Spreadsheet: 069a4eea-d30e-4bbb-a113-4d401e9efada
Sheet: Sheet1

# | Date | Meeting | Who | Code Section | Section Title | Use Requirement | Feedback / Question | Summary/Conclusion of Public Feedback | Code Update
ARTICLE II. 63.200. PARKING REQUIREMENTS
 |  | SECTION 63.201. OFF-STREET PARKING (OVERVIEW)
1 | 2009-10-22 00:00:00 | Blog/Online Comment | Resident | Sec. 63.201 | Off-street parking (overview) | Overall | Comment on Pioneer Press 10/21/09 article:  It would have been much cheaper to just have a budget cut in code enforcement, cut the fat.. Don't invent new way's to waste money. | General and strong support for the off-street parking code changes.    Questions and comments related to parking indicate strong interest in and a definite need to match code revisions with stepped up use of parking management tools. | As proposed
2 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Blog/Online Comment | Non Profit | Sec. 63.201 | Off-street parking (overview) |  | Posting on TCStreetsForPeople.org:  We [St. [NAME]] need to start catering to pedestrians, cyclists, and mass transit and need parking regulations and code that reinforce this. The new parking study only reinforces old norms that off-street parking is a must for any commercial or residential development taking place in St. Paul. Valuable square footage in the city will be set aside for cars, not people.
3 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Blog/Online Comment | Non Profit | Sec. 63.201 | Off-street parking (overview) |  | Posting on TCStreetsForPeople.org:  "I think we need a radical shift on how cities think about parking. Instead of some strange math equation 400 sqft = 1 spot, we need to have a process that is more comprehensive and looks and use of the space and existing parking (off and on-street). This would help to reduce the need to create more parking spots where none are needed...A blanket code, which is what we have now and will have in the future, does not work for St. Paul and its neighborhoods."
4 | 2009-11-17 00:00:00 | Bus Review Council | Business Rep | Sec. 63.201 | Off-street parking (overview) |  | The parking code revisions need to support business by moving away from everything requiring a variance
5 | 2009-10-26 00:00:00 | Chamber of Commerce | Business Rep | Sec. 63.201 | Off-street parking (overview) |  | "For the most part I think you have done an excellent job and hope that neighborhoods see the benefits to what you are proposing.  I think that our membership -- and we directly invited some 300 of them -- thought that as long as you were reducing requirements, they were fine with it."
6 | 2009-10-26 00:00:00 | Chamber of Commerce | Business Owner | Sec. 63.201 | Off-street parking (overview) |  | How many permit parking zones does [NAME] have?
7 | 2009-11-17 00:00:00 | Direct Contact (email, phone, letter) | District Council Rep | Sec. 63.201 | Off-street parking (overview) |  | On November 12th the St. Anthony Park Community Council Board of Directors voted to support the draft ordinance which makes changes to the parking requirements for new developments.
8 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | GABA | Business Rep | Sec. 63.201 | Off-street parking (overview) |  | No key comments or questions, they mostly listened.  Almost half of the attendees had already heard the presentation at other meetings.
9 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | HBA | Business Rep | Sec. 63.201 | Off-street parking (overview) |  | The City should do all that it can to encourage business growth, development and redevelopment
10 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | Payne/Arcade BA and DC | Resident | Sec. 63.201 | Off-street parking (overview) |  | Can students going to [NAME] be required to park in the lot?  They sometimes park on the street.
11 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Port Authority | Business Rep | Sec. 63.201 | Off-street parking (overview) |  | Consider meeting with developers such as [NAME] and [NAME] for their input on the revised parking code
12 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | West 7th CC | District Council Rep | Sec. 63.201 | Off-street parking (overview) | Overall | Help people understand the true cost of parking (surface and structured).  There is a trade-off from a tax base perspective between parking and other kinds of development.
13 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | West 7th CC | Resident | Sec. 63.201 | Off-street parking (overview) |  | If the changes generate tighter parking conditions, it is essential to increase enforcement of parking restrictions near corners, where illegally parked cars reduce visbility for turning safely onto the street.
 |  | SECTION 63.204. CHANGE IN USE WITHIN A STRUCTURE
14 | 2009-11-17 00:00:00 | Bus Review Council | City Staff | Sec. 63.204 | Change in use within a structure |  | Should the rule of 5 be retained as an option for businesses who can't meet the new minimum parking requirement? | Wide agreement that Rule of 5 can be eliminated since consolidation will remove almost all instances of small parking changes based on use. | As proposed
 |  | SECTION 63.206. RULES FOR COMPUTING REQUIRED PARKING
15 | 2009-09-22 00:00:00 | Council Office | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.206 | Rules for computing required parking | Establishment with on-sale intoxicating liquor and entertainment license class A or B | Do not eliminate the bar parking deficiency provision in section 63.206.  It allows some neighborhood control/input regarding spillover concerns (parking and people) | Strong resistance from City Council offices to eliminating the bar parking deficiency provision in section 63.206.  It allows some neighborhood control/input regarding spillover concerns (parking and people) | As proposed           (Retain Section 63.206 (c) language in the current code)
16 | 2009-09-22 00:00:00 | Council Office | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.206 | Rules for computing required parking |  | Do not eliminate the bar parking deficiency provision in section 63.206.  It allows some neighborhood control/input regarding spillover concerns (parking and people)
 |  | SECTION 63.206 (d). SHARED PARKING
17 | 2009-11-17 00:00:00 | Bus Review Council | Business Rep | Sec. 63.206(d) | Shared parking |  | If a new shared parking agreement includes an existing business, how is the parking requirement for the new business assessed? | Strong support for shared parking and using the new model.    Some interest in Planning Commission, BZA or District Council review of shared parking arrangements prior to approval.  Site Plan Review to include shared parking agreements; notification sent via ENS system. | As proposed
18 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Comp Plan Committee | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.206(d) | Shared parking |  | Should shared parking be approved by the zoning adminstrator or is there a threshold when a shared parking agreement should go for PC review (e.g., greater than 'x' parking spaces or 'y' parking decrease)?
19 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Comp Plan Committee | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.206(d) | Shared parking |  | Want to encourage shared parking agreements, however it needs to be enforcable.  Consider having a shared parking agreement as a recordable, lease-based document.
20 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Comp Plan Committee | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.206(d) | Shared parking |  | Do shared parking agreements apply to multi-use retail centers?
21 | 2009-09-22 00:00:00 | Council Office | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.206(d) | Shared parking |  | How are shared parking agreements enforced?  What is the process when a party leaves or an agreement ends?
22 | 2009-09-22 00:00:00 | Council Office | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.206(d) | Shared parking |  | Are there ways to facilitate/encourage shared parking agreements?   Can an existing business apply to decrease its parking through a shared parking agreement under the revised code?
