Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-09 Planning Commission Work SessionAg enda Planning Commission Work Session City of E dina, Minnesota City H all, Com m unity R oom Wednesday, March 9, 2022 5:30 PM I.Ca ll To Ord er II.Roll Ca ll III.Parkin g Ord ina n ce Am en d m ent IV.Adjournm en t The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli"cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: Marc h 9, 2022 Agenda Item #: I I I. To:P lanning C ommission Work S es s ion Item Type: O ther F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:P arking O rdinanc e Amendment Disc ussion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: No action requested. P repare for the April 5 C ity C ouncil work session. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he City Council did not act on the ordinance amendment recommended by the P lanning C ommission last year regarding off-street parking regulations. (Attached is the draft O rdinance Amendment regarding off- street parking.) T he C ouncil requested a work session to discuss the proposal with the planning commission to get a better understanding of the recommendation. T he purpose of this work session if to prepare for the upcoming April 5, 2022, joint work session with the C ity C ouncil. S ince there are three new members of the P lanning Commission, and it has been several months since the C ommission has discussed the issue, staff will present the proposed ordinance changes and background at the work session. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Memo Draft Ordinance Recommended by the Planning Commission Parking Calculations for Recent Projects Comparison of Other Cities Parking Regulations Nelson Nygard Pres entation Parking Ordinance BTE Report City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: March 9, 2022 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Preparation for the joint Planning Commission & City Council work session – Off-street parking regulations. The City Council did not act on the ordinance amendment recommended by the Planning Commission last year regarding off-street parking regulations. (Attached is the Ordinance Amendment regarding off-street parking.) The Council requested a work session to discuss the proposal with the planning commission to get a better understanding of the recommendation. The purpose of this work session if to prepare for the upcoming April 5, 2022, joint work session with the City Council. Since we have three new members of the Planning Commission, and it has been several months since the Commission has discussed the issue, staff will present the proposed ordinance changes and background at the work session. The Planning Commission has recognized the continued need to consider district parking structures, multi-modal options, and a robust mass transit system when it comes to considering off-street parking regulations. This ordinance is viewed as an interim first step to achieve greater goals regarding parking. The following memo serves as a reminder of the work that has been done to date. Attached are related documents that were created during the process. In 2020, the Edina City Council requested that the Planning Commission evaluate the appropriateness of the City’s Off-Street Parking Regulations. The City’s current regulations have not been revised since 1992. Many of the current standards have not been amended since 1970. Issues surrounding parking requirements often arise when new developments are proposed. Developers sometimes seek to have more or fewer parking spaces than guided by Edina’s Parking Regulations, and residents are sometimes concerned about proposed developments that are perceived to potentially include too much or too little parking. Goals and factors considered during the evaluation of revised parking regulations included:  Trends nationally and around the Twin Cities metropolitan area regarding parking requirements. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424  Usage of decades-old parking lots within Edina.  Current and projected quantities and availability of mass transit.  Differing needs for different areas of Edina, such as locations where the City has provided mass parking facilities.  Creating incentives for reduced parking, including sustainability incentives, increasing greenspace, and enhancing mass transit and other forms of multi-modal transportation, such as bike/pedestrian connectivity.  Climate change and equity.  Reducing surface parking lots.  Previous approvals or rejections of requested variances to Edina’s parking regulations. Benefits of reducing minimum parking requirements at this time may include:  Lowering cost for building projects could reduce rents for multi-family residential. Potential to provide more affordable housing.  Reduction in car emissions (if more people use transit, walk or bike).  Potential for more green space and landscaping and potentially public realm/public space.  Less surface parking creates more land available for development which increases tax base, which helps keep residential taxes lower. The following was considered in the analysis:  Parking regulations for municipalities within the Twin Cities. (See attached comparison table.)  Parking regulations for similar and recommended municipalities within the United States. (see attached)  Presentation by Nelson Nygard (parking consultant) with a national perspective regarding parking. (See attached PowerPoint from Nelson Nygard.) Highlights of the Ordinance Amendment include:  Adding incentives for developers to reduce parking including shared parking, bike parking. sustainability and location near transit stops.  Adding maximum limits on parking spaces.  Having separate regulations within the City’s commercial nodes.  Generally reducing the number of parking stalls required. Staff put together a table (see attached) that compares recent projects in Edina, to the current ordinance and proposed ordinance. It shows the number of parking spaces that that the proposed ordinance would have required, compared to the current ordinance and the number of stalls that were built or will be built. Note that variances would not have been required in most instances, which demonstrates the ordinance is in line with what developers are building within their projects. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 The following provides background on the draft ordinance and the changes recommended: Section 1. General Reduction in parking requirement. Uses may be allowed further reductions if located within a transit service area. Some of the more significant changes are as follows:  Apartments – Reduced from 2 spaces per unit to 1.25 minimum and 1.75 maximum spaces per unit. The requirement for 1.25 spaces is consistent with most recent requests for new apartments within Edina.  Medical or dental offices, clinics and animal hospitals – Reduced from one space per 200 square feet to one space per 300 square feet.  Hospitals – Reduced from one space per bed to one space for each two patent beds.  Restaurants – Changed from one-third the seating capacity to one space for each 100 square feet of floor area.  Offices, medical and dental – Requirements are amended from a formula calculation (generally one space per 200 square feet) to one space per 300 square feet, with a maximum of one space per 200 square feet.  Mixed Development District – Uses are amended to be consistent with specific use requirements. Residential reduced from 1.75 spaces per unit to 1.0 spaces per unit with a maximum of 1.75 spaces per unit. Additional incentives are provided for shared use. Section 2 – Planned Commercial Districts. This establishes separate regulations for the City’s Commercial Nodes (44th and France, 70th and Cahill, Valley View and Wooddale, 50th and France, Southdale and Grandview). Section 3 – Parking Space Reductions. Reduction/incentive provisions are added for ridesharing, environmental sustainability, and bike parking. A ten (10%) reduction is allowed if a use is located within one quarter of a mile from a qualified transit stop; to qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. Section 4. Additional Regulations. Additional regulations cover shared parking, proof-of-parking, and prevent two abutting off-street parking facilities next to each other. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 The following highlights the reductions made to the draft ordinance and the current draft: Use Current Ordinance 1-27 Draft Regulation Proposed Ordinance Apartments 2.0 spaces per unit 1.25 spaces per unit minimum 1.25 spaces per unit minimum with a 1.75 space per unit maximum Nursing Home One space per 4 patients or residents One space per 4 patients or residents One space per 5 patients or residents Community Center One space per 200 s.f. One space per 200 s.f. One space per 250 s.f. Medical, dental, clinic & animal hospital One space per 200 s.f. One space per 250 s.f. One space per 300 s.f. Restaurant 1 space per 3 seats One space per 100 s.f. plus one space per 150 s.f of outdoor space One space per 100 s.f. no requirement for outside seating Office Formula based on size (generally one space per 200 s.f. One space per 250 s.f. One space per 300 s.f. with a max of one space per 200 s.f. Residential use in a Mixed Development District 1.75 spaces per unit 1.25 spaces per unit minimum 1.0 spaces per unit with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit Residential use in a Planned Commercial District 1-1.5 spaces per unit depending on unit size 1.0 spaces per unit minimum 1.0 spaces per unit with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit Office use in a Planned Commercial District One space per 200 s.f. One space per 300 s.f. One space per 350 s.f. with a maximum of one space per 200 s.f. Shopping Center within a Planned Commercial District One space per 200 s.f. One space per 300 s.f. One space per 350 s.f. First Reading – City Council on July 21, 2021 Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX City Attorney Revisions - XXX DRAFT - ORDINANCE NO. 2021-07 - DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING OFF STREET PARKING REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Sec. 36-1311 – Minimum number required. Shall be amended as follows: (a) Single dwelling units, double dwelling units and residential townhouses. One fully enclosed space per dwelling unit. (b) Apartment buildings in the PRD district. (1) 1.25 At least 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit but no more than 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit. At least one fully enclosed space per unit required. (c) Senior citizen dwelling unit buildings in the PSR-4 and PSR-5 subdistricts. (1) 0.5 exposed spaces and 0.25 enclosed spaces per senior citizen dwelling unit. (2) In addition to subsection (c)(1) of this section, the following spaces are required: a. One completely enclosed and one exposed space for each non senior citizen dwelling unit located in a building in the Planned Senior Residence District. b. One completely enclosed space per vehicle owned by the building's management and stored on the property; and c. One exposed space for each employee who is not a resident of the building. At least 0.75 spaces per bedroom, plus one space per employee on a maximum shift, plus one space per vehicle owned by the building's management (d) Nursing, convalescent