Loading...
05-15-08 Workshop5y t4l MAYOR: Horace G. Feliu CITY MANAGER: W. Ajibola Balogun VICE MAYOR: Brian D. Beasley CITY ATTORNEY: Luis Figueredo COMMISSIONER: Randy G. Wiscombe CITY CLERK: Maria M. Menendez COMMISSIONER: Velma Palmer COMMISSIONER: Jay Beckman CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP (PARKING REGULATIONS) Workshop date: May 15, 2008 Time: 6:00 PM Next Regular Meeting date: May 20, 2007 Time: 7:30 PM 6130 Sunset Drive, South Miami, FL Phone: 305 - 663 -6340 1. Roll Call 2. Commission discussion regarding Land Development Code parking regulations currently under moratorium. 3. Adjournment 7:30 P.M. PURSUANT TO FLA STATUTES 286.0105, "THE CITY HEREBY ADVISES THE PUBLIC THAT IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THIS BOARD, AGENCY OR COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT ITS MEETING OR HEARING, HE OR SHE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, AFFECTED PERSON MAY NEED TO ENSURE TAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. THIS NOTICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONSENT BY THE CITY FOR THE INTRODUCTION OR ADMISSION OR OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE OR IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE, NOR DOES IT AUTHORIZE CHALLENGES OR APPEALS NOT OTHERWISE ALLOWED BY LAW. CITY COMMISSION 1 WORKSHOP (PARKING REGULATIONS) - MAY 15, 2008 South Miam A6- America CiE➢ CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM 2001 To: The Honorable Mayor Feliu and Members of the City Commission Via: Ajibola Balogun, City Manager � From: Sanford A. Youkilis, Acting Planning Directo Date: April 22, 2008 ITEM__ Subject: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; REMOVING FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 4.4(G) ENTITLED "JOE-4`1 USE SPACES VIA SPECIAL PARKING PERMIT "; REMOVING FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 4.4(H) ENTITLED "METRO -RAIL USAGE CONSIDERATION VIA SPECIAL, PARKING PERMIT "; AMENDING SECTION 20 -7.6 ENTITLED "PARKING" IN ORDER TO MODIFY REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO BONUSES AND PARKING REDUCTIONS IN THE "SR(ID =OV)" SPECIALITY RETAIL.. (HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 20 -8.10 ENTITLED "BONUS ALLOCATIONS" IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE PARKING REDUCTIONS AND PARKING BONUSES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE "TODD" TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE BACKGROUND The City Commission at its May 4, 1999 meeting adopted a limited parking moratorium ordinance (No. 8 -99- 1682). The ordinance has been extended on seven occasions, the latest was adopted to Last 9 months until March 5, 2008. The moratorium was then extended by a 30 day emergency ordinance adopted by the Commission on March 4, 2008. The emergency ordinance will need to be adopted one more time, prior to the enactment of a final ordinance dealing with the parking reduction /bonus issue. The attached draft ordinance makes pennanent all of the moratorium provisions which suspended parking reductions and bonuses in several sections of the LDC. The moratorium ordinance was a reaction to the impact of the Shops of Sunset and its purpose was to afford the city staff and citizens enough time to review the parking provisions in the Land Development Code and recommend amendments, if necessary. It was also felt tliat the City needed time to begin building public off -street parking as part of the infrastructure of the Hometown District. REGULATIONS SUBJECT TO MORATORIUM The current moratorium impacts five sections in the LDC which allowed for a reduction of required parking in the Hometown District and in the vicinity of the Metro -Rail station. These were: (1) See.20 -4.4 (G) Joint Use Spaces. Allows parking reductions if there is a mix of uses; this provision was suspended during the entire period of the moratorium. (2) Sec. 20 -4.4 (H) Metro Rail Usage Consideration. Allows 50% reduction in parking if within 1,500 feet of the MetroRail Station; this provision was suspended during the entire period of the moratorium. 2 (3) Sec.20 -7.6 (B) Hometown District. Allows for parking reductions if a developer included certain features (i.e. arcades) or included mixed uses in multi -story buildings. The moratorium allowed these bonuses to be used if a development was less than 25,000 square feet. However, for larger developments over 25,000 square feet, the City Commission was permitted to waive the moratorium if approved by a vote of four members. It is important to note that during the period the moratorium was in effect there were no special requests to waive the restrictions. (4) Section 20 -7.6 (C) Hometown District. — This section permits payment into the Parking Infrastructure Trust Fund in lieu of providing required spaces. In August of 2006, the Parking Moratorium Ordinance was extended and it was amended to limit the type of development that could take advantage of this provision. The ordinance adopted at that time included a provision that only "existing structures" could be eligible to pay into the fund in lieu of providing parking spaces. (5) Section 20 -8.10 TODD Bonus Allocations - This section permits parking space reductions in the Transit Oriented Development District (TODD) if a new development includes an arcade, underground parking or a mix of uses as part of the bonus allocations chart. In August of 2006, the Parking Moratorium Ordinance was amended to eliminate the provisions permitting parking reductions. