Laserfiche WebLink
<br />''n <br /> <br />300 FiRST AVE N <br />SiJlTEZio <br />MINNEAPOLIS, MN <br />S5401-ilio9 <br /> <br />COMMUNITY PLANNING. <br />LAND PLANNING <br />URBAN DESIGN <br />LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE <br />MARKET RESEARCH <br /> <br />Tel: 612-339-3300 <br />fAx: 612-337-5601 <br /> <br />WEB: DSlipIAN.tOM <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: December 28, 2006 <br /> <br />TO: MarkStatz, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik <br /> <br />FROM: Phil Carlson, AICP, Director of Planning, DSU/Bonestroo <br /> <br />RE: Centerville T ownoffice Park - Review of Parking and Building Height <br /> <br />The Centerville T ownoffice Park project has been revised to include a single three-story building and three <br />smaller office condo buildings, vs. the nine small office condo buildings proposed previously. The issues of <br />parking and building height have been raised in the review of the revised application. <br /> <br />Parking <br />In my experience, parking ratios for office and commercial uses have been decreasing steadily over the last <br />thirty years, While most cities still use 1 space per 200 SF (5/1000 SF) for office buildings, many studies have <br />suggested that larger suburban stand-alone office buildings could go to a standard bf 1 per 250 SF (4/1000) <br />or lower. We recently completed a study for the City of Burnsville, resulting in ordinance changes to reduce <br />all office and commercial parking requirements byaboutlO%, including minimum and maximum parking <br />ratios for office uses of 3.5/1 ooa and 4.01l000, respectively. Medical/dental offices still require more than <br />this, as would any restaurant or assembly use, suchasa conference center, that attracts patrons from off-site, <br />above and beyond the employees within the building. For these uses,. a ratio based on seating would be <br />appropriate, typically one ~jpace perthree seats. For the Centerville Townoffice Park, the numbers as I <br />understand them break down as follows: <br /> <br />. I assume each of the smaller buildings is 4,400 SF for a subtotal of 13,200, and the three-story <br />building is 29,400 SF, for a total of42,600 SF. <br />. 213 spaceswould be requiredby ordinance at 5/1000: 147 for the three-story building, plus 66 (22 <br />each) forthe three smaller buildings, <br />. 192 spaces are proposed on site.,. or 4.5/1000 overall. <br />. 189 spaces would be required iswe assume 5/1 000 for the three-story building, and 14 per <br />bUilding,for the three smaller buildings, as previously proposed by variance. <br />. 180 spaces would be req uired if we assume 4/1000 for the entire project. <br />. 194 spaces wauld be reqoiredif we assume 4/1000 forthe three-story building and 22 spaces each <br />(5/1 000) for the three smaller buildings. <br /> <br />I belieVe the 192 parking spaces shown (4.511000) would be adequate for the overall project as proposed, if <br />all are general offices uses. I doubt that the parking lots would ever be completely full. Thiswouldstill <br />require a variance. Assembly, conference center, or restaurant uses would have to be considered separately, <br />and if needed, more parking or less building would have to be designed into the project. A condition of <br />approval could be that parking will be adequate to serve all uses within the project, and if problems arise in <br />the future, the city has the leverage to review the CUP and rE!quire changestoaddress the problems. <br /> <br />~~ <br />"1. ~~ <br />DSU <br /> <br />Bonestroo <br /> <br />3S:~" <br />.,-...:"'" <br />J.:i-~J-/ <br />'c. /_..- <br />