and rest homes. At least one space for every four five patients or residents based on the maximum capacity of the building, plus one space per employee on the major shift, plus one space per vehicle owned by the building's management. (e) Day care, nurseries and preschools (principal use). At least one space per teacher or employee, plus one space per 20 individuals (or major fraction) receiving care. (f) Public or private senior high schools and seminaries. At least one space per classroom plus one space per ten students, or spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, whichever is greater. (g) Public or private elementary or junior high schools. At least two spaces per classroom, or spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, whichever is greater. (h) Community centers. At least as many spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, or one space for each 200 250 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX City Attorney Revisions - XXX 2 (i) Churches and other religious institutions. At least as many spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity of the largest place of assembly, plus spaces for other church facilities which are used concurrently with the largest place of assembly, the number of which shall be determined by the council in connection with the granting of a conditional use permit. (j) Theaters (except within shopping centers), stadiums, auditoriums, arenas, lodge halls, mortuaries, and clubhouses. At least as many spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity, plus one space for each employee on the major shift. (k) Governmental administration, public service, post office. At least the greater of one space: (1) Per employee on the major shift, plus one space per government-owned vehicle, plus ten visitor spaces; or (2) For each 200 250 square feet of gross floor area. (l) Libraries, art galleries. Ten spaces, plus one space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area. (m) Medical or dental offices, clinics and animal hospitals. At least one space for each 200 300 square feet of gross floor area, plus one space per physician, dentist or veterinarian. (n) Hospitals. At least one space per bed for each two patient beds, plus one space per employee or volunteer on the major shift. (o) Athletic, health and weight reduction facilities. (1) Six At least four spaces per court for handball, racquetball, and tennis courts. (2) At least one space per 200 400 square feet of gross floor area for all other uses. (p) Restaurants (except within shopping centers). Spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity, At least one space for each 100 square feet of indoor floor area, plus one space for each employee on the major shift and one space for each loading dock. (q) Carwashes. At least one space per employee on the major shift, plus five spaces for each wash lane, plus stacking spaces in accordance with section 36-1264. (r) Accessory carwashes. At least two parking spaces, plus stacking spaces in accordance with section 36-1264. (s) Gas stations. At least one space per employee on the major shift, plus one space for each 100 300 square feet of accessory retail uses in excess of 500 square feet exclusive of restrooms, storage areas and mechanical equipment. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX City Attorney Revisions - XXX 3 (t) Automobile service centers. At least three parking spaces per service bay, plus one space per employee on the major shift, plus one space for each 100 300 square feet of accessory retail uses in excess of 500 square feet exclusive of restrooms, storage areas and mechanical equipment. (u) Bowling alleys. At least five spaces per lane. (v) Offices, medical and dental laboratories, business or professional offices, financial institutions, employment agencies and travel bureaus. Gross Floor Area (GFA) (in square feet) Number of Spaces 0—20,000 GFA/200 20,001—220,000 GFA/[(0.00025*GFA)+195] Over 220,000 GFA/250 At least one space per 300 square feet plus one space for a loading zone dock minimum with a maximum of one space per 200 square feet. (w) Mixed Development District. (1) Residential. One enclosed space, plus 0.75 exposed space, per dwelling unit. At least one space per dwelling unit but no more than 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. (2) Nonresidential. Excluding publicly owned facilities and uses accessory to residential uses: Shall be regulated per Section 36-1311 above. Gross Floor Area (GFA) (in square feet) Number of Spaces 0—20,000 GFA/200 20,001—220,000 GFA/[(0.0005*GFA)+190] Over 220,000 GFA/300 (3) Where a single building contains there is combined within a single building an office use and a commercial restaurant use, up to 30% of the required office use parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet satisfy the restaurant parking requirement. for the commercial restaurant. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX City Attorney Revisions - XXX 4 (4) Where there is combined within a single building contains an office use and a residential use, up to 40% of the required office use parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet the satisfy the residential use parking requirements for the residential use, provided that the number of residential parking spaces required for residential parking shall never be less than one (1) parking space per dwelling unit. (5) Where there is combined within a single building contains an office use, a residential use, and a commercial restaurant, up to 40% of the required office use parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet the satisfy the residential use parking requirements for the residential use, provided that the number of spaces required for residential parking shall never be less than one (1) parking space per dwelling unit, and up to 30% of the parking supplied to meet the requirement for the office use may also be used to meet the requirement for the commercial restaurant. (x) Multitenant industrial buildings. At least one space for each 400 500 square feet of gross floor area, or the sum of the component gross floor areas as follows, whichever is greater: (1) One space for each 200 300 square feet of office space. (2) One space for each 2,000 square feet of warehouse space. (3) One space for each 300 square feet of manufacturing, processing, packaging, treatment and assembly space. (4) One space for each 500 square feet of space containing machines and equipment for conducting scientific research, testing or experimentation. (5) One space for each 200 400 square feet of facilities for athletic, health and weight reduction purposes; six spaces per court for handball, racquetball or tennis. (y) Automobile and boat sales, new or used. At least one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area, including showrooms, sales space and offices, but excluding service areas, plus three spaces for each service bay. Required parking spaces shall not be used for the storage or display of vehicles, boats, or other products. (z) Furniture and major appliance sales. (1) Over 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. At least one space per 400 square feet of gross floor area. (2) Under 2,500 square feet of gross floor area. At least one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. (aa) Hotels and motels. At least one space per guest unit, plus one space for each employee on the major shift. (bb) Taproom and cocktail room. At least one space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX City Attorney Revisions - XXX 5 (cc) Brewery, winery and distillery without on-site sales. At least one space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. (dd) Brewpub, brewery, winery and distillery with on-site sales. At least one space per 1,000 gross square feet of production floor area, and spaces equal in number to one-third the maximum seating capacity, plus one space for each employee on the major shift for the restaurant. (ee) Uses not Specified. Where ambiguity exists in the application of off-street parking requirements, or where the parking requirements for a use are not specifically defined herein, the parking requirements for such use shall be determined by the city planner or the city planner’s designee and such determination shall be based upon the requirements for the most comparable use specified in this chapter. Section 2 Sec. 36-1312. - Planned Commercial District. Shall be amended as follows: For uses allowed in the Planned Commercial District, except use s for which a parking quantity is otherwise specified, the following applies minimum spaces are as follows: (1) Planned Commercial District – 1 (PCD-1) (Areas include: 70th and Cahill, ValleyView/Wooddale, 44th and France) Retail. Eight spaces for the first 1,000 square feet, plus six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of the original 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding 15,000 square feet, plus five spaces for each 1,000 square feet in excess of 15,000 square feet. At least one (1) space per 250 square feet. Multiresidential uses. At least one fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit minimum, with a maximum of but no more than 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Office. At least one space per 350 square feet plus one space for a loading zone dock minimum with a maximum of one space per 200 square feet. (2) Planned Commercial District – 2 (PCD-2) (50th and France, area defined in the 50th and France small area plan) Parking for uses in the 50th and France commercial node may rely on the City Parking Ramps with a floor area ratio up to 1.0 as defined in Section 36-10. Uses exceeding 1.0 must provide additional off-street parking spaces for the square footage above 1.0. