are not many contiguous redevelopment parcels that are adjacent; timing of projects; (are there utilities in the alleys?); 3 hotels that are new; organization

What kind of outside participation (public or other source) would be needed to make these development projects feasible? a. Incentives-TIF and Abatement are useful for redevelopment; very important because of small lots

b. Parking Requirements-fixed rail would assist with funding of/ and tenant attraction for projects;

very important because of small lots; City parking requirements for neighborhood uses is too high esp. restaurant;

c. Localized Parking Structure-Would assist with flexibility in meeting site design requirements and desires; would assist in creating a destination-type atmosphere (vs. stop-and-go); helps to stimulate development; helps to organize multiple project owners; very important because of small lots; important that such a structure be public because private market cannot compete with City ramps/rates

d. Site Acquisition and Preparation VERY important because of small lots

1. Do you see the proposed public improvements (small parks, wider sidewalks, landscaped medians, etc.) as adding value to potential commercial/residential projects along the street? Learn from Peace Plaza-very successful

   a. Which public improvements add value to potential projects? A comprehensive plan for the area; Public plaza/mini parks-especially deep sidewalk vs. an alley-type park; small gathering places or small outdoor dining areas; well-maintained and coordinated landscaping and planters; wider sidewalks (14 ft); pedestrian amenities: pavers, bump-outs, railings, attractive passages to parking; increased sidewalk width for outdoor seating and streetscape amenities is great; parking structures that have either active uses on first level or appearance of activity; centralized bicycle corrals; transit facilities as part of comprehensive plan important; Gateway district artwork/monument would be very nice; design standards would benefit everyone developing/owning along 2nd Street; realignment of 16th Ave connection to 2nd Street; amenities that allow people to stroll

   b. Which public improvements do not add value to potential projects? Overly-burdensome zoning regulations hamper creativity and enthusiasm can detract from the achieving the best possible project-PUD-type of process works best; pocket park in St. Marys District is on too valuable a piece of land

2. What are the barriers to developing mixed-use projects (both commercial and housing) in this corridor? Land acquisition; additional parking is desperately needed

3. Land Use and Transportation Concentrating density and intensity along 2nd Street is great but transportation drives development; fixed rail allows the addition of intensive development that will not be possible without massive structured parking; addition of fixed rail to the plan and accumulated land sites will attract bigger, more visionary developers who can get the job done; fixed rail would assist with funding of/ and tenant attraction for projects; very important because of small lots; Parking needs necessitate that the development that is achieved does not match up with what seems to belong or "fit" on a site; trolley would be a big benefit to the area-it would change the type of development that would be produced; would see the benefit of the trolley to the area and would be willing to help pay for it

4. Additional thoughts or comments
   It is stupid to try to preserve the SF character of the residential homes along 1st Street SW; One large urban gathering space is better than several small spaces; the commercial strip should tie into Mayo Campus and downtown; Green buildings should be encouraged; bicycle routes identifies within and between neighborhoods a great idea; on-street parking is not critical; property owners need more than encouragement to do something-they need to be firmly told; not more than 2-3 bus stops in district: exhaust decreases the atmosphere and large number of stops decrease the atmosphere as a place to stroll; reduction of traffic lane size is good-use to accommodate pedestrians/transit users; exposed aggregate is a great material to use for contrasting pavement-not brick; close off the street at 12th Ave to encourage larger development; comprehensive plan will need a "keeper" of the design, some entity or group to act as a mediator /helper between developer and zoning ord. admin. staff