23 | 2009-09-24 00:00:00 | Council Office | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.206(d) | Shared parking |  | Should there be a fee to apply for shared parking agreements? Is the annual re-submission of a shared parking agreement is too frequent?
24 | 2009-10-12 00:00:00 | Direct Contact (email, phone, letter) | Non Profit | Sec. 63.206(d) | Shared parking |  | Ensure that shared parking agreements still provide the required number of accessible parking spaces
25 | 2009-10-12 00:00:00 | Direct Contact (email, phone, letter) | Resident | Sec. 63.206(d) | Shared parking |  | "The parking situation along Grand Ave or immediately adjacent to Grand is truly untenable. Your [Brasa] lot is small, the parking on Grand is packed and the neighborhood association has made parking on the side streets a crap shoot. It seems they have different rules on every block all favoring the residents. Why don't the rental units and/or condos have to provide parking for their tenants/owners? I am swearing off the Grand Ave. businesses and am warning all of my friends to do the same as one may wind up spending at least twice what you thought you were due to parking citations."
26 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | Payne/Arcade BA and DC | Business Rep | Sec. 63.206(d) | Shared parking |  | Can public parking lot spaces be used to count towards local businesses' parking requirements?  The city lot at York and Payne is never allowed to be counted to meet local business parking requirements - why not?
27 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | Payne/Arcade BA and DC | Resident | Sec. 63.206(d) | Shared parking |  | Communities should be notified of shared parking arrangements being considered by the City and be allowed to comment.  Locals may be aware of special circumstances that would make a shared arrangement better or worse than the formula predicts.
28 |  | Staff Work Group | City Staff |  |  |  | PED and DSI staff feel that current review of shared parking by staff as part of the Site Plan Review process is appropriate and that concerns about approvals can be appealed to the BZA.  A site plan application that wants to utilize shared parking must include the Shared Parking application/agreement and therefore, notice of shared parking reviews will be sent in the ENS system.
 |  | SECTION 63.207 (a). MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY USE
29 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Bus Review Council | Business Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Consolidating and reducing parking minimums is very positive and will help businesses establish.  There may be a parking deficiency in some areas of the City today, but businesses are having a hard time meeting the current parking requirement, resulting in a variance or not opening a business | Strong support for overall changes to minimum parking requirements because they seem more reasonable, and will encourage development, reuse and redevelopment, particularly in commercial corridors where revitalization is needed and parking should not be a barrier for development | As proposed
30 | 2009-10-26 00:00:00 | Chamber of Commerce | Business Owner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Small business doesn't want to request a variance.  The minimum parking requirements should be designed to make it easier to do business.  Business Owners will provide adequate parking to make their business viable
31 | 2009-11-10 00:00:00 | Dayton's Bluff CC | City Staff | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Developers get scared off sometimes when they can't meet the minimum parking requirement or the cost/risk of providing parking through another means, e.g., buying house next door to turn into a VP parking district
32 | 2009-11-10 00:00:00 | Dayton's Bluff CC | Resident | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Lower parking requirements are good.  When you live in an urban setting you should expect to walk from your car to your destination rather than having a front-door parking space.
33 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | Payne/Arcade BA and DC | Resident | Sec. 63.207(a) | Off-street parking (overview) |  | If the changes generate tighter parking conditions, it is essential to increase enforcement of parking restrictions near corners, where illegally parked cars reduce visbility for turning safely onto the street.
34 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | Payne/Arcade BA and DC | Resident | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | St. Paul and Minneapolis shouldn't have the same parking requirements because they are different types of cities with different development patterns and transportation habits.
35 | 2009-10-30 00:00:00 | Planning Commission | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | How did you decide on that parking requirement for xx use?  (Asked repeatedly.)
36 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | West 7th CC | District Council Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | In general supports lower minimums along with maximums. Need to change the culture of everyone driving in order to make better transit happen.
37 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | West 7th CC | Resident | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Likes lower parking requirements as a way to encourage development, reuse and redevelopment particularly in areas like West 7th where revitalization is needed and parking should not be a barrier for development
38 | 2009-10-21 00:00:00 | Direct Contact (email, phone, letter) | Non Profit | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Multiple-family dwelling unit | Can we get off street parking for residential down to 1 everywhere? This would really help in some redevelopment areas with limited grass. I hate asphalting grass for potential car use. | Support for modest changes to residential requirements and the stepped approach to multi-family housing.    Some interest in even lower parking requirements for affordable housing by affordable housing advocates. | As proposed
39 | 2009-11-12 00:00:00 | MCCD | Developer | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | There should be a lower parking requirement for 3 bedroom affordable housing units
40 | 2009-11-12 00:00:00 | Staff Work Group | City Staff | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Concern about the heightened requirement for 4 bedroom units which may be more common to build in the future for larger immigrant families, who we don't want to penalize by requiring more parking.
41 | 2009-10-21 00:00:00 | Direct Contact (email, phone, letter) | Resident | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Live-work unit | Email from resident in response to Pioneer Press 10/21/09 article with concern about business vehicles being parked in residential neighborhoods | Retain parking requirements for combined residential and business properties, such as live-work units, which require more parking than a regular residential unit.  Vehicles that people use for work are permitted to be parked on the public streets, although this can be a nuisance in some instances. | As proposed
42 | 2009-09-22 00:00:00 | Council Office | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Community residential facility, emergency housing facility, free-standing foster care home, overnight shelter, shelter for battered persons, transitional housing facility | A great deal of work and public input was put into the provisions for Sober Houses, including the level of required parking.  It makes sense to have a the same requirement for similar types of uses, e.g. community residential facilities | Few comments on parking changes for community residential facilties.  One person thought sober houses require more parking than other like facilities and another person thought they need less.  Retain proposal to change parking requirement to be same for all these facilities.    Parking requirements for Community Residential Facilities can be reviewed when a zoning study for all these types of facilities is undertaken in 2010. | As proposed
43 | 2009-10-13 00:00:00 | District Council | District Council Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Parking requirements by use |  | In the Frogtown area Armor Properties is buying a number of single-family houses to turn into prisoner housing. What type of use is prisoner housing?  Are there restrictions on how many prisoner houses can be in proximity to one another (similar to sober houses)?
44 | 2009-10-30 00:00:00 | Planning Commission | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Sober houses are not a proxy for what other community residential facilities should require for parking because sober houses have no staff, while the other types do, and thus they may need more parking than sober houses.
