Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem Work sessionItem No. (.k)or City of Lakeville Planning Department Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Daryl Morey, Planning Director Date: July 15, 2016 Subject: July 21, 2016 Planning Commission Work Session Multiple Family Development Performance Standards Background At their March 28 and April 11, 2oz6 work sessions, the City Council discussed multiple family development opportunities and performance standards given the high number of recent inquiries to City staff regarding possible multiple family development projects. At the work sessions, the City Council discussed the limited amount of land in the City guided and zoned for higher density residential, as well as certain performance standards such as: minimum lot area (i.e. density), building height, and off-street parking. One of the proposed multiple family developments, the Lakeville Pointe 49 -unit apartment building by Ron Clark Construction, received preliminary plat approval at the June 20, 2o3.6 City Council meeting. An outstanding issue of the Lakeville Pointe preliminary plat is the City's off-street parking requirements, specifically, the number of parking spaces required and the parking stall and drive aisle dimensions for the underground parking spaces. Ron Clark Construction is now preparing final plat plans and these issues will need to be addressed. I have attached the following information as background for this discussion. Daniel Licht of TPC will lead the discussion of this item at Thursday night's work session. Exhibits • March 28 and April 11, 2o3.6 City Council work session minutes • May 3, 2oz6 and January1z, 2o11 TPC memos (word\k&Daryl MoreylPlanningCommission:WorkSessionMemo-MultipleFamily) CITY OF LAKEVILLE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES April 11, 2016 Mayor Little called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Marion Conference Room. Members Present: Mayor Little, Council Members Anderson, Davis, LaBeau and Swecker Staff present: Justin Miller, City Administrator; Dave Olson, Community and Economic Development Director; Daryl Morey, Planning Director; Judi Hawkins, Deputy City Clerk 2. Citizen Comments: None 3. Discussion Item: a. Transportation Corridors/Strategic High Density Housing Options Daryl Morey provided a brief summary of discussions that had taken place at the March 28, 2016 City Council Work Session. In response to inquiries from the development community staff brought the topic of higher density housing to the City Council to determine their willingness to look at other options to address the demand. Staff believes the following four options exist: • Rezoning specific properties to PUD on a case by case basis. • Rezoning properties into either RH 1 or RH2, following current zoning performance standards. • Amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow multi -family housing by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the commercial zoning districts. This option reflects the recommendation of the EDC Strategic Plan to address the need for additional workforce housing. • Continue to use current zoning standards with no changes. Council expressed a willingness to consider additional options, particularly rezoning to PUD on a case by case basis. Planning consultant Dan Licht provided further information in a memo dated April 8, 2016. The City's current 2008 Comprehensive Plan designates certain areas for higher density, mainly along major transportation corridors. The Comp Plan is scheduled to be updated in 2018 but the process will begin in 2017 with public input. Zoning districts that allow multi- family housing with density higher than townhomes are RH1, R112 and OR (office -residential) by CUP. Allowing higher density by rezoning to PUD has previously been utilized in Spirit of Brandtjen Farm and Mattamy's Avonlea PUD located near the park and ride on Cedar Avenue and 179" Street. Mr. Licht's memo did not suggest an ordinance change but rather addressing requirements as part of a PUD process. Standards to consider could include building height and parking requirements. Staff recommends Council consider looking at projects on a case by case basis by establishing a PUD district and basing performance standards on the RHI or RH2 districts. At Council's direction staff will review this with the Planning Commission in a work session. Dave Olson stated that the EDC's 2014-2016 Strategic Plan for Economic Development identified high density housing as a strategic priority. In addition, the Planning Commission has indicated a willingness to consider options to address this growing housing demand. City Council Work Session April 11, 2016 Page -2 - Mayor Little clarified that building height and parking requirements would be determined on a case by case basis only if the proposal did not meet current ordinance standards. Swecker asked for examples of high density use besides Spirit of Brandtjen Farm and Avonlea. Staff referred to the market rate apartments on 35W and 185x' Street and several senior housing projects in the downtown area which were developed as part of a CUP district. Bob Erickson distributed