Parking Ordinance

Thank you for your comment.

Marsh Run II recently went through the concept plan which was for feedback alone. Be note that the concept plan is a process to receive feedback on the project. It is a high level look at the proposal without a staff review because the details may change.

it is the formal application that staff would review. Again, Marsh Run II has not reached this step. If the applicant decides to move forward, the formal application would be reviewed to determine if the parking is adequate.

In short, the Marsh Run II project is not a contradiction. The project would be held to the standards of the parking requirements as all other projects. However, as mentioned before the project just went through the concept plan, a formal application has not been received. A formal application is what would be reviewed to determine if the parking proposed meets the city code.

RE: "Ensure the average parking demand associated with new and existing land uses can be reasonably met". Might the planned Marsh Run II development be a direct contradiction with this amended ordinance?

Thank you for your feedback. Your comment has been included in the parking ordinance report. The agenda packet will be available in the afternoon of January 13, 2023.

Hi! I would love if we could make parking requirements more flexible. It would be really nice if things could be slowly made to reduce car dependency and continue to make more alternative day-to-day transport options that are equally safe, practical, more eco friendly, and convenient to participate in our community. Making more accessible, safe walkable and bikable areas that are safely separated where possible from cars. Foot traffic has been shown in walkable cities to generate lots of tax revenue from businesses and reduce infrastructure maintenance costs if you can do all your tasks by walking or bike trip.
Most trips people make by car are short trips, that can be made by bike when biking infrastructure is safe and effective. Bike roads can also be plowed during the winter, and bikes can be designed more comfortably such as Dutch-style bikes which are more comfortably designed for practical daily use.

Increasing mixed-use residential and business areas, while also reducing parking requirements and making it easier and safer to walk and bike to these places will also help decrease demand for cars over time if people can do more and more of their errands and jobs without. This helps lower infrastructure maintenance costs for the city long term by reducing wear and tear on infrastructure and allowing increased space utilization for other things. Strong Towns did a study in Lafayette, Louisiana. Turns out when you crunch the numbers, that the infrastructure cost for a city to help maintain a store like Kohls or Target is not offset by the tax revenue of the store, often far in the red. While businesses that are easily walked to, often bring in quite a lot of revenue for the city compared to the costs.
Eventually people realize it's unnecessarily expensive to own a car if it's not required anymore from improved walking, biking, and public transit infrastructure. If you don't need to buy $30,000 2 ton machine, and pay for insurance and maintain it, then people don't.

This worked well in places like Amsterdam, who used to be far more car-centric in city planning. They transitioned over time to be more safely and conveniently bikable and walkable, with driving being optional. Now their infrastructure maintenance costs became lower as less people needed to use 2,000 lb vehicles to do every simple task, less wear and tear on roads. You can fit many bikes into the space of 1 parking space and use the extra space to build more housing and businesses. It's also much safer for children with less cars on the road long term, so less opportunities for unnecessary death. Getting hit by a bike is a lot less serious than getting hit by a car. Eventually driving becomes a choice rather than a requirement, which alleviates traffic as only people who want to own cars will own cars.

Thank you for the initial feedback on the parking ordinance and for notifying staff of the issue with the draft document.

The ordinance draft has been updated with the underlined document illustrating the proposed ordinance that would replace the existing parking ordinance.

As well as updating the draft document, below staff has responses to questions and comments in the order they were received.

Question: How does this compare to the current ordinance?

Staff response: The current ordinance was adopted in the 1980's. After 40 years of the current parking ordinance, the amendment is intended to update the code to reflect current parking demands for multi-household dwellings and non-residential buildings. Additionally, the update would provide more flexibility to parking requirements, which could result in a reduced number of parking stalls, if a reduced demand or need can be demonstrated.

Question: What aspects of the current ordinance have been problematic?

Staff response: The current parking ordinance is outdated as evidenced by the increase in parking variances applied for and granted in recent years. The steady parking variance requests indicates that there is an issue with the parking demands of the city code. The parking ordinance no longer reflects average parking demand and the community goals.

Question: How does it compare to surrounding communities?

Staff response: City staff researched surrounding communities, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), and American Planning Association (APA) parking standards for land uses found in Minnetonka. The peer communities researched were of comparable size, population, and setting to Minnetonka. The common parking demands of those cities were used as the basis for the proposed parking ordinance.

Comment: I'd like to see residential properties such that are multidwelling (apartments and condos for example) properties have enough parking so it is not necessary to park on the street.

Staff comment: The parking standards for multi-household dwellings has been reviewed and updated in the proposal. The update has included a requirement for guest parking in addition to the required parking of residents. The hope is the additional parking requirement would ensure residents have adequate parking onsite.

Comment: "Parking lots take up too much space... parking lots could also be converted into more parks... It'd like to see the ordinance remove any parking requirements per establishment...."

Staff response: For properties that would like to reduce their required parking, the parking ordinance amendment does provide flexibility for properties that can demonstrate that the site can be accommodated by a reduced number of parking spaces. The site must meet the city code, the Institute of Transportation Engineer (ITE) standards, provide a parking study confirming the site would have adequate parking at the reduced number, or if a parking plan is provided illustrating that the site could add parking stalls if the reduced number was inadequate to support the site.

Parking lots take up too much space and do not help the ability to walk from location to location. They also do not let us increase our density and thus increase tax revenue from more businesses and individuals. The parking lots could also be converted into more parks. It'd like to see the ordinance remove any parking requirements per establishment so that the free market can take over. This will likely result in parking ramps which can be cash flowing businesses on their own accord and would ultimately allow for a more walkable city.

It wasn't clear to me what the changes were. There were only a few letters underlined indicating new changes and nothing crossed out. Generally speaking we live in the suburbs, most people have a car and ample parking is a necessity. There are already too many retail properties with not enough parking. I'd like to see residential properties such that are multidwelling (apartments and condos for example) properties have enough parking so it is not necessary to park on the street.

I find it hard to assess the ordinance, as I am simply a resident and neither a business-owner nor a facility professional. The following would help: (1) How does this compare to the current ordinance? (2) What aspects of the current ordinance have been problematic? (3) How does it compare to surrounding communities?