45 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | West 7th CC | Resident | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Sober house | Perhaps sober houses should provide more parking than similar uses; they tend to host meetings and attract visitors to the area who drive in cars.  How can this be better handled? | Little comment on parking changes for sober houses.  One person thought sober houses require more parking than other like facilities (e.g., community residential facilties) and another person thought they need less.   Sober House parking was considered as part of a broader study and public hearing process to regulate the use.  Retain proposal to change parking requirement to be same for all these facilities. | As proposed
46 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Comp Plan Committee | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Day care | For educational related facilities, consider drop-off/pick-up parking spaces | Only 1 comment. | As proposed
47 | 2009-11-18 00:00:00 | Colleges & Universities | College Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | College, university, seminary, technical college, trade school, business school, arts school, dance school | Retain the current parking requirements for colleges and universities and the annual reporting system. Student and employee counts are an imperfect estimate of parking demand, but are better than anything else.  Expansion of GFA for classrooms and offices is often done to enhance facilties and compete in the market -- it doesn't approximate more people coming to campus. | Colleges and university reps felt strongly that student and employee counts are an imperfect estimate of parking demand, but are better than anything else.  Expansion of GFA for classrooms and offices is often done to enhance facilties and compete in the market -- it doesn't approximate more people coming to campus.    Retain the current parking requirements and the annual reporting system, but make some adjustments to it to better count student types and consider possible parking requirement reductions for implementation of TDM plans. | Retain current parking requirements for these uses.
48 | 2009-11-18 00:00:00 | Colleges & Universities | College Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Review and update the existing annual reporting system to collect data that better approximates the peak head count of students/employees on campus.  Current data is based on FT vs. PT students. However, there are many different types of non-traditional students on some campuses, e.g., evening, weekend, on-line, study abroad, etc.
49 | 2009-11-18 00:00:00 | Colleges & Universities | College Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | consider whether Trade Schools like Rasmussen College should be subject to the annual parking review process
50 | 2009-11-07 00:00:00 | Como Park Pavillion | Resident | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Campuses should be required to provide some designated visitor parking.  I've had trouble finding this at [NAME] and then had to circle the nrighborhood to find something.
51 | 2009-10-13 00:00:00 | District Council | District Council Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Parking requirements by use |  | For colleges where parking is underutilized (e.g., Metro State) additional parking shouldn't be added. In these cases is there a way to enforce that students use the existing parking?
52 | 2009-11-12 00:00:00 | MCCD | Developer | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Public library | It's a public good to provide parking for libraries, rec centers, and other public amenities.  The parking requirement should not be set too low for these uses. | Strong support for overall changes to minimum parking requirements because they seem more reasonable, and will encourage development, reuse and redevelopment, particularly in commercial corridors where revitalization is needed and parking should not be a barrier for development. | As proposed
53 | 2009-11-10 00:00:00 | Dayton's Bluff CC | Resident | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Church, chapel, synagogue, place of worship | What is a typical size for a main unit of worship?  Is the proposed GFA appropriate for the size of the building?  What are some examples comparing the old and new requirements for a couple of specific church properties?  Some churches lease their space during off-peak times, which is good. | Support for moving to GFA requirement for places of worship, but people want to be sure it’s a requirement that meets average, weekly demand for the use. | TBD - Analyze some local churches and confirm the appropriate GFA requirement.
54 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | HBA | Business Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | There are a number of neighborhood churches with existing parking deficiencies.  Need to make sure the proposed sq ft GFA parking requirement is appropriate for places of worship
55 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Port Authority | Business Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Office (including, but not limited to: administrative, financial, insurance, professional, real estate, and sales offices) | The City competes with the suburbs on business relocation; parking availability is one dimension of it. In deals that the Port puts together the parking requirement for offices is 5 spaces per 1000 sq ft GFA (1:200 compared to the 1:400 proposed in revised code).  The parking spaces could have been filled in better economic times. | Strong support for changing retail and office uses to 1:400.  Some concern raised regarding competing for business with suburbs offering ample parking | As proposed
56 | 2009-10-26 00:00:00 | Chamber of Commerce | Business Owner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | What are the retail and office requirements for other cities?
57 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Port Authority | Business Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Medical or dental clinic, medical laboratory | Medical uses are more intense than other office uses.  For example the [NAME] medical buildings were parked at 6 spaces per 1000 sq ft GFA (1:166) | Range from min. to [NAME]. allows for reasonable accommodation of parking for medical offices. | As proposed
58 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Comp Plan Committee | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | General retail, service business, etc. | Consider a higher parking standard for "sin" businesses, e.g., tobacco, tatoo shop, gun shop, shooting gallery, pawn shop, liquor store | Strong support for changing retail and office uses to 1:400.  Strong support for overall changes to minimum parking requirements because they seem more reasonable, and will encourage development, reuse and redevelopment, particularly in commercial corridors where revitalization is needed and parking should not be a barrier for development.  Some concern raised regarding competing for business with suburbs offering ample parking. | As proposed
59 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Bus Review Council | Business Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Reduction to minimums and consolidation for retail/office uses long overdue and will make City's commercial corridors more successful and easier for entreprenuers.
60 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | Payne/Arcade BA and DC | Business Owner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Payne Avenue commercial spaces have trouble turning over or being leased because of difficulty making changes to required parking when the use changes.  Consolidation of requirements for office and retail uses would be very beneficial in addressing this problem!
61 | 2009-10-30 00:00:00 | Planning Commission | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | How does the Trader Joes parking match with our current and proposed requirements?  How about the new Mississippi Market on W. 7th?  ([NAME] development: 19,920 sq ft (14,420 grocery, 1000 coffee, 4500 retail) GFA = 83 current required spaces.  It provided 120 spaces.  Under proposed changes, all uses would park at 1 per 400 = 19,920 sq ft / 400 = 50 spaces minimum / 85 spaces maximum.   Mississippi Market on Selby = 11,200 sq ft and currently requires 45 spaces.  Under proposed change to 1/400, it would require 28 spaces.  The main lot today provides 26 spaces +20-30 more in adjacent lot.)
62 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | Payne/Arcade BA and DC | Property Owner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | St. Paul should set it's minimum commercial parking requirements at 1/500 like Minneapolis so that there is a level playing field.  As a comemrcial property owner, he has experience losing tenants due to parking issues and they often then look at locating in Mpls.
63 | 2009-10-13 00:00:00 | District Council | District Council Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Parking requirements by use | Mortuary, funeral home | Majority of new funeral homes built today are Hmong funeral homes with different customs and hours of operation compared to traditional funeral homes.  The parking requirement for funeral homes shouldn't be decreased | Not many comments, but those that did comment felt very strongly that parking requirement for funeral homes and mortuaries should not change, since these places have strong, peak demand usage, sometimes lasting for days.    Parking management tools may have to be employed to handle these uses with historic parking deficits. | Keep current parking standard of 1:150.