copies of the 2008 Comprehensive Land Use Plan to Council Members and others in attendance. Mr. Erickson stated that he has participated in three public forums regarding the issue. During the visioning process Lakeville residents expressed concerns about high density housing. The limited number of units in the community was by design. The CDA Maxfield Study recommends 3,000 units by 2030, which could be low based on available desirable acreage. Residents expect high standards in multi -family housing. Erickson believes it is time to consider high density housing but is concerned about using CUPS on commercially zoned property. In addition to the EDC's list of 12 properties he believes several other properties in close proximity to transit such as Cedar/Dodd intersection, or by the park and ride on 35W and CSAH 50 could be rezoned as part of the Comp Plan update. He suggested updating the high and medium-high density portion of the Comp Plan out of sequence to provide the community an opportunity to comment. He believes CUPs on commercial property would result in inconsistent standards, values and rents; good projects with good management will result in a safe and secure Lakeville. The multi -family housing discussion should include market rate and subsidized units as well as high density scattered site housing. Anderson asked what it would mean to the Comp Plan update if the high density housing portion was taken out of sequence, as suggested by Mr. Erickson. Mr. Miller stated that it would take time to gather community input, hold public meetings at the Planning Commission and update the Zoning Code. Mr. Morey stated that the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan needs to be done properly and other elements also need to be taken into account. Jim McCarty, 17477 Goodland Path, is concerned with the process and concurs with Mr. Erickson. He believes that input from eight developers is being given more consideration than that of the 60,000 residents who have not been made aware of potential changes or development. He would not be opposed to a CDA project in the Cedar/Dodd area. Paul Johnson, a St. Paul resident, is co-owner along with the State Bank of Faribauit of the 15.5 acres at the Cedar and Dodd intersection. A recent evaluation of their property by Maxfield Research concluded that the highest and best use of the property is for multi -family housing because 1) there is a high demand and a limited supply of that type of housing in Lakeville; and 2) their property is qualified to meet the need due to be proximity of private and public transportation which would provide many opportunities for residents. Gary Gustafson, Fortune Realty, has a listing for 35 acres of land north of Target at 185I` Street. This is a triangular shaped parcel bordered by railroad tracks and I35W. The property was rezoned from Office to Commercial in 2008 but has been difficult to develop due to wetland and topography; they believe multi -family housing is the best use. They have received a letter of intent from a developer who wishes to build 100 townhomes and high density apartments. City Council Work Session April ll, 2016 Page -3 Tom Gump, representing a group of developers from out of state, agrees that the time is right for development of some kind of multi -family product. Their group is looking at sites where three- story products would be appropriate. John Carlander, president of the State Bank of Faribault, believes the apartment concept being proposed by Mr. Johnson is a good product and would be an asset to the community. Mr. McCarty believes that homes should be built on the City's single family lots first. Little stated that Lakeville is the number one community in the state for single-family home building. Council Member Davis believes that altering the Comp Plan process would create additional work for Council and staff. There are unique sites where opportunities exist for high density residential and after more consideration believes that a PUD on a case by case basis is the best option. As sites are developed performance standards can be adjusted if appropriate. Council Member Anderson expressed his appreciation of the input from those in attendance. He believes in the values of the Comp Plan but also the need to respond to a changing world. Using the PUD approach and looking at situations case by case based on current standards, would provide the opportunity for flexibility. He supports staff s recommendation. Council Member Swecker agrees with Davis and Anderson and added that the 2030 Land Use Plan designates some areas for higher density and life -cycle housing. She believes that using the PUD method would be an appropriate way to set performance standards. She supports higher density in commercial areas and sees the need to keep up with the market. Mayor Little stressed the importance of choosing words with positive implications. "Multi- family" can mean apartments, condos, townhomes, and senior housing. More variety in housing options will make it possible for people who cannot afford or don't choose to live in expensive homes to be members of the community. This could mean young families who wish to