City of Minnetonka Maximum Parking Regulations Urban GIS. Group Members Brad Johnston Mark Kelley Jonathan Winge

Similar documents
6/6/2018. June 7, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

L. A. Metro s Parking Management Program Principles Applied. October 17, 2011 Rail-Volution, Washington D.C.

SUPPORTING TOD IN METRO CHICAGO

Mercer Island Town Center Parking Study Joint Commission Presentation March 16, 2016

OFF-STREET PARKING REFORM IN MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. PAUL

The TDM Plan for Fort Washington Office Park NOVEMBER 1 6, 2017 FORT WASHINGTON OFFICE PARK STAKEHOLDERS

Sales and Use Transportation Tax Implementation Plan

A Transit Plan for the Future. Draft Network Plan

2 EXISTING ROUTE STRUCTURE AND SERVICE LEVELS

Click to edit Master title style

SANDAG Vanpool Program Guidelines as of February 2018

Appendix C. Parking Strategies

M E M O R A N D U M. Fargo Planning (Derrick LaPoint) & Interstate Parking (Andy Renfrew)

Background Information for MPRB Community Advisory Committee for 2010 Southwest Light Rail Transit Project DEIS Comment Letter Section 2

Minnesota Truck Weight Education Training

Bi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis

San Rafael Civic Center Station Area Plan May 2012 DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration

Public Meeting. City of Chicago Department of Transportation & Department of Housing and Economic Development

The hidden prices of parking David King Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation Columbia University

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS

Rapid Transit and Land-Use Integration a Reality

Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Parking Issues Trenton Downtown Parking Policy and Sidewalk Design Standards E.S. Page 1 Final Report 2008

6/11/2018. June 7, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Letter EL652 City of Mercer Island. Page 1. No comments n/a

USF Tampa Campus Percent Mode Share 2010

Parking Management Element

Low-Speed Autonomous Shuttle Project Summary

Paid Parking at Park & Ride Lots: Framing the Issues. Capital Programs Committee May 2014

Hennepin County Transit Oriented Development Program. The Ellipse, St. Louis Park, 2009

Minnesota Truck-Weight Education Training

Extending TRACKS. Preliminary design plan review underway. Public comment and approval process in May & June. Municipal Consent Process

DRAFT Evaluation Scores. Transit

- 1 - Minneapolis College of Art and Design Campus Parking & Transportation Guide

FasTracks News. RTD s Eagle P3 Transit Project Nears Halfway Mark to Opening Day EP3 will add three commuter rail lines to metro area in 2016

Metra Milwaukee District West Line Transit-Friendly Development Plan

PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN PROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT URL STAMFORD Parcel 38 Greyrock Place and Tresser Boulevard Stamford, CT April 2, 2014

Committee Report. Transportation Committee. Business Item No

The Engineering Department recommends Council receive this report for information.

Travel Time Savings Memorandum

Green Line Long-Term Investments

Sustainable Transportation Award Winner. UC/CSU Sustainability Conference Santa Barbara, 2006

Transit and Job Growth: Lessons for SB 375. Jed Kolko Public Policy Institute of California

CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update

Metro Strategic Plan: Changing our relationship with the customer May 17, 2018

Lies, Damn Lies, AV s, Shared Mobility and Urban Transit Futures

The Smart Growth Countywide Transit Master Plan

APPLICATION OF A PARCEL-BASED SUSTAINABILITY TOOL TO ANALYZE GHG EMISSIONS

MAT Paratransit TRANSPORTATION FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Develop ground transportation improvements to make the Airport a multi-modal regional

New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission

This letter provides SPUR s comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/ Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.

NEW GRADUATE PROGRAM

CITY OF OMAHA OMAHA, NEBRASKA

MOTION NO. M Preferred Alternative for the Puyallup Station Access Improvement Project

CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE # 6

ACT Canada Sustainable Mobility Summit Planning Innovations in Practice Session 6B Tuesday November 23, 2010

Address Land Use Approximate GSF

Minimum parking requirements create more parking than is needed.