64 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | Payne/Arcade BA and DC | Resident | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Can the requirements for funeral homes be increased?  There are a lot of parking spillover issues related to a Hmong funeral home in my neighborhood.  District 5 staff said that they are about to engage in a mediation process with the funeral home to address some of the community issues and tensions.
65 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Comp Plan Committee | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Dance hall, bingo hall, assembly halls without fixed seats, exhibition hall, reception hall | Consider an appropriate parking standard for businesses with short, but intense peak hours, e.g., events at reception halls, funeral homes | Only 1 comment.  Staff believe [NAME], etc. should have a lower parking requirement than establishments with liquor and entertainment licenses, but a higher requirement than general restaurants. | [NAME] halls, etc. to 1/200
66 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | Payne/Arcade BA and DC | Business Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Establishment with on-sale intoxicating liquor and entertainment license class A or B | Why not have lower parking requirements for establishments with liquor and entertainment licenses? 1/100 seems too high and will make it difficult for these types of places to move in. | General support for higher parking requirement for establishments with liquor and Entertainment Licenses A and B.   Only one person spoke in favor of having these places be the same as restaurants, in order for them to open more easily in commercial areas. | As proposed
67 | 2009-09-01 00:00:00 | Comp Plan Committee | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Restaurant with strong malt/wine and entertainment license class A | Consider an appropriate parking standard for restaurants and bars with entertainment licenses but without liquor | Establishments with beer/wine and entertainment license class A treated as a restaurant.    Strong support for eating establishments to have the same parking requirement as retail and office uses. | Make parking requirement for establishments with beer/wine and entertainment license class A the same as restaurants (1/400)
68 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | West 7th CC | Resident | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | The turnover of patrons is less if a restaurant has a class A license.  [NAME] a higher parking requirement than other restaurants.
69 | 2009-09-22 00:00:00 | Mayor's Office | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Restaurant, carry-out, deli, fast food, with or without strong malt/wine or liquor | Having the same parking requirement for restaurants as retail/office would provide regional consistency [with [NAME]] and provide for easier reuse and redevelopment.  If eating establishments have a parking requirement similar to retail/office, then consider higher parking maximum. | Strong support for eating establishments to have the same parking requirement as retail and office uses.    Having the same requirement can encourage development, reuse and redevelopment particularly in commercial corridors where revitalization is needed and parking should not be a barrier for development.  Concerns raised regarding parking spillover into neighborhoods and expanded on-street parking restrictions. | Change eating establishments to 1/400
70 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Bus Review Council | Business Owner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Parking for eating places should be at 1/200 because parking at only 1/400 sets up problems for the business and its neighobrs, competition for limited spaces, and could result in business failure if patrons don't come because they can't find a place to park.
71 | 2009-11-17 00:00:00 | Bus Review Council | Business Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Prefers the 1:400 parking requirement over 1:200 for eating establishments as a way to encourage infill development where land is scarce and the development cost for parking becomes expensive
72 | 2009-10-26 00:00:00 | Chamber of Commerce | Business Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Allow eating places to be 1 per 400 like other retail/office, knowing that most people will provide more than that if they need it.  However, allow a higher maximum in this case.
73 | 2009-11-07 00:00:00 | Como Park Pavillion | Business Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Businesses may prefer the 1:400 requirement over the 1:200 requirement so long as permit parking doesn't expand to such a level that disallows any spillover from restaurant patrons
74 | 2009-09-22 00:00:00 | Council Office | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Fast-food restaurants may require/want larger lots to accommodate a customer base with larger vehicles, e.g. buses, utility vehicles, etc.  Site design standards for where parking should be located can be in conflict with typical fast-food locations
75 | 2009-11-10 00:00:00 | Dayton's Bluff CC | Non Profit | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Prefers the 1:400 parking requirement over 1:200 for eating establishments from a land use perspective, to encourage other forms of transportation, and environmental stewardship.
76 | 2009-11-10 00:00:00 | Dayton's Bluff CC | Resident | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Prefers the 1:400 parking requirement as a means to drive multi-modal use.
77 | 2009-11-17 00:00:00 | Direct Contact (email, phone, letter) | District Council Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | The SAPCC recommends requiring even less parking, particularly for eating establishments. SAPCC would rather see the requirement at 400 sq feet than 200, which would allow more neighborhood [NAME]’s and restaurants in areas such as Como and [NAME], which do not have a lot of available land for parking lots.
78 | 2009-11-12 00:00:00 | MCCD | Developer | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Make eating places 1/400, just like retail and office uses.  This is a good idea for reuse and commercial revitalization.
79 | 2009-11-03 00:00:00 | Metro IBA | Business Owner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Concerned that eating places and coffee shops already have restricted parking in areas like Grand Ave.  Further reductions, especially to 1 per 400 would be too steep and lack of available parking would drive away customers.
80 | 2009-11-03 00:00:00 | Metro IBA | Business Owner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Eating places at 1 per 400 would create some spillover parking and competition for limited spaces, but if these places move in next door, it creates more potential customers for adjacent businesses and is therefore worth the parking hassles.
81 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | Payne/Arcade BA and DC | Property Owner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | 1/400 for eating places would be great because it would make it easier for entrepreneurs to establish a restaurant or coffee shop since they wouldn't have to add parking to lease a space.
82 | 2009-10-30 00:00:00 | Planning Commission | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Restaurant, carry-out, deli, fast food, with or without strong malt/wine or liquor | If we allow eating places at 1 per 400, can we limit how many there are in proximity to one another or the size of the establishments to avoid overconcentration of potential parking spillover establishments? | Strong support for eating establishments to have the same parking requirement as retail and office uses.    Having the same requirement can encourage development, reuse and redevelopment particularly in commercial corridors where revitalization is needed and parking should not be a barrier for development.  Concerns raised regarding parking spillover into neighborhoods and expanded on-street parking restrictions. | Change eating establishments to 1/400
83 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | West 7th CC | Resident | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Prefers the 1:200 parking requirement rather than 1:400.  If a restaurant can't supply the minimum required parking then would need to seek a variance, which allows a needed checkpoint in the process.  Intensification of activity may result in safety issues.
84 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | West 7th CC | Resident | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | What has been the experience of other cities, e.g., Milwaukee, Denver, who have had the same office and eating establishment in place for awhile?
85 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | West 7th CC | District Council Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | Prefers the 1:400 parking requirement over 1:200 for eating establishments from a land use perspective and to encourage other forms of transportation.