live here or seniors who want to live independently. The Mayor also supports staffs recommendation. Council Member LaBeau also believes that young families as well as those who want a turn -key living situation need to be given the opportunity to live in the community. Building height needs to be determined by the topography and how it would impact the surrounding area. Products need to be of a good quality in order to maintain the community's value. Council Member Swecker stated that transition area between commercial properties and varying housing densities is also very important. Mr. Erickson added that using the CUP process will require modification of the Comprehensive Plan. Current high-density zoned properties will need to be added to the list of 12 properties and will exceed the community's expectations and Comp Plan. Staff will be setting standards on the properties as they are considered. He asked for clarification on staffs recommendation to defer discussions regarding changes to the Land Use Plan until the 2018 Comp Plan update to insure community engagement. He stated that ISD 194 is basing a long-range facility plan on the Comp Plan, which could change with additional high density housing. City Council Work Session April 11, 2016 Page -4 - Mr. Morey stated that staff s recommendation is that no City-wide changes be made to the Comp Plan until the update process has begun. Mr. Licht's memo recommends limiting PVDs as discussed to the 12 sites recommended or proposed by the EDC based on demand. Mr. Miller added that with the PUD process since there are no specific standards set in the ordinance, the Council would have more discretion and flexibility on what to allow in each proposed project. Dave Olson pointed out that the goal of the EDC was to identify 12 scattered sites for multi- family housing development; however, sites were not specifically recommended by the EDC. 4. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J,UkL ,�JaWL- n,;3) Ju awkins, Deputy City Clerk Matt L ttle, Mayo CITY OF LAKEVILLE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES March 28, 2016 Mayor Little called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Marion Conference Room. Members Present: Mayor Little, Council Members LaBeau, Davis, and Anderson Absent: Council Member Swecker Staff present: Justin Miller, City Administrator; Allyn Kuennen, Assistant City Administrator; Dave Olson, Community and Economic Development Director; Chris Petree, Public Works Director; John Hennen, Parks and Recreation Director; Zach Johnson, City Engineer; Jerilyn Erickson, Finance Director; Judi Hawkins, Deputy City Clerk 2. Citizen Comments: None 3. Discussion Items: a. Transportation Corridors / Strategic Density Housing Options Daryl Morey summarized the agenda item and stated that numerous private developers have contacted staff in the past several months with inquiries about constructing multi -family residential projects in Lakeville in 2016 and 2017. Projects are being proposed for attached townhomes, market rate apartments, senior housing and workforce housing; however, there is very little property with City utility services that is zoned or guided for multi -family residential housing. An update of the City's Comprehensive Plan will begin in 2017 and could include changes to land use and zoning which will take effect in 2018. The Economic Development Commission's 2014-16 Strategic Plan also identified the development of high density housing as a Strategic Priority particularly along the BRT corridors on Cedar Avenue and I-35. The EDC's Strategic Plan initiatives include identifying up to 12 sites within the city to be rezoned for higher density housing and possibly allowing higher density housing in commercial zoning districts by Conditional Use Permit. Housing with services such as senior housing, memory care, etc. are currently allowed in commercial zoning districts. Maxfield Research conducted a housing needs assessment for Dakota County CDA and identified the need in Lakeville for up to 3,000 rental units for all income levels by 2030. Properties that have been identified are predominately zoned commercial. Staff presented options for Council to consider for how potential multi -family housing sites along the two main transit corridors could be developed, if Council desired. Properties could be rezoned on a case to case basis to Planned Unit Development (PUD) while working with City Council Work Session March 28, 2016 Page -2 - developers to identify some development standards; properties could be rezoned to either RM (medium density) or RH (multi -family) and be subject to established standards for density, building height, setbacks, etc.; or the zoning ordinance could be amended to allow multi -family housing by CUP in commercial zoning districts. Mayor Little asked staff which approach might be best if Council decided to proceed. Dave Olson stated that mixed use in commercial areas is becoming common in metro communities. The EDC would like to create a CUP category in the commercial zones, such as the downtown central business district which has some areas that could be zoned for high density. Lakeville's current