Pedestrians, Cars, Buses and Trains? Considerations for Rapid Transit Service at Western University

Current Corridor Characteristics. MN 62 Corridor Performance

1 Downtown LRT Connector: Draft Concept

GODURHAM PROGRESS REPORT

Long Bridge Park. Parking Analysis and Transportation Management Plan. Long Range Planning Committee of the Planning Commission Meeting

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS K.2. PARKING

Making Mobility Better, Together

Transit Hub Case Study: Owings Mills Metro Station. By: Kathleen Cary Rose, J. Luke Byrne and Catherine Buhler

Regulation ECE Related Entries:

7 Mass Transit. 7.1 Existing Conditions. 7.2 Transit

Plug-In North Carolina: Developing A Location Analysis Mapping System with Web App Builder

DOT EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION (49CFR ) Answer ALL questions please print

CHAPTER 9: VEHICULAR ACCESS CONTROL Introduction and Goals Administration Standards

THE CORNERSTONE APARTMENTS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY R&M PROJECT NO

Navigating in Different Rivers

City of Jacksonville Mobility Fee Update

Chapter 7: Travel Demand Analysis. Chapter 8. Plan Scenarios. LaSalle Community Center. Image Credit: Town of LaSalle

TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS

# TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: DATE: SUBJECT:

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

Transportation and Trinity River Project Committee

Parking & TOD around BART Stations. Jessica ter Schure November 1, 2009 Rail~Volution 2009 Boston, Massachusetts

Community Advisory Committee. October 5, 2015

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM)

April 2010 April 2010 Presented by Alan Eirls

METRO Orange Line BRT American Boulevard Station Options

Alternatives to an Open Competitive Commercial Collection Program Presented by Robert Craggs RAM/SWANA Conference

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Indirect Source Review (ISR) - Air Impact Assessment (AIA) Non-Residential Project Application Form

3.14 Parks and Community Facilities

NCTCOG MOD Workshop Toyota Motor North America (TMNA) and Denton County Transit Authority (DCTA)

Moving Forward on Los Altos Parking Issues

WAKE TRANSIT PLAN Summer 2018

APPENDIX VMT Evaluation

Car Sharing at a. with great results.

Westchester County Department of Public Works and Transportation First and Last Mile Connections TNC Partnership Study

TRAIN, BUS & TRANSIT

appendix 4: Parking Management Study, Phase II

Service Quality: Higher Ridership: Very Affordable: Image:

Calgary Transit and the Calgary Transportation Plan Chris Jordan, M.Sc., P.Eng. Coordinator, Strategic Transit Planning, Calgary Transit

Pupil Transportation Routing Study

I-35W Past, Present, and Future: METRO Orange Line

Transcription:

City of Minnetonka Maximum Parking Regulations Urban GIS Group Members Brad Johnston Mark Kelley Jonathan Winge

This project was supported by the Resilient Communities Project (RCP), a program at the University of Minnesota that convenes the wide- ranging expertise of U of M faculty and students to address strategic local projects that advance community resilience and sustainability. RCP is a program of the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) and the Institute on the Environment. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3. Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc/3./ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 9, Mountain View, California, 9441, USA. Any reproduction, distribution, or derivative use of this work under this license must be accompanied by the following attribution: Produced by the Resilient Communities Project at the University of Minnesota. Reproduced under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3. Unported License. This publication may be available in alternate formats upon request. Resilient Communities Project University of Minnesota 33 HHHSPA 31 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Phone: (612) 625-751 E- mail: rcp@umn.edu Web site: http://www.rcp.umn.edu The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.