86 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Comp Plan Committee | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Automobile repair station, service station, body shop, specialty store | Is there a trade-off between parking for auto repair and auto storage space? | One part of the city is concerned about auto repair and service businesses going to 1/400 causing spillover or alternative use of those spaces on the property.   However, there will be very few instances of redev./new devel triggering the requirement and thus it doesn't matter much either way if it changes.    CUPs are required for auto-related uses to address broader concerns about the business' look and operations. | As proposed
87 | 2009-10-13 00:00:00 | District Council | District Council Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Parking requirements by use |  | In some areas of the city there may be concerns with decreasing the parking requirement for auto-related uses (e.g., repair, sales)
88 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | Payne/Arcade BA and DC | Resident | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use |  | It makes sense for auto convenience businesses to be at the 1/400 requirement, but auto repair and service businesses are different and are a big problem in the neighborhood.  Do not lower the requirement for these businesses; "it's the wrong message for the chronic offender".  If these businesses don't need as many parking places for customers, they may start to use the extra spaces for parking more repair vehicles.
89 |  | Staff Work Group | City Staff |  |  |  | Parking for auto repair and services should be 1/400, like other retail and office, because the intensity of parking created by the use is similar; there is no justification for it to be higher.  CUPs are required for these businesses and issues and concerns about the look and operation of the business (e.g., vehicle storage) can be dealt with better in the CUP, than by needlessly requiring more parking than needed.
90 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Port Authority | Business Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Limited production and processing | Ok with minimum parking requirement for Limited Production and Processing and Industrial/Manufacturing, assuming that associated office space is calculated separately. | 1 comment - liked it. | As proposed
91 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Port Authority | Business Rep | Sec. 63.207(a) | Minimum parking requirements by use | Wholesale establishment, warehousing and storage | Wholesaling has a higher intensity of use than warehousing and storage (e.g., J&J).  Therefore, they should not have the same parking requirement | Little comment on parking for wholesaling, however raised important concern that wholesaling businesses are more intense than warehousing.   Retained current requirement for wholesaling; warehousing and storage change as proposed. | Keep current Wholesaling parking standard at 1/1,500
 |  | SECTION 63.207 (b). REDUCED PARKING MINIMUMS
92 | 2009-11-18 00:00:00 | Colleges & Universities | College Rep | Sec. 63.207(b) | Reduced parking minimums | College, university, seminary, technical college, trade school, business school, arts school, dance school | If additional minimum parking is required for a particular college or university due to changes in head count, then they should be able to use incentives for decreasing parking such as bike parking, share-car, shared-parking agreements, etc. | Support for further reductions to minimum parking requirements through shared parking arrangements, bike parking and mixed-use corridors, particularly in commercial corridors where revitalization is needed and parking should not be a barrier for development | As proposed
93 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Blog/Online Comment | Non Profit | Sec. 63.207(b) | Reduced parking minimums |  | Posting on TCStreetsForPeople.org:  "Parking needs to be a premium and no longer free and eat into the costs of opening a small business or doing development projects. With car sharing, bike parking, and access to mass transit would give projects points that eliminate the need to create new off-street parking..."
94 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Blog/Online Comment | Other | Sec. 63.207(b) | Reduced parking minimums |  | Posting on TCStreetsForPeople.org:  "Reducing the width of the street or the number of parking spaces WILL NOT make more people ride bikes or take buses...A bike or bus is not always an option."
 |  | SECTION 63.207 (c), (d). MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY USE
95 | 2009-10-26 00:00:00 | Chamber of Commerce | Business Owner | Sec. 63.207(c), (d) | Maximum parking requirements by use | Establishment with on-sale intoxicating liquor and entertainment license class A or B | Maximum seems too restrictive.  What would be the minimum - maximum range for my business under the proposed changes? | General support for applying parking maximums across the City.  Mixed feedback on the maximum parking ceiling: some thought it was too high, others thought it was too restrictive.   Concerns raised about not providing adequate parking to meet an individual business' needs and the cost of seeking a variance.  Require a Conditional Use Permit when a property wants to exceed the parking maximum. Increase parking maximums for eating establishments in light of significantly lower parking minimums. | Require CUP when maximum is exceeded.  Set maximum for eating establishments at 300%, if minimum at 1/400.
96 | 2009-10-26 00:00:00 | Chamber of Commerce | Business Rep | Sec. 63.207(c), (d) | Maximum parking requirements by use | General retail, service business, etc. | Talk to Target and find out what they think of the maximum parking requirements for their type of business.
97 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Blog/Online Comment | Resident | Sec. 63.207(c), (d) | Maximum parking requirements by use |  | Posting on TCStreetsForPeople.org:  "off-street parking is a must for any commercial or residential property. There are only 2 things that happen when there's no parking - 1, everyone parks on the street...Or 2, most people won't go there any more... The argument seems to be that by reducing the amount of parking, you'll magically create alternative transportation. It might make some sort of sense if at least you were replacing the parking with alternative transportation using that same space. But when you just build more condos and businesses, all it results in is a mess."
98 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Bus Review Council | Business Owner | Sec. 63.207(c), (d) | Maximum parking requirements by use |  | In principle, maximum parking is bad because it is not up to the government to tell someone how much parking is too much.  Extra parking does not hurt anything, but can be cheaper than landscaping, good for attracting customers, a revenue source when leased out to others, and can be leased or donated for seasonal use.
99 | 2009-10-26 00:00:00 | Chamber of Commerce | Business Rep | Sec. 63.207(c), (d) | Maximum parking requirements by use |  | Consider varying the [NAME] requirement by type of use (particularly for restaurants). In general a parking [NAME] will have more of an impact in less developed areas of the City where land is available to add parking.
100 | 2009-11-07 00:00:00 | Como Park Pavillion | Business Rep | Sec. 63.207(c), (d) | Maximum parking requirements by use |  | Seeking a variance can be time consuming and expensive.  Instead of having a maximum parking ceiling of 170%, just add another step of even higher landscaping requirements to offest the negative aspects of larger parking lots; be more flexible to allow people to go above the maximum.
101 | 2009-11-07 00:00:00 | Como Park Pavillion | Business Owner | Sec. 63.207(c), (d) | Maximum parking requirements by use |  | The City needs to consider the economic impact to a business that is not allowed to supply the amount of parking needed to serve its customers.  I'm concerned that the maximum would prevent me from adding as many spaces as I need to accommodate my customers.
102 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Comp Plan Committee | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(c), (d) | Maximum parking requirements by use |  | Consider requiring a CUP rather than [NAME] if development wants to exceed the parking maximum
103 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Comp Plan Committee | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(c), (d) | Maximum parking requirements by use |  | Why is structured parking better than surface parking with stormwater landscaping and other conditions?   Are there unintended consequences of allowing structured parking (without a CUP or variance) when the [NAME] is exceeded?
104 | 2009-09-22 00:00:00 | Council Office | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.207(c), (d) | Maximum parking requirements by use |  | Is oversupply of parking really an issue today?  Are there examples of sites with greater than 170% of the parking minimum?