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX City Attorney Revisions - XXX 6 Multiresidential uses. At least one fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit minimum, with a maximum of but no more than 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. (3) Planned Commercial District – 2 (PCD-2) (Grandview, area defined in the Grandview Development Framework) Retail. Eight spaces for the first 1,000 square feet, plus six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of the original 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding 15,000 square feet, plus five spaces for each 1,000 square feet in excess of 15,000 square feet. At least one (1) space per 250 square feet. Multiresidential uses. At least one fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit minimum, with a maximum of but no more than 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. The council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Office. At least one space per 350 square feet plus one space for a loading zone dock, minimum with a maximum of but no more than one space per 200 square feet. (4) Planned Commercial District – 3 (PCD-3) (Property zoned PCD-3 within the Greater Southdale area as defined in the Southdale District Plan) Shopping centers (6+ businesses and at least 25,000 square feet.). At least one space per 200 350 square feet of gross floor area (including theaters and restaurants), plus one additional space for each ten seats in a restaurant, theater or other place of assembly. Atrium areas and mall areas, not used for retail sales purposes, shall be excluded from gross floor area calculations. Multiresidential uses. At least one fully enclosed parking space for each dwelling unit minimum, with a maximum but no more than 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, except that dwelling units with a floor area in excess of 1,500 square feet must provide 1.50 fully enclosed parking spaces per dwelling unit. Such parking spaces must be designed for the exclusive use of residents of the dwelling units and their guests. If a conditional use permit is required, the council may require the provision of exposed parking spaces in addition to the required enclosed spaces as a condition to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Retail. Eight spaces for the first 1,000 square feet, plus six spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in excess of the original 1,000 square feet, but not exceeding Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX City Attorney Revisions - XXX 7 15,000 square feet, plus five spaces for each 1,000 square feet in excess of 15,000 square feet. At least one (1) space per 250 square feet. Section 3 Sec. 36-1324. Parking Space Reductions Section 36-1324 is amended to add the following: Reductions. The following off-street parking reductions may be utilized jointly or separately except as indicated otherwise: (1) Transit. The required aggregate number of spaces for a building may be reduced by ten percent 10% if the building is located within one quarter of a mile from a qualified transit stop; to qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular transit service on all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available between the transit stop and the parcel. (2) Car-share Parking. A reduction of up to one space per reserved parking space for car share vehicles or 5% of the overall number of required parking spaces, whichever is greater, may be granted for any development that provides reserved parking for use by car-share vehicles. Reserved parking spaces Parking for car-share vehicles may be provided in any required or non-required off-street parking space. (3) Environmental Sustainability. With the consent of the city planner or the city planner’s designee upon review of potential adverse impacts, a maximum reduction of up to ten percent 10% reduction in the number of required parking spaces in parking requirements may be approved in the following circumstances: for parking areas composed of pervious pavement or where the reduced parking area is used for a low impact development storm water facility; and a A reduction up to 20% of the number of required parking spaces requirements may be approved by the city planner or the city planner’s designee for clustered site design where if the reduced parking area is used for tree retention or native landscaping. The area which would have been occupied by the eliminated parking spaces must be devoted to pervious surfaces, storm water facilities, tree retention, and native landscaping as directed by the city planner. (4) A 10% reduction in parking may be approved by the city planner or the city planner’s designee provided that one of the following conditions are met is provided for the following: (a) If a residential use: 1 covered, long-term bicycle parking space per 3 dwelling units. (b) If a retail or service use: 1 covered, long-term bicycle parking space per 5,000 square feet of retail or service uses. (c) 1 short-term bike space per 5,000 s.f. of retail/services uses. In order to qualify for this reduction, the long-term bicycle parking must: (a) Be protected from weather and from access by unauthorized persons; Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX City Attorney Revisions - XXX 8 (b) Consist of bike racks or lockers anchored so that they cannot be easily removed; and (c) Allow both the bicycle frame and the wheels to be locked with the bicycle in an upright position using a standard U-lock; Section 4 Sec. 36-1325. Additional Parking Regulations. Section 36-1325 is amended to add the following: (1) Shared Parking. The following criteria are guidelines for negotiating private agreements for shared parking. Applicants wishing to deviate from parking regulations must apply to the City for a variance from parking requirements. Situations not covered by 36-1311 (w) and (x), may apply to shared off-street parking facilities with other uses, even if the uses are in different structures are allowed to collectively provide parking in any district for more than one structure or use, subject to the following criteria conditions: (a) The applicant(s) must provide evidence that there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the buildings or uses for which the proposed shared joint use of off-street parking facilities. is proposed. For purposes of this subsection, no substantial conflict shall mean either: (a) up to 75 % of the required parking for daytime use may be provided in the parking facilities of a nighttime or weekend use; or (b) up to 75% of the required parking for a nighttime or weekend use may be provided in the parking facilities of a daytime use. The application must include a parking plan shall that address the hours, size, and mode of operation of the respective uses. Within the Planned Commercial District, an applicant shall document proposed joint-use shared parking proposals through the use of via the Urban Land Institute Shared Parking Model (ULI Shared Parking, Second Edition). (b) The minimum spaces required under a shared parking agreement shall be based on the number of spaces required for the use that requires the most parking. (c) A form agreement for shared parking facilities shall be developed by the city attorney. shall be protected by an irrevocable legal agreement The agreement must running with the land. After the city council approves the agreement then it must be and recorded with the county in a form approved by the city attorney. A certified copy of the recorded doc ument shall be provided to the city planner within 60 days after council approval of the agreement by the city council. A certified copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the city planner within 60 days of recording. (d) To qualify, the application must show that all parking addressed by the application is located must be supplied within 300 feet of the benefitted Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX City Attorney Revisions - XXX 9 structure’s main entrance. Additionally, adequate pedestrian access must be available between the benefitted principal structure and all parking spaces. (2) Proof of parking measures. An applicant may Applicants who do not utilize other parking reduction sections of this chapter may still receive a reduction of required parking spaces in one of two ways. The first is to demonstrate a lack of need for some spaces via a parking study. The second is to defer space th at is set aside for the required amount of parking spaces which may be converted to parking later. be eligible for a reduction in the required number of off-street parking spaces where the applicant can demonstrate there is lesser need for the required number of off-street parking spaces, and/or there is a space set aside for code complying off-site parking spaces to be constructed if a need is later indicated by the city issuing authority, provided: (a) Where the applicant is seeking a reduction in the total number of required constructed parking spaces, the lesser number of constructed spaces may be allowed, provided: (a) Parking Study. The applicant must conduct a parking study as follows: (i) The city would require a parking study must be conducted in accordance with city-approved methodologies. (ii) The study must be prepared by an independent traffic engineering professional under the supervision of the city and paid for by the applicant . (iii) In order to reduce the number of required spaces, the study must demonstrate that there is not a present need for the portion of parking for which the applicant is requesting proof of parking flexibility. (ii) The city planner or the city planner’s designee shall review the parking study. Upon finding that the study sufficiently demonstrates a lack of demand the City shall approve of the reduced number of parking spaces. Where a site plan is approved with proof of parking measures, a properly drawn legal instrument, memorializing the parking measures drafted and executed by the parties concerned, must be filed with the records for that property in the Registrar of Titles’ or Recorder’s office of the county with proof thereof presented to the issuing authority. (b) Suitability of Deferred Spaces. (i) The applicant must not assign deferred parking spaces to areas required for landscaping, required buffer zones, setbacks, fire lanes, drive aisles or areas that would otherwise be unsuitable for parking spaces because of the physical characteristics of the land or other requirements of this code. Existing text – XXXX Stricken text – XXXX Added text – XXXX City Attorney Revisions - XXX 10 (ii) Conversion of deferred spaces by applicant. The applicant may at any time request that the issuing authority city approve a revised site plan to allow conversion of deferred spaces to operable parking spaces. (iii) The city planner or the city planner’s designee may at any time determine that the deferred space be converted into operable parking spaces. (3) The placement of two (2) abutting off-street parking facilities with continuous street frontage shall not be permitted. Section 5. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage. First Reading: July 21, 2021 Second Reading: Published: Attest Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Project Examples Current Ordinance Proposed Ordinance 4500 France Restaurant Examples are based on the square footage of the space available. 100 seat restaurant (3,700 s.f.) = requires 43 spaces required 3,700 s.f. restaurant = 42 spaces required (using the 10% reduction - transit stop) Avenue on France (project denied by City Council) Mixed Use District Nonresidential = 1/300 s.f. (708,348 s.f.) 2,361 spaces required Residential = 1 enclosed space/unit (239) + .75 spaces exposed per unit (179) 418 spaces required 2,779 total spaces required Mixed Use District Nonresidential = 1/300 s.f. (708,348 s.f.)(10% reduction – bus stop) 2,125 spaces required Residential = 1 enclosed space/unit (239) 215 spaces required (Council could add spaces if necessary) 2,340 total spaces required 70th and France (project received preliminary approval) Retail (50,000 s.f) & Office (140,000 s.f.) = 1,006 spaces Residential = 379 enclosed spaces 1,385 spaces total required Retail (50,000 s.f) & Office (140,000 s.f.) = 702 spaces Residential = 341 enclosed spaces 1,043 spaces total required (1,170 stalls are proposed) 6950 France (New Furniture Store) 10,000 s.f. of retail = 62 spaces required 10,000 s.f. of retail = 40 spaces required (51 spaces were installed) Amundson Flats (70th and Cahill/Amundson) 62-unit apartment 2 spaces per unit (1.25 enclosed) 124 total required (77 enclosed) 62-unit apartment 1.25 spaces per unit (1 enclosed) 77 total required (62 enclosed) (94 stalls total, 62 enclosed approved) Aeon Housing Project (76th Street) 70-unit apartment 2 spaces per unit (1.25 enclosed) 140 total required (70 enclosed) 70-unit apartment 1.25 spaces per unit (1 enclosed) 70 total required (70 enclosed) (87 stalls total, 64 enclosed approved) Hazelton Apartments 185-unit apartment 2 spaces per unit (1.25 enclosed) 370 total required (185 enclosed) 185-unit apartment 1.25 spaces per unit (1 enclosed) 231 total required (185 enclosed) (277 stalls enclosed approved) 7200-7250 France Development 309-unit apts.