This research paper will provide information and data about parking regulations in the City of Minnetonka. Brad Johnston, Mark Kelley, and Jonathan Winge have conducted the following research and data throughout this paper. Parking regulations are created through the process of incorporating multiple factors like building size and building type. The square footage of a distinct building type determines the amount of parking spaces that should be provided. Our group will be working with the City of Minnetonka to provide data that will encourage Minnetonka to change the minimum parking regulations into maximum parking regulations. This paper will provide data about the parking provided in the Minnetonka Opus business campus. This research paper will begin by describing the organization we have worked with and the project requirements they have asked our group to complete. Our research and maps created will provide the current parking availabilities, lots that are over and under parked, and maps that provide different scenarios, such as if the minimum regulation were turned to a maximum regulation. As previously mentioned, we have been working with a principal planner through the City of Minnetonka. Principal planner Susan Thomas was the contact that provided our group with data and current parking ordinances of the Opus campus. Originally there were two focus areas for our research. These two focus areas were the Opus campus along Shady Oak Road and the Carlson Towers located along Interstate 494 and Interstate 394. The Opus campus was later determined to be the sole focus area. The following information is strictly focuses on the parking spaces provided through Opus. The main project goal focuses on providing information and data for Minnetonka that can later be used to create a maximum parking regulation rather than a minimum. The maximum parking regulation will help in reducing the space used for parking lots in future developments. 1 of 12

Minnetonka currently provides five different designs in which parking spaces can be implemented. The figure below displays these 5 different design types. The angle that determines the parking space creates how large the curb length, stall length, and aisle may be. The 9 degree and parallel designs are the only two that are able to provide two- way driving access throughout the parking lot. The current parking ordinance states that the lot must be within 4 feet of the building entrance it is serving. One handicap stall per every 5 and bike parking spaces must be provided in the parking lot design. 25 percent of the parking must be made to accommodate compact cars so that the some will be encouraged to not use non- compact 2 of 12

cars. Calculating the number of spaces in a parking lot is determined through multiple factors. The main factors we implemented into our maps were the building types and the square footage of the building. A general office building requires one space per every 25 square feet and Municipal buildings require 11 spaces per every 5 square feet. These two building types occupy the majority of the space in Opus. While examining the following maps, take into consideration that each map is created under the assumption that less parking is better than more parking. The data used to create each map was taken from a combination of the City of Minnetonka, MetroGIS, and ESRI. We used the Arc Map computer software to generate each map outcome. To become familiar with the Opus campus take a look at the first map named parking stalls. This map displays the amount of parking spaces that are currently provided in each parking lot. Each parcel in the map is takes the form of the parking structure. Currently the Opus space provides 13,57 spaces available for parking. The second map displayed is labeled Over/Under (ITE) Parking Ordinance. This map is displaying the number of parking lots that fail to meet the current parking requirement set by the city of Minnetonka. There are a total of 19 different parking lots that fail to meet the requirement. The warm colored parking parcels display the location of the current parking lots that fail to meet the requirements. These parking spaces attract attention by not meeting requirements and are to be looked at as extremely over parked. The following three maps are all created as different scenarios to develop an idea of what the changes would be like if different ordinances were implemented. The third map display labeled Transit Oriented Development is a scenario that 3 of 12

displays what parking lots would be over parked under the assumption of the light rail station development. A gold star near the middle of Opus labels the LRT station. The map was created under an idea that 1.5 stalls would be provided per 1 square feet of building space. The implementation of 1.5 stalls per 1 square feet was found from a case study on Sacramento where the average stalls per TOD development was 1.5 stalls. (City of Sacramento) As you can see in the map, the larger parking parcels are near the LRT station are seen to be over parked, which would mean that Minnetonka residents would be using the spaces as a park and ride. The amount of over parked lots increases from 19 to 65 parking lots. Parking lots would have to be increase to provide adequate parking for LRT riders. The fourth map created may be the most relevant the project goal because it displays what parking spaces would be over and under parked if the minimum parking requirement were turned into a maximum parking requirement. It is ironic that that there are 19 stalls which exceed the maximum parking regulation, which is the same amount as the current number of spaces that are over parked under the minimum parking regulation. This map does display some positive information though. It helps to focus on which lots need to be expanded and which lots may be successful by changing the minimum requirements to a maximum. The fifth and final map displays a scenario in which employers would encourage the use of public transportation by providing employees with public transit passes. The result of this would allow the opportunity to reduce current parking regulations by 1 spot per 1 square feet. This still creates a large number of lots that will be over parked, but when thinking about the LRT development in 218 it may create more people to ride the train to 4 of 12