105 | 2009-11-10 00:00:00 | Dayton's Bluff CC | Non Profit | Sec. 63.207(c), (d) | Maximum parking requirements by use |  | A max of 170% still seems too high.   Consider requiring a TDM plan if want to park above the maximum.
106 | 2009-09-15 00:00:00 | Other | City Staff | Sec. 63.207(c), (d) | Maximum parking requirements by use |  | Does the [NAME] requirement send a message to big business that "we don't want them in [NAME]?"
107 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | West 7th CC | Resident | Sec. 63.207(c), (d) | Maximum parking requirements by use |  | Areas like Grand Ave where there is a perceived parking deficiency should consider a Parking Improvement District, cooperative parking arrangements, etc. to meet its parking needs at a macro level
108 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | Payne/Arcade BA and DC | Resident | Sec. 63.207(c), (d) | Maximum parking requirements by use |  | Why are parking maximums triggered in a lot of 10 or more spaces?  Why is '10' the correct threshhold?  Should it be somewhat higher?
 |  | SECTION 63.208. PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER USES
109 | 2009-10-13 00:00:00 | District Council | District Council Rep | Sec. 63.208 | Parking requirements for other uses |  | A use is not specified for parks or amusement parks such as ComoTown.  There have been neighborhood parking issues/concerns with ComoTown.  What would be the parking requirement for ComoTown or its equivalent? | Only 1 comment specific to a rare type of use (amusement park); rare uses are covered under Section 63.208, Parking requirements for other uses | As proposed
 |  | SECTION 63.210. BICYCLE PARKING
110 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Blog/Online Comment | Resident | Sec. 63.210 | Bicycle parking |  | Posting on TCStreetsForPeople.org:  "I know there are still places for me that I won't [bike], or am reluctant to bike to because there's no or limited bike parking." | Strong support for increased bicycle parking requirements and for reducing vehicle parking by providing additional bicycle parking. | As proposed
111 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Blog/Online Comment | Resident | Sec. 63.210 | Bicycle parking |  | Posting on TCStreetsForPeople.org:  "Clearly the guiding assumption is that we need to set minimum parking requirements for cars, but not minimum access requirements for transit and bicycle users represents more of the same...My big suggestion to improve the plan is to include minimum bicycle parking requirements for all new commercial and multi-unit residential developments."
112 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | Direct Contact (email, phone, letter) | Resident | Sec. 63.210 | Bicycle parking |  | "I am very happy with the general direction of the city's planning, but feel a critical piece is missing in this parking study. [NAME] should include a minimum level of bicycle parking for all retail, office and commercial establishments. Philadelphia and San Francisco recently adopted minimum bicycle parking levels; Pittsburgh is also considering the issue...I know there is a provision in the plan currently that would reduce the number of minimum spaces if bicycle parking is included in a development, but I feel this won't do nearly enough. Just like we know parking needs to be reasonably accessible for people to come to a given neighborhood or commercial district, we know that quality bicycle parking needs to be available for people to choose to bike somewhere as well."
 |  | SECTION 63.212. MIXED-USE CORRIDORS
113 | 2009-11-17 00:00:00 | Bus Review Council | Business Rep | Sec. 63.212 | Mixed-use Corridors |  | Is there a different way to determine the Mixed Use Corridors?  For example, if traffic counts are high compared to other modes of transportation on a given street (e.g., Snelling), then it might be an indicator that the business is auto-dependent and that customers won't take other modes of transportation, therefore the street shouldn't be [NAME]. | General support for reduced parking requirements along mixed-use corridors, particularly in commercial corridors where revitalization is needed and parking should not be a barrier for development.    Some concerns raised about mode connectivity on mixed-use corridors and reductions in areas with historical parking deficits. | As proposed
114 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Comp Plan Committee | City Staff | Sec. 63.212 | Mixed-use Corridors |  | Concerns raised that Mixed-Use Corridors may be "double dipping" on parking reductions
115 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Comp Plan Committee | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.212 | Mixed-use Corridors |  | Will MetroTransit provide the level of service required on Mixed-use Corridors?  In areas where transit isn't available today, will adding transit "squeeze" on-street parking and traffic lanes?
116 | 2009-09-22 00:00:00 | Council Office | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.212 | Mixed-use Corridors |  | Consider allowing a mixed-use corridor reduction based on type of use.  For example affordable housing vs. an employment center like an office complex
117 | 2009-11-10 00:00:00 | Dayton's Bluff CC | Non Profit | Sec. 63.212 | Mixed-use Corridors |  | When defining [NAME] consider a street's connection to other transportation modes, e.g., bike trails. Marshall Ave should be considered as a possible [NAME] from Snelling to the River based on transit, bike lanes, commercial corridor development (not on the current map)
118 | 2009-11-12 00:00:00 | MCCD | Developer | Sec. 63.212 | Mixed-use Corridors |  | A 10% reduction for mixed-use corridors may not be enough for some small businesses on transit friendly streets with customers who don't drive (e.g., a corner grocery on [NAME])
119 | 2009-10-30 00:00:00 | Planning Commission | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.212 | Mixed-use Corridors |  | Why not use the term 'transit street' instead of 'mixed use corridor'?  Isn't that really the point?  Depends if you want to approximate a street's overall multi-modal potential or only its transit potential.
120 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | West 7th CC | Resident | Sec. 63.212 | Mixed-use Corridors |  | Using an additional "mixed use corridor" reduction for minimum parking is a good idea in underdeveloped commercial corridors like W 7th where there is available parking already.
121 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | West 7th CC | Resident | Sec. 63.212 | Mixed-use Corridors |  | "Mixed use corridor" reduction is not a good idea for Grand, on top of the proposed reductions to use requirements, since parking is already tight.  It's better to use it on corridors where very strong transit service already exists.
122 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | Staff Work Group | City Staff | Sec. 63.212 | Mixed-use Corridors |  | A [NAME] reduction is a good idea.  The 2030 Land Use map (under review by Met Council) has a presumption of density and activity on mixed-use corridors in [NAME].  Many of these areas do overlap with the City's commercial corridors, which should be designed to support more multi-modal transportation options and therefore less single-occupancy vehicle parking.
 |  | SECTION 63.213. PREFERENTIAL PARKING SPACES
123 | 2009-11-07 00:00:00 | Como Park Pavillion | Business Rep | Sec. 63.213 | Preferential parking spaces |  | Setting aside spaces for certain types of vehicles may be a waste of parking spaces and too hard to regulate.  This isn't worth doing. | Mixed feedback on whether preferential parking spaces should be required or optional.    Designating preferential parking spaces encourages people to think differently about what they drive, but may be hard to enforce or overburdensome for most use types. | Decide whether required or optional,   and if motorcycles should be included.