units per acre and building height standards are low compared to other cities. Developers will also want to discuss those allowances as part of possible ordinance amendments. Gary Gustafson of Fortune Realty is interested in developing 35 acres which are currently zoned commercial just north of the Target store on 185th St. for townhomes and multi -family. Bruce Rydeen agreed that some of the properties that are currently zoned commercial might be put to better use with high density housing. Mr. Gustafson stated that Lakeville's fees are also prohibitive to developers. Council Member LaBeau commented that building height restrictions also create challenges for developing higher density housing. Morey stated that a PUD would allow some flexibility in the ordinance. Mayor Little asked if allowing higher density housing near the industrial areas had been considered. Mr. Morey stated that residential and industrial uses do not mix well due to heavy truck traffic and possible hazardous materials. Council Member Anderson stated that infrastructure and performance standards, as well as market demand also need to be considered for conditional use permits. Mr. Morey stated that if properties are considered on a case by case basis, the PUD would be a more appropriate tool. Davis believes a PUD on a case by case basis would be best but is concerned about possible added cost for additional work that would be needed for approval. In addition, Davis would like to see performance standards developed so that developers know what to expect when going into a project. Mr. Morey stated that staff would spend more time reviewing each project individually. Mayor Little suggested beginning with a PUD on a case by case basis as a start, then establish standards later based on experience. Lakeville has a shortage of housing inventory and needs more variety in stock. Council Member LaBeau stated that surrounding communities are saturated with rental units. Council Member Anderson suggested these questions be discussed at a fixture work session after staff has researched and drafted possible performance standards. City Council Work Session March 28, 2016 Page -3 - Mayor Little prefers to resolve some issues at this meeting in order to provide further direction for staff. After some discussion there was consensus among the Council to accelerate the process by holding a special meeting on April 11, 2016 to discuss density, building height, parking ratios, pros and cons and criteria for PUD vs. CUP, fees, and any other issues associated with developing multi -family housing in Lakeville. b. Vermillion Watershed Project City Engineer Zach Johnson provided an overview of the proposed South Creek Restoration Project. The water quality of South Creek and the Vermillion River is being impaired due to failures of the banks of a storm water basin located southwest of the Holyoke Avenue/21011 Street intersection. Staff is proposing a feasibility study to evaluate options to reduce erosion and sedimentation and increase oxygen levels in order to improve water quality and wildlife habitat. The feasibility study would also address what construction option would be most cost effective. Wenck Associates has submitted a proposal for services to be completed in three phases. Staff will present the results of the first phase to Council for further direction. The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization (VRWJPO) will fund up to $65,000 for a feasibility study and preliminary design. Council directed staff to proceed with the feasibility study for South Creek water improvements. c. Water Meter Policy Chris Petree stated that staff is proposing to establish more specific ordinance language and a policy for dealing with various water meter issues, especially the meter change -out program. The proposed policy details water meter installation, maintenance, reading and testing and outlines responsibilities in order to establish consistent procedures. Council directed staff to provide a final draft to Council for consideration at a regular meeting. d. 2017 Holyoke Avenue Street Project Update Operations and Maintenance Engineer Monica Heil provided a brief summary of the feedback received from downtown Lakeville property and business owners regarding plans for the 2017 Holyoke Avenue Improvement Project. Staff received input from the DLBA at meetings in August, October and January. The project is currently budgeted as a $1.1M mill and overlay between Heritage Drive and County Road 70 in 2017 and includes some spot sidewalk replacement. The DLBA was asked if there was interest in expanding the project to include streetscape and sidewalk upgrades. Options and assessment estimates presented to the DLBA included: 1) maintain the current project scope as budgeted ($51/front foot); 2) replace all the existing concrete sidewalks with plain concrete, with no trees ($90/front foot); 3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100 Anoka, MN 55303 Phone: 763.231.5840 Facsimile: 763.427.0520 TPCTPC9PlanningCo.com MEMORANDUM TO: Daryl Morey FROM: D. Daniel Licht, AICP DATE: 3 May 2016 RE: Lakeville — Zoning Ordinance; Multiple Family Development TPC FILE: 135.01 