work rather that making the decision to drive. The city of Burlington Massachusetts set zoning laws to change their current minimum parking regulations into a maximum to help reduce unused parking spaces. The case study relates very closely to the ordinances set by the City of Minnetonka. The office space building types were changed from a minimum of 2.5 stalls per 1 square feet to a maximum of 3 stalls per 1 square feet. (Burlington Parking Regs.) The current Minnetonka Minimum requirement is 4 stalls per every 1 square feet. As you can already see the minimum for Minnetonka is one space larger than Massachusetts. After seeing that Massachusetts was able to successfully create a maximum parking regulation of 3 spaces per 1 square feet, it would be suggested that Minnetonka try to reduce the Minimum and set the Maximum of 3 spaces like in Burlington. By setting the maximum and reducing the parking availability, it will be easier to promote LRT ridership and make it more attractive to Opus employees. There are a few different ways we have come up with as a group to help use unused parking spaces and reduce over parked lots. The idea of shared parking may be successful for companies. By providing some sort of shuttle service throughout the Opus campus, employees will be able to park in unused parking lots and not have to walk a long way to work. The shuttle would circulate the Opus structure throughout the day and would be paid for by all of the businesses that operate daily in Opus. Another idea would be to incorporate a larger public transportation opportunity. The Census Bureau provides a 5- year ACS in 211 about transportation. Currently only 891 out of 26,287 Minnetonka residents choose to use public transportation. If the City of Minnetonka were able to provide more park and ride opportunities other than the 12 and 665 metro transit routes it 5 of 12

could produce higher ridership numbers and use unused spaces. A final idea would be to have another form of transportation from Opus to shuttle riders from Opus to the Southwest Transit stop along Highway 212. Although wait time and transferring bus may come off as very unappealing to Minnetonka residents. Creating a maximum parking regulation rather than a minimum for Minnetonka would help in reducing space used for parking. It would be helpful to preserve larger green spaces and create a better opportunity for future developments rather than being used as space for asphalt. The research throughout this project has help to present how certain scenarios would affect the Opus spaces and to ultimately improve the current parking regulations and to reduce the amount of space that is currently required for parking amenities. 6 of 12

Bibliography Nelson/Nygaard Consulting. Zoning Code Parking: City of Sacramento. Rep. Sacramento: n.p., n.d. Print. Draft Report. United States. Town of Burlington Massachusetts. Zoning By Laws: Parking & Loading Regulations. By City of Burlington. Burlington: n.p., 26. Print. MetroGIS. Parcel Data. 29 Apr. 213. Raw data. Opus, Minnetonka City of Minnetonka. Parcel Data. 29 Apr. 213. Raw data. Opus, Minnetonka. ESRI. Parcel Data. 29 Apr. 213. Raw data. Opus, Minnetonka. American Community Survey. ACS. 211. Raw data. Hennepin County, Minnetonka Shoup, Donald C. "In Lieu of Required Parking." Journal of Planning Education and Research (1999): 1-16. Web. 1 May 213. 7 of 12

µ Parking Stalls per Parcel Opus Campus, Minnetonka 63 139 83 59 52 46 421 77 13 177 17 112 44 47 24 86 19 182 23 18 224 122 169 165 788 119 165 292 149 44 166 836 26 483 44 21 364 141 165 177 68 282 281 65 23 395 14 4 55 45 42 6 52 65 64 61 89 225 47 148 4 45 125 23 51 4 131 57 115 62 159 42.125.25.5 Miles 8 of 12 A u t h o r s : B r a d J o h n s t o n, M a r k K e l l e y, J o n a t h a n W i n g e S o u r c e s : M e t r o G I S, C i t y o f M i n n e t o n k a, E s r i C r e a t e d 4 / 2 8 / 2 1 3