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Planning Board at its March 11, 2008 meeting, after a public hearing, adopted a motion by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nays recommending that a number of revisions in the proposed permanent moratorium ordinance be made. The Planning Board stated that the revisions proposed were in recognition that the suburban parking ratios are not applicable in a walkable urban center therefore the need for parking bonuses exists and will result more realistic parking requirements and more sustainable development. PARKING BOARD RECOMMENDATION The City's Parking Board at its December 14, 2007 meeting reviewed the attached parking moratorium ordinance and adopted a motion by vote of 5 ayes 0 nays recommending that the ordinance as drafted be approved. The Board chairperson at a later date requested the opportunity to review the Planning Board recommendations which were made on March 11, 2008. The Parking Board was given a copy of the Planning Board's recommendations at their March 21, 2008 meeting. At that time the Parking Board expressed a position on each section of the proposed ordinance. GREEN TASK FORCE STATEMENT The South Miami Green Task Force at its meeting of March 14, 2008 felt strongly that this issue was related to policies which impact the environment and sustainability. For that reason the Board reviewed the ordinance and the Planning Board's position on the provisions in the moratorium ordinance. The Task Force requested that the following statement be transmitted to the City Commission. "The City Corriiiiission charged the Green Task Force to develop sustainable strategies for South Mianli. The Task Force recognizes that downtown South Miami has already taken significant steps toward creating a sustainable, walkable city by encouraging mixed use and lessening car use. The current bonuses and parking reductions in the Hometown Plan are an important mechanism to support this sustainable agenda. We support the South Miami Planning Board recoininendations for parking reductions. " RECOMMENDATION Attached is a copy of the original draft ordinance submitted to the Planning Board. This ordinance permanently removes from the Land Development Code all the provisions which have been suspended or modified during the moratorium beginning in 1999. In order to assist the Commission in its decision making on this issue a special chart (11 x 17 ") has been included in the agenda package. This chart shows the original ordinance in the left column and 3 the specific section by section recommendations of the Planning Board and the Parking Board in the right col umn.(Parking Board in red). Backup Documentation: Proposed Ordinance Comparative Decision Chart Planning Department staff report (3- 11 -08) Excerpt Planning Board Minutes (3- I1 - -08) Excerpt Planning Board Minutes 1- 31 -08) Parking Board Minutes (12- 14 -07) Public Notices SAY X: \Comm Items\2008 \4- 22- 08\Parking Morat CM report.doc 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; REMOVING FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 4.4(G) ENTITLED "JOINT USE SPACES VIA SPECIAL PARKING PERMIT "; REMOVING FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 4.4(H) ENTITLED "METRO -RAIL USAGE CONSIDERATION VIA SPECIAL PARKING PERMIT"; AMENDING SECTION 20 -7.6 ENTITLED "PARKING" IN ORDER TO MODIFY REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO BONUSES AND PARKING REDUCTIONS IN THE "SR(HD -OV)" SPECIALITY RETAIL (HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 20 -8.10 ENTITLED "BONUS ALLOCATIONS" IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE PARKING REDUCTIONS AND PARKING BONUSES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE "TODD "TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, Sections 20- 4.4(G), 20- 4.4(H), 20- 7.6(B), Section 20 -7.6 (C) and Section 20- 8.10, of the Land Development Code allows for reductions in required off street parking and allows for the ability to make a payment in lieu of providing required parking spaces; and WHEREAS, the City Commission at its meeting on May 4, 1999, adopted Ordinance No. 8- 99 -1682, amending regulations retaining to parking reductions in the Hometown Overlay Zone in order to require approval by a four /fifths vote of the City Commission and suspending the Land Development Code sections referred to above for a period of nine months ;and WHEREAS, the City Commission at several subsequent meetings, adopted ordinances extending for additional periods the amendments and suspensions of the Land Development Code sections referred to above; and WHEREAS, at the City Commission meeting on May 2, 2006, it was requested that the moratorium ordinance be expanded to modify certain provisions in Section 20 -7.6 (C), Land Development Code which permits payment into the Parking Infrastructure Trust Fund in lieu of providing required spaces; and to extend the moratorium to parking space reductions provided Section 20 -8.10, Land Development Code, entitled TODD — Bonus Allocations; and WHEREAS, the amendments and suspensions of the Land Development Code sections referred to above were adopted for a final nine month period by Ordinance No. 15 -07 -1916 at the City Commission meeting on June 5, 2007 will