BACKGROUND The City Council at work sessions on 28 March 2016 and 11 April 2016 discussed possible actions that could be taken within the City's land use controls in response to increased demand for multiple family development projects. This effort is being initiated in response to contacts made by several developers interested in possible multiple family development projects and in consideration of the Economic Development Commission's 2014-2016 Strategic Plan for Economic Development that identified high density housing as a strategic priority. The Planning Commission has not reviewed or provided comment on this topic to date, but has in response to other residential development issues recently indicated openness to considering options to address the increased demand for higher density housing in the City. The City Council directed that the City will work with developers on multiple family projects proposed on parcels within existing commercial districts though establishment of a PUD District using the performance standards of the RH-2 District as a basis. Flexibility from performance standards for lot area per dwelling unit (density), building height, and off-street parking requirements for such developments was specifically noted as an opportunity to increase density in areas where intensive land uses are already guided by the Comprehensive Plan on the basis of land use and/or arterial roadway or transit oriented corridors. The purpose of this memorandum is to outline potential flexibilities the City may consider providing with regards to density, building height, and off-street parking requirements within the framework of a PUD District. ANALYSIS Minimum Lot Area. The Zoning Ordinance requires multiple family development to provide a minimum of 2,500 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, which converted to net density is equal to 17.4 dwelling units per acre. A survey of communities with similar development characteristics to Lakeville was completed regarding minimum lot area requirements for multiple family uses: City Lot Area/DU Note Apple Valley M-6 and M-7: 1,089sf./du Bloomington RM12: 3,630sf./du. RM24: 1,800sf./du. 500sf. credit for underground parking. Burnsville R -3B: 3,OOOsf./du MIX: 2,OOOsf./du. 300sf. credit for underground parking. Woodbury E: 2,300sf./du. 1Br: 2,925sf./du. 213r: 3,600sf./du. 3Br: 4,275sf./du 18 du./ac. maximum Lakeville 2,500sf./du Eden Prairie 2,500sf./du. Edina 2,500sf./du. Maple Grove 2,500sf./du. Plymouth 2,178sf./du. Eagan 2,750sf.du. The minimum lot area per unit requirement performance standard in Lakeville applies regardless of the Zoning District, which is one means to distinguish between different intensities of the same type of land use. Lakeville may allow for higher densities within the 1-35 and Cedar Avenue corridors (or other areas based on specific location factors) through a PUD District as being consistent with the City's overall development goals and those specific to multiple family housing. The following lot area per dwelling unit credits are recommended to be incorporated for developments considered under a PUD District that would allow for a maximum development density of 24 dwelling units per acre: 200 square foot credit for an average of 2.0 bedrooms or less per dwelling unit within the overall development. 300 square foot credit for underground parking based on the dimensions of a required parking stall not required to be provided for at grade. 200 square foot credit for sites within 2,640 feet of a transit station and/or park and ride facility with available pedestrian ways based on walkable distance. pi Building Height. Developers have indicated to City staff that building height is a crucial element in the financial feasibility of multiple family developments in that it is more cost effective to increase the size of a proposed building vertically than horizontally due to the higher costs of expanding the building foundation. Multiple family buildings within the RH-1 and 0-R Districts are allowed to be up to three stories or 35 feet in height. Multiple family buildings within the RH-2 District are allowed to be up to four stories or 45 feet in height. The Zoning Ordinance also provides for a conditional use permit process whereby the height of a building within any zoning district can be increased above the district limit by increasing the front and side yard setbacks five feet for every additional story above the district limit. The existing conditional use permit for height increases above the district limit allows developers flexibility to propose additional building height. Building heights greater than allowed in the 111-1-1, RH-2, or O -R District could also be established by a PUD District for a specific project, which allows the City greater oversight to ensure that the additional building height is appropriate for the site and compatible with surrounding land uses. City staff believes that the current Zoning Ordinance standards allows for appropriate building heights and flexibility either through a conditional use permit or PUD District to accommodate proposals for increased building heights where appropriate. Off -Street Parking. The Zoning Ordinance requires 2.5 off-street parking stalls per multiple family dwelling unit to accommodate both the residents as well as guest parking. A survey of communities with similar development characteristics to Lakeville was completed regarding off- street parking requirements for multiple family uses: City Parking Requirement Note Apple Valley 1.5 stalls/du. 1 stall/du. must be enclosed Burnsville 1.5 stalls/efficiency-1br. du. 2.25 stalls/2br.