-2 space per unit (1.25 enclosed = 618 spaces 30,000 s.f. retail/office = 146 spaces Total Required = 764 spaces 309-unit apt.-1.25 spaces per unit (1 enclosed) = 386 total required (309 enclosed) 30,000 s.f. retail/office = 120 spaces Total Required = 506 spaces (590 stalls approved – 540 underground) Land Uses Current Ordinance Proposed Ordinance Nursing Home One space per 4 patients or residents One space per 5 patients or residents Community Center One space per 200 s.f. One space per 250 s.f. Medical, dental, clinic & animal hospital One space per 200 s.f. One space per 300 s.f. Restaurant 1 space per 3 seats One space per 100 s.f. Office Formula based on size (generally one space per 200 s.f. One space per 300 s.f. with a max of one space per 200 s.f. Residential use in a Mixed Development District 1.75 spaces per unit 1.0 spaces per unit with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit Residential use in a Planned Commercial District 1-1.5 spaces per unit depending on unit size 1.0 spaces per unit with a maximum of 1.5 spaces per unit Office use in a Planned Commercial District One space per 200 s.f. One space per 350 s.f. with a maximum of one space per 200 s.f. Shopping Center within a Planned Commercial District One space per 200 s.f. One space per 350 s.f. City Office Medical Office Retail Shopping Center Restaurants Apartments Sr apartments Edina - Current Ordinance 1/200-1/250 sf 1/200 sf 1/167- 1/200 1/200+1/10 seats (formula)1/3 seats + employ 2/unit .75+employ Edina 1-27 draft 1/250 sf 1/250 sf 1/250 sf 1/300 sf 1/100 s.f. plus 1/150 s.f of outdoor space 1-1.25/unit .75+employ Edina 2-24 draft 1/300 sf (1/200 max)1/300 sf 1/250 sf 1/350 sf 1/100 sf + employee 1-1.25/unit with 1.75 max .75+employ ITE Parking Standard 1/380 s.f.1/375 sf 1/380 sf 1/244 sf (December) 1/343 (non Dec.)1/81 sf + employee 1/unit - high rise 1.32/unit - mid rise .61+employ Eden Prairie 1/200-333 max 1/200- 333 max 1/200- 1/333 1/200- 1/333 max 1/3-1/2max1/3-1/2 max 1/unit TBD Minnetonka 1/250 1/175- 20 min 1/250 1/250 1/2.5 seats 2/unit 1/unit Saint Louis Park 1/200-250 max 1/200-250 max 1/250- 1/150 max 1/250 1/60 sq ft 1/bed 1/unit Richfield 1/275- 350 max 1/200- 250 max 1/200-1/285 1/250 1/100 sq ft 2/unit/1.25TBD TBD Bloomington 1/285 1/285 1/180- 1/220 460+1/285 1/ 3 seats 1.8/1 bed-.75 1.5/unit Golden Valley 1/250 1/200 1/250 1/200 1/60-100 sq ft 1.5/unit .5/1/unit Apple Valley 1/150-200 1/150 1/150 1/200 1/2.5 seats 1.5/unit 1.5 TBD Crystal 4+1/200-500 4+1/200-500 4+1/250 4+1/500 4+1/100 sq ft 2/per unit 2/unit Plymouth 1/250 - 300 1/200 1/200 1/200-300 1/40+1/80 kit 2/per unit 1.5/unit New Hope 1/300 1/300 1/200 1/200 1/40+1/80 kit 2.25 unit 1/unit+employ Brooklyn Park 1/181/200 1/150+Dr.1/200 1/200-240 1/40+1/80 kit 2/unit+.5 outside .5/unit Roseville 1/275-1/325 1/250 1/325 1/325 1/3 seats 1/employ 1.25/unit 1.25 unit Burnsville 1/666 - 200 3/Dr. 1/empl 1/150 - 1/200 1/200 1/3 seats1/2em 1/table 1,5 - 2.5 unit .5/unit Mpls 2/1000-1/200 2/1000 2/1000-1/200 1/200 2/1000-1/75 qs ft 1/unit 1/unit Highland Park* Office sites in Commercial Districts sites <15,000 sf: 2.5/1,000 >15,000 sf: 0 for first 2,000 sf, then 2.5/1000 additional sf >15,000 sf: 0 for first 2,000 sf, then 2.5/1000 additional sf 4.11 spaces per 1000 sf Development site <15000: 2.5/1000sf >15000: none for first 2000 sf then 2.5 spaces per 1000 sf 20 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GFA for kitchen area, serving counter and waiting area, plus 0.5 spaces per seat See attached word doc Nursing Facility: .33 space per resident Durham, NC* 1/250 1/250 1/200 to 1/250 sf 1/100 sf 2/unit .6/unit Park Ridge, IL* Office Park: 5/1000 / Professional Office 4/1000 1.5/exam room 3/1000 1/60 sf pulbic seating (excludes outdoor seating) 1.5 to 2 per dwelling unit .25 per bed + 1 per 2 employees Glenview, IL*1/300 1/300 1/300 1/3 people per max capacity 2 per unit 1/3 units Nashville, Tenn.1/300 sf 1/200 sf 1/200 sf 1 space per 250 square feet to 200 s.f. 1/100 sf and 10 spaces for takeout 1 to 1.5 per bedroom .5 spaces per unit Birmingham, Ala 1/300 sf 1/150 sf 1/300 sf 1/300-550 sf 1/75 sf 1.5-2/UNIT .5 spaces per unit Dublin Ohio 1/250 sf 1/200 sf 1/200 sf 1/200 sf 1/50 sf 2/unit 1/unit Charlotte, NC 1/300 sf 1/200 sf 1/200 sf 1/250 sf 1/75 sf 1.5-2/unit .25/unit Sustainable Parking Policies ▪City of Edina, MN ▪Planning Commission Iain Banks, Nelson\Nygaard Tom Brown, Nelson\Nygaard Overview Sustainable Parking Policies “Of course there isn’t enough parking. If you gave away free pizza, would you ever have enough pizza?” -Andres Duany Which uses make your urban areas active? Parking Wastes Land 1.13 1.70 1.13 1.13 1.36 3.40 1.13 3.40 1.70 0.44 0.44 2.22 3.10 1.13 0.68 0.67 2.51 0.38 1.13 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 Administrative, Business, and Professional Services Shopping Center without Dining Shopping Center with Dining Dining Establishments Dining & Drinking < 2,500 Sq. Ft. Gross Area Dining & Drinking > 2,500 Sq. Ft. Gross Area, Free- standing Dining & Drinking < 2,500 Sq. Ft. Gross Area, Mixed-Use Day Care Centers Elementary & Middle School, no assembly High School, no assembly College, no assembly Automotive Rentals Automotive Repair, Bodies Group Care Medical Services: Medical Care Lodging Services: Hotels and Motels Boating and Harbor Activities Recreation Services: Amusement Centers Utility or Equipment Substation Building Sq.Ft.Parking Sq.Ft. If you require more than 3 spaces per 1,000 sq ft, you’re requiring more parking than land use You Have More Parking than You Think Downtown Portsmouth, NH On-Street Off-Street 330 428 456 463 533 553 287 189 161 154 84 64 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM Vacant Occupied Sustainable Parking Policies Best Practices for a Sustainable Parking Program ▪Price public parking ▪Parking benefit districts ▪Expand access beyond parking ▪Elimination/reduction of parking minimums ▪Promote/require unbundling of parking costs ▪Promote/enable parking cash-out ▪Residential parking permit 8 Phase I: Price Public Parking ▪Establish as formal policy that: –Public parking resources will be priced whenever, and wherever free parking will result in too few available spaces. –Prices will be adjusted based on performance (actual vs. preferred utilization rates). 9 Step 1 –Put it in Writing ▪Codify –Access to public parking will be maintained primarily through pricing ▪Define –Performance Target (about 15% availability) –Frequency of potential rate adjustments –Increment of adjustment –Conditions that will trigger an adjustment: •Availability consistently 5-10 percentage points above or below target (85% for on-street, 85-95% for off-street), •As measured by field conditions surveys to be conducted no less frequently than monthly. 10 11 12 Phase I: Price Public Parking ▪Establish as formal policy that: –Off-street supplies will have to be self- financing. –Rates must reflect cost of maintaining the facility, including any debt service obligations. –No new supply will be built until rates are high enough for user fees to cover its costs. 13 Step 1 –Put it in Writing ▪Many parking authorities operate under this philosophy already. ▪Putting it in writing can help stave off political pressure to do the wrong thing. 14 15 16 17 Step 2 –Define New Paradigm ▪Define proposed paradigm shift ▪Outline its many benefits, most of which directly benefit them: –Parking rates based on performance, not revenue •Easier access for their customers •Particularly those not scared away by a $1 charge for the best spot in downtown. –New revenue will be isolated from general fund. •Spent on local improvements, •As prioritized by local stakeholders –Rates will only go up or down in response to market indicators. •Consumers, not planners or politicians, will determine how much a space is worth. 18 Glendale, CA 19 Step 3 –Bring Merchants Onboard ▪Create Parking Benefit Districts –Famously successful for turning around Old Pasadena, CA –Spend new revenue on local improvements. –This was a big step toward getting meters installed in Ventura, CA 20 Step 4 –Monitor And Adjust 21 Step 4 –Monitor And Adjust 22 Step 5 –Invest to Expand Access Beyond Parking ▪Most cities in MN have plenty of latent demand for some kind of alternate mode: –Bikes: Network improvements, parking facilities, employee benefits, promotional events –Transit: Improved stop amenities, employee benefits, subsidize new, improved service –Pedestrian: Support Park-Once access via improvements to pedestrian networks and general streetscape. ▪In most cases, these investments can expand access for much less than new parking construction ▪They also reduce parking demand, thereby reducing the need to increase parking rates for drivers. 23 24 25 Phase II: Encourage Pricing of Accessory Parking ▪Step 1: Stop Mandating Oversupply ▪Eliminate/ Reduce minimum parking requirements –Forcing developers to build more parking than their pro- forma indicates is the best way to ensure that those spaces will be free. –Allow developers to build as little or as much parking as they, and their backers, deem necessary. –If this might lead to too much parking in sensitive areas, consider Maximums. 26 Phase II: Encourage Pricing of Accessory Parking ▪Step 2: Directly Promote Pricing by Building Owners ▪Promote or Require Unbundling –Reveals cost of on-site parking to tenants –Tenants have opportunity to save $ by parking less –Developers must ensure a paying market for proposed supply –Works well with parking maximums and shared-parking incentives. Require unbundling only for spaces: •Built in excess of desirable levels •Not shared with off-site users 27 Phase II: Encourage Pricing of Private Parking ▪Step 3: Directly Promote Pricing by Employers ▪Promote or Require Parking Cashout –Businesses pass on parking costs to employees/ sub-tenants •Employees drive less •Tenants save $ on unbundled parking. –State of California requires certain employers who provide subsidized employee parking to offer a cash allowance in lieu of a parking space. •Enacted after studies showed cash allowances in lieu of parking encourage employees to find alternate means of commuting to work, such as public transit, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, or walking. 