124 | 2009-11-07 00:00:00 | Como Park Pavillion | Business Rep | Sec. 63.213 | Preferential parking spaces |  | I like the idea because it encourages people to think differently.
125 | 2009-11-07 00:00:00 | Como Park Pavillion | Business Owner | Sec. 63.213 | Preferential parking spaces |  | Would preferential parking spaces be mandated or optional?  Perhaps a requirement for certain types (e.g., office building) or sizes of lots (large)?
126 | 2009-11-10 00:00:00 | Dayton's Bluff CC | Resident | Sec. 63.213 | Preferential parking spaces |  | Preferential parking signage is a good way to get people to think about mode choice.
127 | 2009-11-19 00:00:00 | Payne/Arcade BA and DC | Resident | Sec. 63.213 | Preferential parking spaces |  | Preferential parking signage and enforcement is too complicated and not worth it.  Don't add this provision.
128 | 2009-10-30 00:00:00 | Planning Commission | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.213 | Preferential parking spaces |  | You should include designated motorcycle and scooter spots in the preferential parking options.
ARTICLE III. 63.300. OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITY STANDARDS AND DESIGN
 |  | SECTION 63.302. SITE PLAN REVIEW
129 | 2009-09-01 00:00:00 | Comp Plan Committee | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.302 | Site plan review |  | Should employee parking location be reviewed during the site plan process?  Can employee parking location be designated? | only 1 comment | As proposed
 |  | SECTION 63.303. PARKING LOCATION, RESIDENTIAL
130 | 2009-11-12 00:00:00 | MCCD | Developer | Sec. 63.303 | Parking location, residential | One- and two-family dwelling unit | Garages are not technically required in the zoning code, but when PED provides funding for Housing Developments it wants the developer to provide garages, which can increase the cost of development (but increase value for future sale) | Requirement to have a dwelling garage not covered under off-street parking code | As proposed
 |  | SECTION 63.304. PARKING LOCATION, NONRESIDENTIAL
131 | 2009-11-17 00:00:00 | Bus Review Council | Business Owner | Sec. 63.304 | Parking location, nonresidential |  | Requiring parking within 500' of a business may not be feasible in some cases.  What if a business wants/needs to exceed that distance? | Mixed feedback on the distance of parking from the property it serves.  Parking needs to be an accessible distance from the property it serves.  Designating parking located farther than 500' from the property can be handled under a variance request. | As proposed
132 | 2009-11-17 00:00:00 | Bus Review Council | Business Owner | Sec. 63.304 | Parking location, nonresidential |  | Parking needs to be an accessible distance from the business.  In some cases people won't walk around a building when parking is in the back and it may be less than 500'
133 | 2009-11-18 00:00:00 | Colleges & Universities | College Rep | Sec. 63.304 | Parking location, nonresidential |  | consider a change in the theater/auditorium/arena requirement, which now specifies 1 parking space for every 4 seats, within 600 feet of the building. I question the "600 foot" requirement and believe that as long as we provide the parking on campus, isn't that the key thing? People are used to walking a block or two to get to buildings and venues on campus. Our new parking ramp (724 spaces) is more than 600 feet from the stadium or the new basketball/volleyball arena, and many people coming to games will be using the ramp (or some of the nearly 2,000 other parking spaces spread around campus, some within 600 feet and some beyond 600 feet).
134 | 2009-11-10 00:00:00 | Dayton's Bluff CC | Resident | Sec. 63.304 | Parking location, nonresidential |  | Consider having a requirement for valet parking as an alternative to having parking spaces on site or within 500'.  Would valet parking require a shared parking agreement?
 |  | SECTION 63.305. MINIMUM LAYOUT DIMENSIONS
135 | 2009-11-07 00:00:00 | Como Park Pavillion | Property Owner | Sec. 63.305 | Minimum layout dimensions |  | You require all 75 to 90 degree parking spaces to have a 20 foot wide maneuvering lane.   If you enter a parking space directly from the alley into a 90 degree parking space, a 20 area behind the parking space seems to be an excessive amount of impervious space.   You could address this by either cutting the required maneuvering lane to one-half the stated distance which will still give the cars pulling in some room to back out and stay out of the way of the traffic in the alley.   Thus, one way to eliminate the maneuvering lane is to put an asterisk after the 20 ft in the last column and then below the table you state that:   " * When there is only one row of parking spaces in a parking lot where the vehicles enter the parking space directly from an alley, the maneuvering lane shall only be one-half (1/2) the required maneuvering lane width." | Concerns raised about challenges in the existing code with entrances and maneuvering lanes for properties sharing an alley with residential uses. | Update Maneuvering Lane and Entry/Exit language to allow access to small parking facilities via an alley
 |  | SECTION 63.308. MANEUVERING LANES
136 | 2009-11-07 00:00:00 | Como Park Pavillion | Property Owner | Sec. 63.308 | Maneuvering Lanes |  | Most of these alley right-of-ways are only 15 feet in width.  I see that you want to eliminate some of the curb cuts and I think it is a good idea to also cut down on the amount of impervious area.   One way to cut down on the curb cuts is to allow some of the parking lots to enter from the alley.  One way to approach it would be to change the lead in wording of 63.308 to exclude parking lots coming directly off of an alley but to me this then would waive the requirement of having some space behind the cars which is needed.   You could eliminate the [suggested] language for 63.305 and insert additional wording could be added to 63.308 essentially cutting the maneuvering lane to one-half the specified amount in 63.308.   An example would be to add another sentence at the end of the section which could read as follows:     "If entrance into a parking space in a parking lot comes directly off of an alley, the width of the maneuvering lane shall only be one-half (1/2) of the distance set forth in 63.308." | Concerns raised about challenges in the existing code with entrances and maneuvering lanes for properties sharing an alley with residential uses. | Update Maneuvering Lane and Entry/Exit language to allow access to small parking facilities via an alley
 |  | SECTION 63.310. ENTRANCES AND EXITS
137 | 2009-11-07 00:00:00 | Como Park Pavillion | Property Owner | Sec. 63.310 | Entrances and exits |  | I think [the proposed parking revisions] is a positive step forward but I would also like to suggest some changes to the ordinances with respect to areas with mixed-use such as Snelling Avenue where you have many businesses with lots that back up to alleys that service both residential and commercial and/or backup to residential property. | Concerns raised about challenges in the existing code with entrances and maneuvering lanes for properties sharing an alley with residential uses. | Update Maneuvering Lane and Entry/Exit language to allow access to small parking facilities via an alley
138 | 2009-11-07 00:00:00 | Como Park Pavillion | Property Owner | Sec. 63.310 | Entrances and exits |  | Code Section 63.310 raises many problems for small parking lots where entrance is desired to come off of an alley.   The first one has to deal with 63.310 (c) in that entrance and exits to and from all parking facilities in non residential property shall be 25 feet from the adjoining residential property.   Although previously this has not been enforced for small lots coming off of an alley, it is on the books and should be relaxed to allow entrance from an alley for smaller parking lots.  Many older alley right of ways are only 15 feet in width.  Thus, if this is technically enforced it essentially precludes any parking lots from alleys in most areas of the city without a variance because you could never have 25' distance to an entrance to a parking facility from an alley adjoining residential property because most right-of-ways are 15 to 20 feet.   This rule has not been enforced in the past and should be changed to permit small parking lots to enter the lot from alleys under 63.310(F)(4).   I would reduce the number of feet to 15 feet for parking lot entrances from alleys.