µ Over and Under Parked Parcels Minnetonka Parking Ordinance (ITE) Opus Campus, Minnetonka Divergence from ITE Standard (Parcel Count) More than 5 Under (2) 499-15 Under (5) 149-5 Under (18) 49 - Under (28) 1-5 Over (16) 51-15 Over (2) 151-5 Over (1) -57-17 -27-1 -23-111 -4-14 -225-31 -76-52 -22-19 4-24 -55-97 29-16 -15-1 -5-64 98-62 -28-78 -92-128 -69 11-171 -98-113 -34-38 17-24 464 42-59 -58-17 -4-14 -17 11-2 -17 45-166 -165 2-5 3 5 13 14 6 21-19 11-15 -131 6-39 15-13.125.25.5 Miles A u t h o r s : B r a d J o h n s t o n, M a r k K e l l e y, J o n a t h a n W i n g e S o u r c e s : M e t r o G I S, C i t y o f M i n n e t o n k a, E s r i C r e a t e d 4 / 2 9 / 1 3 9 of 12

µ Over and Under Parked Parcels Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Scenario Opus Campus, Minnetonka ^_ Divergence from TOD Recommendations (Parcel Count) LRT Station 115-1 Under (1) 99-5 Under (1) 49 - Under (5) 1-5 Over (33) 51-15 Over (17) 151-3 Over (1) 31-15 Over (5) 18 23 42 37 29 2 222 33 26 25 55 42 8 21 8 55 3-93 -22 78 134 37 15 11 469 73 8 172 64 241 ^_ 56 497 167 238-115 -29 215 74 19 12 554 192 153 19 8 241-6 2 39 26 25-25 34 49 45 72 97 27 32 79 3 29 71 14 36 25 42-13 74 24 15 246.125.25.5 Miles A u t h o r s : B r a d J o h n s t o n, M a r k K e l l e y, J o n a t h a n W i n g e S o u r c e s : M e t r o G I S, C i t y o f M i n n e t o n k a, E s r i C r e a t e d 4 / 2 9 / 1 3 1 of 12

µ Over and Under Parked Parcels Minimum to Maximum Allowed Scenario Opus Campus, Minnetonka Number of Stalls Exceeding Maximum (Parcel Count) (53) 1-25 (13) 26-75 (3) 76-2 (2) 21-5 (1) 4 29 98 11 17 464 42 11 5 21 14 45 13 6 2 3 11 6 15.125.25.5 Miles A u t h o r s : B r a d J o h n s t o n, M a r k K e l l e y, J o n a t h a n W i n g e S o u r c e s : M e t r o G I S, C i t y o f M i n n e t o n k a, E s r i C r e a t e d 4 / 2 9 / 1 3 11 of 12

µ Over and Under Parked Parcels Reduced Demand Scenario Opus Campus, Minnetonka Divergence from Reduced Demand Requirements (Parcel Count) 65-4 Under (1) 399-1 Under (3) 99-5 Under (7) 49 - Under (19) 1-5 Over (29) 51-15 Over (9) 151-51 Over (4) -27-93 15 5-6 22-11 -52-124 4-29 -28-8 -14-5 24-367 -67 48 44-48 41 37 149 351-5 52-21 41-55 157 73-7 -634-79 65 6 54 26 5 12 26-27 -7-27 86 22 9 7-19 17 32 26 56 47 15 2-67 14 14 17 6 21 1-46 -84 33-14 51 91.125.25.5 Miles A u t h o r s : B r a d J o h n s t o n, M a r k K e l l e y, J o n a t h a n W i n g e S o u r c e s : M e t r o G I S, C i t y o f M i n n e t o n k a, E s r i C r e a t e d 4 / 2 9 / 1 3 12 of 12