28 Phase II: Encourage Pricing of Accessory Parking ▪Step 4: Lead by Example 29 Phase III: Manage Spillover 30 Image: Flickr User johnducguz Residential Parking Permits ▪This is a more effective way to protect curb parking for residents. ▪Like meters these have not always been used to their full potential, reducing public confidence ▪Emerging best practices to learn from, including: –Demand-responsive (matching hours and restrictions to address local conditions) –Residential Parking Benefit Districts (Residents park free, others pay, revenue goes to neighborhood improvements) •Austin, Montreal –Variable permit rates (based on demand, number of permits, time of year, etc.) •Arlington County, Canada 31 Discussion & Questions NELSON\NYGAARD CONSULTING ASSOCIATES © 2011 Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 12 July 2021 Public Hearing Comments Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: Parking Ordinance Amendments VISITORS 76 CONTRIBUTORS 31 RESPONSES 31 4 Registered 1 Unverified 26 Anonymous 4 Registered 1 Unverified 26 Anonymous Respondent No:1 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 19, 2021 13:03:47 pm Last Seen:Mar 19, 2021 13:03:47 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name RuthAnn Metzger Q2.Address 5600 Dale Ave Q3.Comment Since we are in a pandemic right now, I think these changes are not needed. People are not using public transportation like before the pandemic & now crime is increasing to unacceptable rates. We should be focusing on making people feel safe instead of trying to reduce development costs when development is already out of control. People who are single seniors or who have kids in multiple activities are not going to give up their cars so making fewer parking places is just creating more problems. Who is looking at the big picture? Respondent No:2 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 19, 2021 13:06:42 pm Last Seen:Mar 19, 2021 13:06:42 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Joshua Root Q2.Address 6721 Sioux Trl. Q3.Comment Edina was built in an era when car travel was an expected experience. Changes to the parking requirements without understanding the realities the city was built under will result in residents in the vast majority of the city losing access to the businesses and residents being built today. If we change the parking requirements then we need to actually capture the potential benefits of green space etc. to justify the determinant of the car dependent. Respondent No:3 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 19, 2021 13:15:50 pm Last Seen:Mar 19, 2021 13:15:50 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Ann Swenson Q2.Address 6021 Concord ave Q3.Comment I have a friend who moved three years ago into the apartments next to Byerlys in the greater Southdale area. The complex has underground stalls but now charges for them. The two building complex has about 18 spots designated for its building outside.These are hardly ever available. Think Bank has a big “we will tow you “ sign along with the two retail lots that are connected to the apartment buildings. Byerlys also says their lot is only for customers. The front office of the apartment tells its renters if needing outdoor parking to park in the Macy’s home store lot. Their guest parking is more than inadequate and if Macy’s redevelops will be even worse. Respondent No:4 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 19, 2021 14:18:41 pm Last Seen:Mar 19, 2021 14:18:41 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Sherry Hottinger Q2.Address 405 Harrison Ave S, Edina, MN Q3.Comment Reduced parking is all well and good, all reasons cited are valid reasons to consider. The reality however is that mass transit is abysmal and walking/biking is only an option for a limited part of our annual season. Walking and biking in winter, especially while shopping, can be difficult or impossible for many people. Inadequate parking forces cars further into neighborhoods which is also not desirable. I'm not going to fight for parking near my destination. I will shop elsewhere because for me it's the only way to do what I need to do. I will happily take transit if it was available, nearby, clean and safe. The demographics around younger generations are promising for reduced cars and environmental thoughtfulness, but to reduce parking without having the alternatives in place is not a great idea. If the city truly addresses these issues by creating transit which is workable for people by all means, reduce parking. Respondent No:5 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 19, 2021 16:16:02 pm Last Seen:Mar 19, 2021 16:16:02 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name James L Wotipka Q2.Address 7710 Gleason Road Q3.Comment This sounds like another attempt to force people out of their cars. We do not need to win the title for most bicycle metro in the country. Our weather does not allow for practical use of bicycles all year long. As far as public transportation goes, getting to a bus requires long walks which are certainly not safe in our winters. If a residential development has x number of units than at a minimum it should have x number of parking spaces. Respondent No:6 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 19, 2021 17:05:15 pm Last Seen:Mar 19, 2021 17:05:15 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name mary everett Q2.Address 5600 park place Q3.Comment The reality is: we live in MINNESOTA, we have a hard WINTER, we do NOT choose to take a bus or taxi, we pay HUGE property taxes and want to have 2-3 cars. We have children that have sports activities ALL over the cities and we are not putting our 5-18 year olds on a bus. What is with all these appointed liberals with these CRAZy ideas. We want cars, we want to drive. I feel as though the people with this agenda are appointed people, not people that are current residents or elected people? Maybe I am wrong and out of touch?. I don't know who comes up with these ideas but I believe that most residents, who have children as well as those of us that are older, have no interest in public transportation for our everyday transportation. Although it is great to walk to 50th and France I need my car and always will. I think Edina really needs to start listening to the people that live here, not appointed reps from outside our city. Respondent No:7 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 20, 2021 04:44:59 am Last Seen:Mar 20, 2021 04:44:59 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Ann Makres Q2.Address 4912 69th Street Q3.Comment We should not reduce the number of parking spaces required for projects. There must be a minimum of 1 parking space per unit and a percentage ( the larger units) must be be required to allow two spaces Respondent No:8 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 20, 2021 09:29:32 am Last Seen:Mar 20, 2021 09:29:32 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Aimee Makres Q2.Address 6450 York Ave S, #314 Edina, MN 65435 Q3.Comment I think there should be 2 spots for each livable unit built. In my condo there is only 1 parking spot per unit, yet two people live in a unit and each person has a car. There is not enough parking for everyone in my building and many use the adjacent office buildings parking lot. It takes 2 incomes to live in these condo buildings in Edina and we need 1 parking spot for each person. Respondent No:9 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 20, 2021 11:30:16 am Last Seen:Mar 20, 2021 11:30:16 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Mary Landberg Q2.Address 5408 Creek View Lane Q3.Comment Changing to less parking required by builders will result in more parking on the street. I don't think this is a good idea. Look at the newest completed buildings. There is less space on the street no place for delivery trucks, trash removal trucks, etc. to park while they're completing their tasks. Bad, bad idea. Respondent No:10 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 21, 2021 10:21:39 am Last Seen:Mar 21, 2021 10:21:39 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Liberta Ledder Q2.Address 6709 Cheyenne Trail Q3.Comment The city has moved to increase density over the past 15 years. We are now at a point of being overcrowded. Reducing parking would only exasperate the problems we have in the city with too much traffic, no availability parking, and high if not out of control density. Please do NOT change our parking ordinances. Please listen to the people of this community and not the developers. We pay your salary and are not happy with the growth we have seen. PLEASE LISTEN!!!! Respondent No:11 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 21, 2021 11:33:15 am Last Seen:Mar 21, 2021 11:33:15 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Heather Tietz Q2.Address 6404 Glacier Place Q3.Comment Would expect the City to NOT allow changes that would drive increased street parking in residential neighborhoods. A huge part of the quality of life of a neighborhood is whether kids/families can safely bike and participate in other outdoor activities. High level of on-street parking makes those activities less safe. Parking requirements in higher density or commercial areas impact what a buyer (housing or commercial) is willing to pay which ultimately impacts long term tax revenues from the property. Hope the City factors that into the analysis; otherwise, may have short term gain and long term pain. Respondent No:12 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 23, 2021 14:08:17 pm Last Seen:Mar 23, 2021 14:08:17 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Lucia Copland Q2.Address 4805 Hibiscus Ave, Edina MN 55435 Q3.Comment I am not in favor or reducing minimum parking requirements, for the following reasons: Winter weather makes commuting by any other than motorized transportation (a) extremely difficult and (b) unlikely to occur. Winter weather is a likelihood for this area at least 5 months of the year, if not 6. Reduced parking hurts the disabled and the elderly disproportionately. Many seniors travel only by car for health reasons while not qualifying for handicapped parking spaces (for example, because of lowered immunity, back aches, high blood pressure). Edina should be a handicapped and senior citizen friendly community. COVID-19 has shown us the negative consequences of increasing the numbers of people who use public transportation. Pandemics are not going to end after this one. Reduced parking benefits developers FAR more than the community. Respondent No:13 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 24, 2021 07:03:06 am Last Seen:Mar 24, 2021 07:03:06 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Kirk Aadalen Q2.Address 4800 Hilltop Lane Q3.Comment I am against reducing the number of parking spots required for new construction projects. There will be people that own cars moving into these new condos and apartments. Those cars need to go somewhere. Please do not lower the required number of spots for new commercial/residential projects in Edina. Respondent No:14 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 25, 2021 10:56:07 am Last Seen:Mar 25, 2021 10:56:07 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Sandy Simmons Q2.Address 5038 Bruce Place Q3.Comment Reducing the number of minimum parking spots going forward sounds very 'green' but in fact completely ignores reality. We live in a winter climate with snow, rain, ice. People are not going to bike in the winter. Parents aren't going to carpool on bikes. Couples don't go out for dinner on bikes. Handicaps and age make biking difficult. Cars are here to stay and with increasing population and density, decreasing space for cars makes no sense at all. Our community is 'locked in' to its existing space. With the city continually approving increased density it needs to recognize decreasing parking will effect everyone's quality of life in Edina. Respondent No:15 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 25, 2021 13:42:48 pm Last Seen:Mar 25, 2021 13:42:48 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Dorothy Lodahl Q2.Address 5201 Richwood Drive Q3.Comment The premise to encourage walking, mass