 |  | SECTION 63.311. WHEEL STOPS
139 | 2009-11-07 00:00:00 | Como Park Pavillion | Property Owner | Sec. 63.311 | Wheel stops |  | In section 63.311 (Wheel Stops) there seems potentially to be some conflict in the wording with 63.305.   The wording in 63.311 is as follows: "Provisions shall be made to prevent vehicles from damaging or overhanging adjacent property, public rights-of-way or required landscaping that allows up to two (2) feet of vehicle overhang."   Do you allow 2' of a required parking space to permit overhang or do you not?   Just thought this may need to be clarified because it wasn't clear to me what this language meant.  Does the above language mean that if I am going to have an 18' deep stall, the physical dimensions only need to be 16 feet because I can then count the 2 feet of overhang?   If so, then you will end up with more green space. | One comment identifying a language conflict between Minimum Layout Dimensions and Wheelstops. | Clarify wording for Wheelstops and Minimum Layout Dimensions to allow vehicle overhang into landscaped areas
 |  | SECTION 63.314. LANDSCAPING
140 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Blog/Online Comment | Resident | Sec. 63.314 | Landscaping |  | Posting on TCStreetsForPeople.org:  "...it does seem like we’re moving in the right direction by lowering the minimum number of required spaces and increasing the amount of landscaping and shade trees required. That’s good." | Strong support for enhanced landscaping requirements as a means to increase performance of stormwater management, reduce negative environmental impacts and improve parking lot aesthetics.    Interest in requiring safe pedestrian access through large parking facilities.  Concerns raised regarding landscape maintenance and enforcement as well as costs compared to pavement. Update the City's documentation on landscaping and stormwater management given to developers with site plan application. | Update tree requirement to 1 tree per 5 parking spaces.    Add internal walkway requirement for lots greater than 125,000 square feet.
141 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Bus Review Council | Business Rep | Sec. 63.314 | Landscaping |  | Enhanced landscape requirements will make parking lots look better and have fewer environmental impacts.  This is the right thing to do.
142 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Bus Review Council | Business Rep | Sec. 63.314 | Landscaping |  | Will there be enforcement of landscaping requirements?  Often times trees and landscaping aren't maintained.  There is a cost to maintaining landscaping that may be higher than paving the area
143 | 2009-11-04 00:00:00 | Bus Review Council | Business Rep | Sec. 63.314 | Landscaping |  | If there are greater landscaping and stormwater management requirements, then the City needs to provide some additional guidance as small business owners may not be versed in these topics
144 | 2009-10-26 00:00:00 | Chamber of Commerce | City Staff | Sec. 63.314 | Landscaping |  | Interior landscape requirement seems like a big jump to go from requiring landscaping for lots with 50 parking spaces to lots with 20 parking spaces
145 | 2009-10-26 00:00:00 | Chamber of Commerce | Business Rep | Sec. 63.314 | Landscaping |  | What do other cities require for minimum interior landscaping?
146 | 2009-11-10 00:00:00 | Dayton's Bluff CC | Resident | Sec. 63.301 | Off-street parking facility standards and design (overview) |  | Parking facilities should be designed for pedestrian safety within the lot (e.g., walkways in large lots) and at entrances/exits (e.g., stop signs, marked cross-walks).
147 | 2009-11-12 00:00:00 | MCCD | Developer | Sec. 63.301 | Off-street parking facility standards and design (overview) |  | Parking facilities should be designed for pedestrian safety within the lot (e.g., walkways in large lots)
148 | 2009-11-12 00:00:00 | MCCD | Developer | Sec. 63.314 | Landscaping |  | Will there be enforcement of landscaping requirements?  Often times trees and landscaping aren't maintained.
149 |  | Staff Work Group | City Staff |  |  |  | Although not in the current code, site plan review staff have generally been requesting that trees be placed in perimeter landscaping at 35 foot intervals.  This practice should be codified.  However, it's easier to interpret and administer a requirement based on 1 tree per # of spaces, instead of on lineal feet.  1 tree/4-5 spaces would approximate 1 tree per 35 feet.
 |  | SECTION 63.316. PAVING
150 | 2009-11-05 00:00:00 | West 7th CC | Resident | Sec. 63.316 | Paving |  | Are pervious pavers an option or being encouraged for parking spaces above the minimum? | Pervious pavement is allowed under the proposed code changes that would go into effect with the Infill Design Standards currently under review by the City Council. | As proposed
 |  | SECTION 63.317. PARKING STRUCTURES
151 | 2009-10-06 00:00:00 | Comp Plan Committee | City Official/ Commissioner | Sec. 63.317 | Parking structures |  | Can a stand-alone parking facility be built? Is it possible to bank land for future parking? | Stand-alone parking facilities can be built under the existing code and under the revised code. Undeveloped land could be banked for future parking needs. | As proposed
ARTICLE I. 63.100. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
 |  | SECTION 63.122. TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
152 | 2009-10-26 00:00:00 | Chamber of Commerce | Business Rep | Sec. 63.122 | Travel demand management |  | Why require TDM --can't you use incentives instead?  What would the financial guarantee amount to for a couple of sample projects? | General support for requiring TDM planning for projects with more than 100 spaces, although some concerns about the cost/financial guarantee and not wanting it to be too onerous. | As proposed
153 | 2009-11-18 00:00:00 | Colleges & Universities | College Rep | Sec. 63.122 | Travel demand management |  | Colleges and universities are a great place to do TDM planning and should be rewarded with reduced parking requirements if they employ TDM strategies.
154 | 2009-10-13 00:00:00 | District Council | District Council Rep | Sec. 63.122 | Travel demand management |  | What is the cost to a business of creating and implementing a TDM Plan?
155 | 2009-10-13 00:00:00 | District Council | District Council Rep | Sec. 63.122 | Travel demand management |  | Consider having Smart Trips get involved with college/ university campuses to create TDM plans?