Laserfiche WebLink
5 <br /> <br />Passenger Vehicle Parking Can’t park in front of “living <br />area”, parking setbacks <br />separate from driveway <br />setbacks. <br />Removed residential parking <br />setbacks – you can park only <br />on driveways or parking pads <br />which have specific setbacks <br />themselves. Removed <br />prohibition of parking in front <br />of “living area” as it is vague. <br />Accessible Parking Misstates parts of state law Remove restatement of state <br />standards, simply refers reader <br />to relevant statute. <br />Parking minimums Table of requirements with a <br />footnote that a commercial <br />vehicle requires an additional <br />space. <br />Added commercial vehicle <br />requirement to table – <br />otherwise did not alter parking <br />minimums <br />Request to provide reduced <br />parking <br />Standards and process to <br />request are scattered <br />Condensed standards into a <br />single subjection <br />Off-Site Parking Says it is allowed but without <br />any restrictions or criteria for <br />review. <br />Copied much of what Vadnais <br />Heights has – creates clear <br />guidelines for how to evaluate <br />requests. <br />Bike Parking States that it is required for <br />certain uses, no specific <br />number of spaces. <br />Expanded the development <br />types that must provide a <br />minimum of two bike parking <br />spaces. <br /> <br />5. Section 915.180 Pedestrian Facilities, Sidewalks, and Walkways (Ordinance 915) <br />The City of Little Canada has a single standard to require pedestrian facilities (walkways, <br />sidewalks, etc.) for new developments in our code. The standard requires that parking lots with <br />more than 100 spaces provide some sort of pedestrian walkway to the building. Most <br />neighboring municipalities have weak language for pedestrianization as well, but they do have <br />requirements to construct public sidewalk clearly stated in their codes. Additionally, some <br />communities require consideration for pedestrian paths on new development reviews. <br /> <br />After gauging the Planning Commission’s interest, Staff found that the City of Edina had very <br />clear and thorough regulations for pedestrian facilities on new developments, both for internal <br />site access and to connect more broadly to public facilities/sidewalks/trails. The proposed code <br />borrows heavily from Edina’s and does the following: <br />• Requires developers to install sidewalk if shown on an adopted City plan, if it is near <br />transit, or otherwise found to enhance access to public facilities. <br />• Requires connections from public sidewalks or trails to the building entrance (excluding <br />industrial buildings not open to the public) <br />• States a preference to walkways crossing drive aisles or parking spaces. <br />• Creates a continuous sidewalk/sidewalk priority requirement. This means that sidewalks <br />continue at their existing grade rather than sloping down to asphalt for a <br />driveway/parking lot entrance. <br />o This is how the city is constructing the sidewalk on Rice Street from County <br />Road C to Demont. It is considered a best practice for pedestrian safety. <br />• Requires connection to adjacent private trails/walkways as applicable. <br />• Clearly states the applicant is responsible for these improvements