+ du. 1 stall must be enclosed Add 0.5 stalls/du guest parking Bloomington 1.8 stalls/1br. du 2.2 stalls/2br. du 2.6 stalls/3br.+ du 1 stall/du. must be enclosed 1 stall/100sf. of party room area Eagan 2.0 stalls/du. 1 stall/du. must be underground Eden Prairie 2.0 stalls/du. 1 stall/du. must be enclosed Edina 2.0 stalls/du Minimum of 1.25 stalls must be enclosed. Maple Grove 2.0 stalls/du. 1 stall/du. must be underground Plymouth 2.0 stalls/du. 1 stall/du. must be enclosed Woodbury 2.5 stalls/du. 2.0 stalls/du if one underground Lakeville 2.5 stalls/du. The Institute of Transportation Engineer's 4th Edition Parking Generation Study includes analysis of off-street parking demand for multiple family uses based on the type of building and either in an urban or suburban location. Most applicable to the potential development scenarios in 3 Lakeville are the Low/Mid-Rise Apartment having four or fewer floors being distinguished from a High Rise Apartment, and being located in a suburban versus central city area. ITE Parking Generation 4th Edition Low/Mid-Rise Apartment Peak Period Range 85th Percentile Average Peak Demand Suburban Midnight- 0.59-1.94 1.94 vehicles/du 1.23 vehicles/du S:OOAM vehicles/du Urban 10:OOPM- 0.66-2.50 1.61 vehicles/du 1.20 vehicles/du 5:OOAM vehicles/du The off-street parking requirements for multiple family uses in Lakeville and the surveyed communities other than Bloomington and Burnsville do not account for variations in the number of bedrooms within each dwelling unit, which may be expected to have a corresponding effect on parking demand. Institute of Transportation Engineers included reference to a subset of data regarding bedroom data acknowledging the need for further studies, but indicating the following: ■ 1.5 bedrooms/dwelling unit peak parking demand equals 92 percent of the average peak parking demand for all of the study sites reporting bedrooms per unit data. ■ 1.5 — 2.0 bedrooms / dwelling unit equals 98 percent of the average peak parking demand for all of the study sites reporting bedrooms per unit data. ■ 2.0 bedrooms / dwelling unit or more equals 113 percent of the average peak parking demand for all of the study sites reporting bedrooms per unit data. Based on the ITE study data and survey of surrounding communities, our office recommends specifying off-street parking of 2.0 stalls/dwelling unit for a multiple family land use within 1-35 or Cedar corridors having 2.0 bedrooms/dwelling unit or less with one stall/dwelling unit required to be enclosed under the principal building (exempting housing meeting regional affordability standards). A developer may also provide a detailed parking study for a project indicating peak parking demand for that use based on the specific number of bedrooms per dwelling unit that may provide more information than the current level of the ITE analysis to support a reduction in the number of required parking stalls within a PUD District. CONCLUSION The information outlined herein is provided for continued discussion with City staff. E TPC3601 Thurston Avenue N, Suite 100 Anoka, MN 55303 Phone: 783.231:5840 Facsimile. 763, 427.0520 TPC(PPlannlngCo.com MEMORANDUM TO: Daryl Morey FROM: Daniel Licht, A1CP DATE: 12 January 2011 RE: Lakeville — Zoning Ordinance; Structured Parking TPC FILE: 135.01 —10.03 BACKGROUND City staff has requested a review of the parking stall and drive aisle design standards required by the Zoning Ordinance as applied to structured parking (underground and ramp). This issue was first raised with the construction of the Metro Transit park and ride ramp adjacent to 1-35 at CSAH 50 and has come into question with the preliminary architectural plans for two senior housing multiple family building projects proposed by separate developers. ANALYSIS Design Criteria.— The dimensions for parking areas are defined by Transportation Engineers by modules consisting of the width and depth of the parking stalls and accessing drive aisle. The most efficient layout is a complete module where one access aisle serves a row of parking on each side. Definition of specific parking dimensions required by the Zoning Ordinance depends upon a number of factors that affect the function of the parking area including driver experience, vehicle size, and vehicle turning movements as well as parking generation of the specific land use to which the parking is accessory. The greater the demand for parking spaces (high turnover), larger dimensions are commonly utilized to better accommodate frequent movements of both vehicles (turning movements and opening doors) and pedestrians. Surface parking must also anticipate.some reduction in parking area due to snow storage even though -this4$,.:r uired to be