transit is fine - but mobility and age issues can prohibit using these amenities. If there are not enough parking spaces available - where will people park? In the street and during the winter plowing - I lived in Minneapolis for many many years - I appreciate the clear roads. Respondent No:16 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 25, 2021 14:06:01 pm Last Seen:Mar 25, 2021 14:06:01 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Kevin Newman Q2.Address 7408 Shannon Drive Q3.Comment I am against reducing the concept or proposal to reduce the minimum parking requirements. I believe the number of parking spots should at a minimum of two parking spot per unit. The city posting lists the “benefits” of reducing the minimum parking requirements, but the downside includes • Less desirable living units. o In today’s world, most families, especially those looking for affordable housing, have two working individuals. In most cases, they need two vehicles to get to work. • Crowded street parking with the overflow of tenant vehicles. • An increased risk of auto vandalism or theft. o The TWC is seeing a record number of car and catalytic converter theft. Local news recommends parking your car in a garage of secure lot. Specific to parking requirements, developers should build units based on today’s consumer wants and needs, not projected trends that rarely come true. If the trends come true and everyone takes mass transit in the future, parking lots can be redeveloped into green space. Respondent No:17 Login:Lynn Hechanova Email:Lhechanova@comcast.net Responded At:Mar 25, 2021 16:12:06 pm Last Seen:Mar 25, 2021 22:58:26 pm IP Address:66.182.125.93 Q1.First and Last Name Lynn Hechanova Q2.Address 5601 Dewey Hill Road #302 Q3.Comment Setting a maximum number of parking spots for residential units at 1.5 is overreacting. Many senior couples who would like to downsize their single family home, or who have a second home, still both drive. They may both still be working. Limiting their option to have 2 parking spots available discourages them from giving up their single family home making less room for younger families to move into Edina. We would not have considered moving from our single family home in Edina to a condominium that didn’t have 2 spaces available and we are in a designated senior condo in Edina. Respondent No:18 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Mar 26, 2021 18:40:14 pm Last Seen:Mar 26, 2021 18:40:14 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Bill Noonan Q2.Address 6204 Chowen Ave S Q3.Comment I’m not in favor of reducing the number of parking stalls for buildings. Look at density housing in Minneapolis and you’ll notice that people park in the streets, a real mess in the winter. Mpls has had bike lanes for many years and they’re hardly used between October and April. Sure, a few diehards use bikes all year. Edina already created a two messes. One mess is the building on France where Stripes and others share a dinky parking lot, and a parking ramp with a very steep access. Another mess is the new apartment or condo complex that faces the post office on 49th. I don’t know why anyone would want to rent a condo/apartment that looks at a parking ramp facing north that may have one week of sunshine in a year. I think it is a mistake to allow a structure like this so we get more tax revenue. The idea that someone from out of state would come here to tell us about national trends in parking is a waste of time and money. Does the person lives in our latitude, a very severe cold climate with snow and ice for six months each year? The City of Edina is trying to be a leader in green space, vehicle emissions, narrowed streets, reduced speed limits, and seems to push theory’s that in 40 years everyone will be driving tiny electric cars, riding bicycles, taking busses, and walking to small neighborhood stores, recycling food scraps, etc. Some people may like this life style, but I for one don’t want it forced upon me. I also don’t think we should spend our tax revenue trying to convince people like me that this is the right plan. Respondent No:19 Login:lewi0392 Email:lewi0392@gmail.com Responded At:Mar 27, 2021 14:54:14 pm Last Seen:Mar 27, 2021 21:29:01 pm IP Address:74.81.184.6 Q1.First and Last Name Andrew Lewis Q2.Address 6117 St Johns Ave, Edina, MN 55424 Q3.Comment This is a timely and worthwhile effort on the part of the city to reconsider parking in the context of climate change, transportation patterns, and current development trends. Mandating parking when market forces do not demand it drives up the cost of housing and business development in a time in which both are acute issues. I support these efforts and hope that the project team can come up with an approach that considers the costs and benefits of parking more equally than they have been to this point. Respondent No:20 Login:modern dad Email:tcarlson@carlsonpartnersllc. com Responded At:Apr 06, 2021 07:23:17 am Last Seen:Jul 12, 2021 14:42:55 pm IP Address:96.67.189.61 Q1.First and Last Name Ted Carlson Q2.Address 5516 Knoll Drive Q3.Comment As a 20 year resident and local developer, I am excited that Edina is updating a code that is 50 years old. Focus on transit, ride-share, bikes and pedestrians is very important! Let's figure out how to get rid of huge parking lots that are misaligned with market demands. Respondent No:21 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 10, 2021 12:39:40 pm Last Seen:Apr 10, 2021 12:39:40 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Chris Brown Q2.Address 4504 West 70th Street Q3.Comment This is definitely a step in the right direction! Unfortunately, this feels like a small step instead of broader change. Especially if we hope to create meaningful change regarding how residents, employees, and visitors travel throughout Edina. The E Line, Green Line extension, and improved bike/ped connections, as well as more mixed-use and dense development planned for parts of the City could all create significant opportunity for parking space reductions. I urge you to consider going further with this in mind. I'm not advocating for removing minimums altogether (at least not right now), but continuing to require 1:1 minimum ratios coupled with minor increases in square footage requirements feels like this opportunity is missing the mark. Edina is not an exurb. It's a first ring suburb with significant built environment benefits that provide a foundation for greater mode shift away from single family vehicles. Key items for your consideration: Sec 1.b: 1.25 space min. for multi-family housing, especially when most of that will be in transit-served areas seems unnecessarily high. Could we consider a 1:1 at the very least? Sec 1.g: Why require two spaces per classroom when students cannot drive anyway? I understand parent or volunteer activities but as an advocate for safe routes to school, let's think bigger. Sec 1.h, k, m, and v: All of these have minimal increases in square footage. Can't we do more? I'm not a parking expert but increasing by 50 sq ft seems paltry. Sec 1.w: This is probably the biggest disappointment. 1:1 for a mixed-use development when this development is likely located near the most desirable multimodal connections? Couldn't we at least try 0.8 minimum and 1.25 maximum? Do we really need three spaces for every two units? I've parked in the Westin's parking garage and it's an excellent example of wasted space (and money). Sec 2 (all): Three of the four PCDs will be served by the E Line. All of these represent the greatest opportunity for Edina to aggressively promote mode shift away from SOVs. In addition to reducing the minimum, these areas would be great locations to promote affordable housing via reduced parking costs. Sec 3: Could a provision to promote affordable housing be included? This policy seems like an excellent opportunity to provide developers with the tools to incentivize inclusion of affordable dwelling units within a broader project or fully- affordable buildings. There are examples of other municipalities using parking policy to accomplish this, so I strongly recommend your review and consideration. We are in the midst of an affordable housing crisis and as a City with many food service, retail, and other traditionally low-wage industries, wouldn't it be great to have these workers have at least the option to live closer to where they work? Parking costs a lot to build, and that cost usually ends up raising tenant rents. $5,000: Cost per surface space $25,000: Cost per above-ground garage space $35,000: Cost per below-ground garage space $142: The typical cost renters pay per month for parking +17%: Additional cost of a unit's rent attributed to parking Thank you for your consideration of my comments! I'm pleased to see the City considering this step in the right direction but I know we can do more! Respondent No:22 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 13, 2021 07:30:00 am Last Seen:Apr 13, 2021 07:30:00 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name your mom Q2.Address your mom Q3.Comment your mom Respondent No:23 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 13, 2021 07:33:28 am Last Seen:Apr 13, 2021 07:33:28 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Your mom Q2.Address The DEEZ NUTS Rood Q3.Comment its free real estate Respondent No:24 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 15, 2021 06:55:42 am Last Seen:Apr 15, 2021 06:55:42 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Thomas Hoegh Q2.Address 4407 Grimes Ave. S Q3.Comment "If you don't build it, they will still come." - this should be the city's motto regarding parking. The city's 'logic' to reduce parking is reductive. In other words, there is a desire to reduce parking space so they spin explanations and scavenge for data to support that position. This is really, really sad that idealogues are driving public policy. Respondent No:25 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 20, 2021 12:43:53 pm Last Seen:Apr 20, 2021 12:43:53 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Mic O’Brien Q2.Address 4052 Sunnyside Rd Q3.Comment This sure feels to me like a developer who knowingly built his new building (The Lorient) with insufficient parking, with the knowledge that he would eventually get his way. His subsequent variance request was (somewhat, surprisingly) turned down; however, his new angle is to just get the rules changed. That way, he gets the rent from the large restaurant that he always planned on, the city gets the tax revenue and the surrounding neighborhood takes the brunt of the street-parked cars. Some of my neighbors warned me that this was inevitable — they’ve given up the fight. I guess the city & developer “win”? Respondent No:26 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Apr 22, 2021 09:45:57 am Last Seen:Apr 22, 2021 09:45:57 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Roberta Castellano Q2.Address 4854 France Ave S Q3.Comment I object to any plan that will increase the likelihood of commercial district parking spilling out into the surrounding neighborhoods, reducing the neighbors’ quality of life, and fundamentally and detrimentally altering the character of the surrounding neighborhoods, while simultaneously reducing developers’ required investments into projects. This plan appears to be consistent with City efforts