Laserfiche WebLink
minimums, as well as shared parking arrangements, all with the effort of <br /> addressing stormwater management concerns, and pervious versus impervious <br /> surface applications, with credit given to developers for implementation of <br /> underground or above ground parking structures and spaces. Regarding <br /> landscaping, Mr. Bilotta advised that it was addressed for every 100 spaces, but at <br /> this time, raingardens and plantings were not required, but encouraged, with <br /> impervious surfaces again receiving additional credit. In the Twin Lakes area, <br /> Mr. Bilotta advised that district structured parking was also encouraged, but at <br /> this point there was no mechanism in place, since it was recognized that it was <br /> difficult to accomplish from a finance aspect. Mr. Bilotta noted that, initially, TIF <br /> was intended to be used for those amenities, but over time and with the area not <br /> developing as quickly as thought, those funds had been used elsewhere, leaving <br /> extensive costs for developers to provide structured parking. <br /> At the request of Member Lenz regarding striping parking areas, Mr. Bilotta <br /> advised that the developer proposed spaces and lining them up, but staff advising <br /> them based on their observations if they appear problematic. Mr. Bilotta further <br /> advised that off-street parking is encouraged. <br /> Member Cihacek noted the differences in defining transit stops versus bus stops, <br /> and questioned how the existing Metro Transit's park and ride facility had been <br /> incorporated into the overall parking plan; or whether multiple businesses could <br /> take credit for that parking structure. <br /> Mr. Bilotta advised that the park and ride facility is counted now as any other <br /> transit, and the City did not have any agreement in place with Metro Transit to use <br /> the facility for other purposes, such as was done at the Eden Prairie Center when <br /> it was included in the underlying development, designed largely for evening use <br /> when it was available for other uses. Regarding credits, Mr. Bilotta advised that <br /> as long as people came from a distance and utilized the bus service, everyone got <br /> the credit. <br /> At the request of Member Seigler, Mr. Bilotta advised that defining where and <br /> how on-street parking is allowed, was handled by the Public Works Department, <br /> and as noted by Mr. Schwartz was dependent upon the road width, type and safety <br /> considerations as addressed through the City Engineer's office as to what was <br /> appropriate. <br /> Member Gjerdingen spoke in support of on-street parking in the case of the Twin <br /> Lakes area, and asked if staff was doing anything to encourage on-street parking <br /> in commercial areas. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that, at this time, Twin Lakes Parkway was meant to be a <br /> reliever to County Road C, meaning it was meant to accommodate traffic flow <br /> that wasn't necessarily stopping at businesses between Fairview and Cleveland <br /> Avenues. From that perspective, Mr. Schwartz advised that on-street parking <br /> Page 3 of 16 <br />