separated from the parking area. Retail uses with high parking generation and high turnover throughout the hours of business require the largest dimension drive aisles and parking stalls to accommodate the greatest range of vehicle sizes, facilitate traffic movement within the parking area, and provide space for pedestrians to move between the building and parking with traffic. Conversely, a park and ride facility will experience one way peak vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the morning and afternoon at rush hour with minimal turnover throughout the rest of the day. Structured parking for multiple family housing or office uses would also experience more limited and time specific peak periods for parking generation than retail uses. Senior housing has an even lower parking generation factor than other residential uses minimizing the potential for conflict between vehicle traffic and pedestrians within the parking structure making possible reduced design dimensions. Vehicle Dimensions. Vehicles likely to be parked in Lakeville include a wide variety of sizes including larger cars and light trucks, midsize and compact size cars. Most cars within the American fleet tend to be D or E class cars or light trucks. Below are listed the dimensions of several common vehicles for reference: Vehicle Length Width Ford Fiesta(B-Class) 13.3ft. 5.6ft. Ford Focus(C-Class) 14.6ft. 5.7ft. Ford Fusion(D-Class) 15.9ft. 6.0ft. Ford Taurus(E-Class) 16.9ft. 6.4ft. Honda Odyssey Minivan 16.9ft. 6.6ft. Ford Escape Sm. SUV 14.6ft. 5.9ft. Ford Explorer Midsize SU 16.4ft. 6.6ft. Ford Expedition EL (Large SUV 18.4ft, 6.6ft. Ford F-150 SuperCab/Short Box(Pickup) 19.3ft. 6.6ft. Ford F-250 Super Duty Crew Cab 20.1ft. 6.7ft. Existing Requirements. Section 11-19-7.1 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes required dimensions for all off-street parking facilities, including both surface and structured parking. The requirement in Section 11-19-7.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance for a 90 degree parking stall is 20 feet in length by 9 feet in width accessed by a 24 foot drive aisle. These dimensions may be varied for angled parking based on the table in Section 11-19-7.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The dimensions required by the Zoning Ordinance accommodate almost all vehicle sizes including large cars and light trucks as well as facilitate traffic movement for high parking generation land uses such as retail stores. ITE Recommendations. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Traffic Engineering Handbook 5th Edition recommends a minimum practical module dimension of 61 feet based on 17.5 foot deep stalls and a two-way, 26 foot wide drive aisle. The module required by Section 11-19-7.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance is 64 feet. Based on these recommendations, it would be appropriate to consider a reduced module requirement for structured parking in cases where low traffic and parking demand is known to be generated such as the case with park and ride facilities, employee only parking and/or senior housing. In that a drive aisle width of 25 feet and stall width of nine feet is adequate for'vehicle access, we would recommend that the minimum stall depth be 2 established at 18 feet as this is sufficient to accommodate parking of all but large trucks and/or SUVs. Therefore, the minimum necessary module that would be required would be 61 feet. Amendment. The following language is proposed to modify the parking area dimension requirements for structured parking. It is recommended that this option be limited only to public park and ride facilities, multiple family apartments and/or senior housing. Consideration could be given to allowing modifications for structured parking accessory to office uses but to ensure low parking generation; the area would need to be restricted to employee parking, which may present long-term enforceability issues for the City. 11-19-7.I.3 Within Structures: a. The off street parking requirements may be furnished by providing a space so designed within the principal building or detached accessory structure. b. The design standards required by Section 11-19-7.I.1 of this Title may be modified by approval of a conditional use permit for public park and ride facilities, multiple family residential buildings and resident or employee parking for senior housing: (1) The parking space shall be not less than nine feet (91) wide and eighteen feet (181) in length and each space shall be served by access aisles not less than twenty five feet(251) wide bc. Unless alternative provisions in compliance with this chapter and title are made, no building permit shall be issued to convert said parking structure into a dwelling unit or living area or other activity. CONCLUSION The concept of allowing a smaller design standard for structured parking accessory to uses with low turnover may be warranted based on recommendations by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. The information outlined herein is provided for additional discussion by City staff and possible review by the Planning Commission and City Council at a future date.