to expand commercial areas into surrounding neighborhoods. At 50th & France, it was discovered during the 50th & France Small Area Planning, that the City had been intending to utilize Eminent Domain, and the City was subsequently found to have inserted into the 50th & France Small Area Plan, an extortion scheme to extract property holdings from Maple Road neighbors, in order to further enable Lunds to redevelop the US Bank site to a greater extent than otherwise possible. This was in addition to multiple underhanded attempts to increase the permitted housing unit density within the district. Respondent No:27 Login:jjan Email:jjanovy@outlook.com Responded At:May 20, 2021 11:26:21 am Last Seen:May 20, 2021 11:26:21 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Jennifer Janovy Q2.Address 4016 Inglewood Avenue Q3.Comment Here are initial comments: -- I have submitted questions asking where standards can be found for electric vehicle chargers and parking design. -- What is the thinking behind parking maximums? Is this to prevent the city from imposing more parking than needed or to prevent developers from proposing more parking than the city wants the development to have, even though a developer is unlikely to propose any more than it needs? --The code revision allows a 10% reduction in parking if the development is within one quarter mile of a transit stop. I live within one quarter of a mile of qualified transit stops, but still need a place to store my car. If there is local data to establish a finding that when people live or work within a quarter mile of a qualified transit stop they will not own or use a car but will take transit instead, then fine. If this idea is derived from experiences in much denser urban areas or if it stems from a belief that we can get people to drive less or take transit more if we undersupply parking in our community, then no. --The revision allows for up to a 5% reduction in spaces "for any development that provides reserved parking for use by car-share vehicles." How many reserved parking spaces for car-share vehicles? Is it one-for-one? The code doesn't make that clear. There are no Zipcar or Hourcar locations in Edina (based on google search). Let's think about this. If it's a commercial space, customers are coming and going. It makes no difference whether the vehicle they use is their personal vehicle or rented. Parking needs don't change. If it's a multifamily use, the rented vehicle may be a second or third vehicle for the tenants. They still need their regular space(s). --The revisions allows up to a 10% reduction in parking requirements if the parking area uses pervious pavement or provides a storm water facility. It allows up to 20% reduction if the design allows for retaining trees or native landscaping. What do either of these provisions have to do with parking utilization? Is the assumption that the code minimums in other sections still require too much parking and so it can be reduced another 10-20%? Do trees and stormwater facilities mean fewer people will need to park their cars? There are tree, landscaping, and stormwater requirements in other sections of the code. If these are not adequate, make them better. Put the "park" in parking lot (surface lots should be green) as a mandate. --Parking stalls are for storing vehicles when they are not in use. Although parking areas are not typically designed very thoughtfully for pedestrians, they are as much pedestrian environments as they are vehicle environments. The number of stalls is only one aspect of parking area design. Other areas include stall size, drive aisles, car, pedestrian and bike circulation, lighting, and other functions that might be served by a parking area, such as idling areas for delivery vehicles and ride share pickup/drop off, electric vehicle charging, waste storage and collection, and snow storage. How well a parking area functions depends on the whole picture, not only the number of stalls. Does the code address the whole picture? If yes, we should review the code revisions within this larger context. --A parking area that functions poorly can have a negative impact on adjacent streets and other properties. Trucks double parking for deliveries or waste removal, vehicles circling the block or hovering to find a parking spot, commercial or multifamily residential parking intruding on R-1 neighborhoods. People tend to look at parking areas as wasted space. It costs a lot and is not revenue generating (for the most part). But providing adequate space within parking areas is absolutely necessary to reduce spillover impacts. --I chose my neighborhood because of its proximity to stores, restaurants and services that I can walk to. For over 20 years I regularly took trips on foot, walking to the grocery store, restaurant or Target. Then I fell on the ice three times in the winter even though I was wearing spikes. Last winter I broke my ankle and couldn't walk (or drive) until late May. Not everybody can walk or bike or easily take transit, for a lot of reasons. Some community design ideals are about taking away choice. If you make it difficult to find a parking space by reducing parking requirements, more people will walk, bike or take transit. That is creating one hardship to create another. For many people, having to walk, bike or take transit is a hardship. For me, it was (and is) a lifestyle choice, but not all the time. My time on the transportation commission and Bike Edina, spearheading the France Avenue pedestrian project, Living Streets policy and pedestrian plan, was about expanding people's transportation choices. I believed there was an unmet need for sidewalks and safe crossings. Uber/Lyft have shown there is a need for ride share services. Tesla, Volvo, Ford and other car companies are leading the way on electric vehicles. If we listen, people tell us how they want to live. Other than ideologues and cost-wary developers, I don't hear anyone saying they want less, or less convenient parking, in new developments. Crowded, inadequate parking areas don't add to anyone's quality of life. So, please, think carefully about the beliefs or assumptions underlying some of these parking code changes. --Thank you for considering. Jennifer Janovy Respondent No:28 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Jun 07, 2021 17:53:28 pm Last Seen:Jun 07, 2021 17:53:28 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Paul Thompson Q2.Address 4244 Crocker Ave Q3.Comment do everything you can to increase walking, bike parking and getting people out of cars and using public transportation or biking and walking.....thanks for your attention to this climate solution. Respondent No:29 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Jul 07, 2021 21:43:00 pm Last Seen:Jul 07, 2021 21:43:00 pm IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name K Curtin Q2.Address 5525 Code Ave Q3.Comment The majority of residents use cars to get around and having adequate parking both on city streets and businesses is vital to continued long term success of the city. If you leave it up to developers they will lie and exaggerate to maximize profits and say parking should be reduced. We NEED to continue to have adequate parking to continue our quality of life and for ongoing access for our residents. Failure to have adequate parking will drive away businesses who can't turn a profit due to no parking for customers and drive away older residents who cannot get to needed businesses when both vital to our community. Please do NOT reduce our parking requirements in the city of Edina. Respondent No:30 Login:rodscholl Email:rod.scholl@gmail.com Responded At:Jul 09, 2021 08:08:11 am Last Seen:Jul 09, 2021 15:05:52 pm IP Address:68.54.106.88 Q1.First and Last Name Rod Scholl Q2.Address 4217 W. 42nd St. Q3.Comment This is a giveaway to the wealthy; a wolf in green sheep’s clothing. The day the city lowers the parking requirements commercial land values will pop up like, let’s say 15% because the potential for the property is much greater now that the city is giving them our streets for their parking lots. It’s true the tax revenue now goes up, let’s say like 1%... and the wealthy get a lot, and residents get a few crumbs. Of course, those numbers are total guesses because the city is not providing that analysis on BetterTogether. The lack of discussion of the actual motivation makes this seem like an attempted sleight of hand. And the winner will be the developers and commercial property owners… and we residents will have a little more enjoyability and ease of life chipped away from us so that they can turn bigger profits. I’m not much of a historian, but even I can see the pattern here from leadership.***************** It remains unanswered how much a typical residential property tax would be reduced in exchange for this parking deal (or what services could be added). If you saved me $5,000 a year in property taxes, then maybe it’s worth the hassle of fighting like vultures for parking. If you save me only $5 a year in property taxes – I’d rather pay the $5 and not be circling in my car creating pollution/emissions while looking for spots in winter’s slush, and trudging along streets with no sidewalks. ************** Also missing is an assessment of whether we have excess parking now. If that is a known fact, publish the data of lot usage. It seems like every category had decreased parking requirements, perhaps excepting restaurant parking. **************** It’s audacious to claim this is a green approach, while the commercial land owners get a lowly taxed windfall to produce more stuff and waste and energy use. Using inconvenience to discourage driving is akin to scattering nails in the roadways -- which might be supported by tire manufacturers, just as this proposal is supported by developers. ************* Would we be better served to reduce the parking, and put a large tax on that change for associated commercial property value increases… and that tax is used to subsidize better car sharing options, mass transit, electric vehicle subsidies, etc? Why is the strategy to give away money to commercial land owners and developers so that we get a few scraps in exchange? ************** If we are desperate for the tax revenue – where is that analysis and discussion? If you came up to my property and said you wanted to have the option to park your cars on it permanently – I would of course ask how much you’re going to give me for that in exchange. And it would depend on how often that spot would be filled. Are we talking a Red Cow situation, or is this just less blacktop sitting unused that we may as well get rid of? And if it is indeed a current excess in parking, why would parking requirements be so much less in Edina than all the surrounding areas? Edina currently has typical parking requirements compared to the 24 surrounding areas, and looks like the new ordinance roughly cuts the requirement in half (once you add in modifiers for bus lines and bike racks, etc.) **************** If one reviews the provided “Parking Regulations for Municipalities within the Twin Cities” it’s clear Edina is proposed to have quite a bit less parking than neighboring cities (other than restaurant parking). If you add in 10% decrease for being near a bus line, (not even counting the additional 10% decrease for merely having a bike rack) it’s clear that Edina will have the least amount of parking compared to the 24 other cities listed in nearly every category. Note the lists shows current, not proposed requirements. And also not shown is the decreasing modifiers for bus lines and bike racks which could be another 20% or even more reduction in parking requirements). When I do that comparison, Edina is *dead last* in most categories for amount of parking required. For example, the summary in the February 24th memo shows that the typical decrease is going from 1/200 to 1/350. If you include the 10% modifier for bus lines, and 10% modifier for a bike rack, we’re up to 1 spot per 424, which is less than half the original ordinance. Therefore, the “half the parking” assessment seems fair. (Again, excepting restaurant parking, which is hard to evaluate given the change in metrics, but still looks typical-ish.) ******************** A tally was done by the city as requested by MNA which proves this “half the parking” assessment out (see here http://www.edinamorningside.org/news on July 7). Note this tally doesn’t include the many possible modifiers that *further* reduce parking requirements. ********************* Looking outside the region, the comparison cities provided by Nelson Nygaard seem cherry picked. No justification for their selection is given. Why demonstrate that we’d be similar to Charlotte, NC which has 15X the population of Edina, a skyscraper-filled skyline and a 75,000-seat stadium? And Highland Park, IL used for comparison is a beach community, and we all know what parking is typically like near the beach given the different land value. The other two cities, Dublin and Birmingham, seem like better comparisons; and I note on a quick review they seem to have almost twice the parking in most categories compared to the 2-24 draft regulations for Edina. Is the point of these comparisons to illuminate that Edina will feel like trying to park in a downtown, or beach community, as opposed to a typical suburb? Again, there is no analysis or conclusions -- just photocopies from four cities ordinances without justification for their inclusion, or why Edina should have parking like downtown Charlotte (or even *less* parking than Charlotte in many categories, actually.) ***************** The arguments for "potential" benefits are listed -- so why not list the many “potential” drawbacks as well? No analysis is given on whether those potential benefits will come to fruition. My economic theory says that existing land values will immediately pop-up after the passing of this ordinance, because builders can put more on them. That windfall never makes it to the affordable housing category. Land is worth more, builders make more, and tax revenues go up – why would that result in lower cost per unit? With the complexity of economics related to affordable housing, we need more than a list of benefits it “may” include. Your new car “may” get great gas mileage… but shouldn’t an estimate of the mileage be listed on the window when you’re shopping?**************** We can agree that too much parking wastes land, and too little parking creates congestion, and is undesirable to those currently living nearby (e.g. Red Cow). Yet, the provided information does not aid the decision or demonstrate the wisdom of the proposal. Looking closely, it seems to actually refute the change in ordinance given that comparative cities have will have twice the parking as Edina. The inflammatory language, and reactionary graphics in the presentation is noted, and given the lack of data or logical arguments, I fear we have paid for propaganda. Worse I fear the motivations of those who have selected that vendor. And even worse, having received the product, I fear those that subsequently approved it as a helpful tool in this discussion and decision making. ************************* For example, on Page 3 – Nygaard argues that, like free pizza, demand for parking is endless -- a false equivalency (and a poor one, because actually people do get full on pizza eventually!). And on Page 6 -- some random city chosen without explanation... no source of the data -- and only concluding that Portsmouth, NH might not know how much parking they have. Are they suggesting every other city also doesn’t know how much parking they have, and so should have less? And we must also be in that same boat? Better, would be an assessment of whether or not there is a unused parking in Edina, and if so at what types of establishments. If that data exists, it is a major oversight to not have published it. ********************* Or, how about data on impacts in municipalities before and after parking ordinance changes – such as associated change in value of nearby residential property values – and increased or decreased commerce and revenues? Or data on whether housing/space was actually made more affordable, or if merely more units were added to increase builder/land owner profits. Also, cruising for parking creates *more* congestion and pollution and is hard to estimate but could be 15%-30% https://www.parkingtoday.com/articledetails.php?id=2624&t=is-30-percent-of-traffic-cruising-for-parking). What are parking needs compared to supply currently in Edina, and what would it be 20 years after the proposed changes? How can our leaders make this decision if the advisors are propagandists -- and how can you expect the public to support it, when they are presented with biased and poorly argued information? ******************** This proposal is basically selling our city streets for future parking usage, so the developers can make more dollars when they develop existing land. It will be gradual, and it's true that the city gets a cut, eventually, via tax revenue on the increased land use. And maybe we need the money for services, and this is the best way to get it at the least inconvenience to we residents. But no such argument is made. Therefore, given complete avoidance of the issue of parking vs. developer profits which historically seem to drive Edina city decisions… and also it strangely leaves obscure the dramatic *decrease* in proposed amount of parking relative to neighboring cities… it sure sounds to me like something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Respondent No:31 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Jul 12, 2021 09:49:53 am Last Seen:Jul 12, 2021 09:49:53 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Roberta Castellano Q2.Address 4854 France Ave S Q3.Comment Monday, July 12, 2021. The City of Edina proposes to reduce required parking at 50th & France in spite of the current conditions. I believe that this is wrong-headed, and that the proposed changes have the potential to further erode the qualities of 50th & France that have made it so unique and appealing for so many years. Nolan Mains was for the most part completed in 2019. Yet, the retail is only about half leased, if that, including the North Ramp commercial. And it is my understanding that at least some of those vacancies have been filled through lease concessions. There remain long- standing vacancies on 50th Street. The Edina Theatre has now closed for good. At the 5000 France building, the corner anchor is gone, accompanied by vacancies at 5014 and 5018 France. How is reducing the available parking going to help the commercial district? How are you going to bring people back to 50th & France? Maybe you don’t want those people. Make it more urban, stuff it with residential, attract a different crowd, more like Uptown, or Downtown? Yes, you can do that, and that is the direction the City has been going in. But that is already making for a very different 50th & France, more like an appendage of Minneapolis. Why come to 50th & France? Nolan Mains is a very attractive building at ground level. But together with the North Ramp, the Market Street redevelopment was a game-changer for 50th & France, as it has changed the character of the area by urbanizing it. How to describe? Narrow, close, keep moving, dark, secreted, a plaza in a pit, ultra-urbanized, hidden, reduced availability of quick parking. A couple of waiting spots is all people get. The first time I checked out the parking underground at Nolan Mains, I saw a smashed window on a vehicle, and the driver on her cell phone (She said she was ok.) The interior of the North Ramp is dark. The new green wall grill on the face of the North Ramp is rusting, and the greenery looks like a few weeds in a vacant parking lot, only on a vertical plane, instead of horizontal. Market Street looks like it is in a downward spiral. How is reducing required parking going to fix that? The Market Street redevelopment established precedents for Lunds to insert high density buildings, and push even further with height, in advance of the long-since-announced intent to redevelop the US Bank Site and US Post Office. According to a traffic study that the City hid from the public-- never publicly vetted--and then snuck into the Comp Plan decennial Update submittal to the Met Council on 12-31-2019, the City has been considering at least another 200 housing units on these sites. And that would be in addition to the grocery store relocating to this area from south of 50th Street. Is the City seriously intending to rid 50th & France of a full-service US Post Office and send even more people to St. Louis Park? The City also secreted into the 50th & France Small Area Plan (2018-2019), an attempt to evade Minnesota statutory prohibitions on the use of Eminent Domain, through the use of an extortion scheme to wrest property from Maple Road homeowners along the perimeter of the US Bank Site, in order to enable Lunds to construct a larger development than would otherwise be possible. The City further expressed interest in making people pay to park! Another nail in the coffin, please? Let us not forget, the City has considered using Eminent Domain to bust the boundaries of the 50th & France Commercial District into the surrounding White Oaks neighborhood. This was verified through a public data request under Minnesota Statutes! And then there is TIF. The costs to redo the public parking in the Market Street project are being borne by the taxpayers through TIF. In the 50th & France Small Area Plan, it was stated that the City might rebuild the South Ramp parking with even more public support, and is even eyeballing nearby residential (much of which was misrepresented, by the way, along with numerous other misrepresentations in the 50th & France Small Area Plan). That sounds to me like even more intent to use Eminent Domain! Through the proposed amendment to the zoning code, the City of Edina wants to reduce the burden on commercial even further, and reduce number of parking spaces required to be provided by businesses. There is nothing that says that the City must revise and reduce parking requirements now at 50th & France. The most likely but unstated reason seems to me to be that it is another preparatory step that the City wants to implement now, in advance of a formal submittal by Lunds for the redevelopment of its property holdings at 50th & France, and not just the US Bank and US Post Office sites. Nevertheless, any code reductions would apply to all businesses, isn’t that correct? Relegate much of the public parking to the surrounding neighborhood streets, right? It is my opinion that the proposed reductions at 50th & France are a bad idea, and I hope that the City Council will vote it down. Thank you.