expire on March 5, 2008; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the moratorium was to afford staff and citizens an adequate time period to reevaluate the City's parking regulations and propose necessary changes; and 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 n 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 2 (2) WHEREAS, during the moratorium period evaluation and studies carried out by the Zoning Task Force, City consultants, the Parking Board, the Planning Board and City Commission have provided sufficient information and data to allow for the final adoption of proposed amendments. WHEREAS, the Planning Board at its March 11, 2008 meeting adopted a motion by a vote of 5 ayes 0 nays recommending that the subject ordinance be approved; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami desire to accept the recommendation of the Planning Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITE' COMMISSION OF THE CITE' OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1: Section 20- 4.4(G), Land Development Code, entitled "Joint Use Spaces via Special Parking Permit," is amended as follows: 6" PA fWMT B�6 i xx e 6� _/�p_ � 4% b 4 604 ' b ' �J 1 a- FMA r� 4" V-P b . . - d b b b b . 6" PA fWMT B�6 i xx e 6� _/�p_ � 4% b 4 604 ' b ' �J 1 a- FMA r� 4" V-P b . shml equal Section 2: Section 20- 4.4(H), Land Development Code, entitled "The Metro -Rail Usage Consideration via Special Parking Permit," is amended as follows: . - shml equal Section 2: Section 20- 4.4(H), Land Development Code, entitled "The Metro -Rail Usage Consideration via Special Parking Permit," is amended as follows: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 3 Section 3: The automatic parking adjustments allowed pursuant to Section 20- 7.6(B), Land Development Code, entitled "Required Parking," and the payment in lieu of parking provided for in Section 20 -7.6 (C) (2) Land Development Code, entitled "Procedure" of the Land Development, are hereby amended as set forth below:: Hometown District Overpay Zone 20 -7.6 Parking. (A) Hometown District Parkh?g. Parking in the Hometown District must be developed and managed primarily as an element of infrastructure critical to enhancing South Miami's tax base through economic success of the district. Hometown District parking shall be subject to the review of the Parking Board as established by Section 2 of the Code of the City of South Miami. The Board shall report to the city commission no less than annually on the state of parking in the Hometown District and shall from time to time make recommendations to the city commission for changes in the parking system, for the fees paid into the Parking Infrastructure Trust Fund, and for the allocation of trust fund monies. (B) Required Parking. Within the Hometown District, the following adjustments to the number of parking spaces required by Section 20 -4.4 (B) of the Code are provided: On- street spaces adjacent to a lot shall count toward the parking requirements for that lot; a partial space longer than eleven (11) feet shall count as a full space. ' � a = =_ =- -- e- - = =--= b - . - - - -- - — : - - -- -- - - - - -- - -- -- -- ----=---- _---=- -_ - - -_ - -- = -- - = -- _ a - mont gross NOW - ------ fivo E15) NNIN AW Ell Mmgm- - - , Section 3: The automatic parking adjustments allowed pursuant to Section 20- 7.6(B), Land Development Code, entitled "Required Parking," and the payment in lieu of parking provided for in Section 20 -7.6 (C) (2) Land Development Code, entitled "Procedure" of the Land Development, are hereby amended as set forth below:: Hometown District Overpay Zone 20 -7.6 Parking. (A) Hometown District Parkh?g. Parking in the Hometown District must be developed and managed primarily as an element of infrastructure critical to enhancing South Miami's tax base through economic success of the district. Hometown District parking shall be subject to the review of the Parking Board as established by Section 2 of the Code of the City of South Miami. The Board shall report to the city commission no less than annually on the state of parking in the Hometown District and shall from time to time make recommendations to the city commission for changes in the parking system, for the fees paid into the Parking Infrastructure Trust Fund, and for the allocation of trust fund monies. (B) Required Parking. Within the Hometown District, the following adjustments to the number of parking spaces required by Section 20 -4.4 (B) of the Code are provided: On- street spaces adjacent to a lot shall count toward the parking requirements for that lot; a partial space longer than eleven (11) feet shall count as a full space. ' � a = =_ =- -- e- - = =--= b - . - - - -- - — : - - -- -- - - - - -- - -- -- -- ----=---- _---=- -_ - - -_ - -- = -- - = -- _ a - mont gross NOW - ------ fivo E15) NNIN AW Ell Mmgm- - =-- -.- _— !!lEiF - - -- _— e- - = =--= b ----- - ---- == _ :--_ -_= a � a - mont gross NOW - ------ fivo E15) - =-- -.- _— !!lEiF - - -- _— e- - = =--= -- -= ----- - ---- == _ :--_ -_= I � - -- - ----- NOW - ------ Ell Mmgm- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 (C) P7- 0cedure. (1) The required number of spaces shall first be calculated pursuant to Section 20 -7.12 for each permitted use. a b ' (2) The difference between the number of spaces provided, including on street parking, and the number of spaces-required shall then be determined. If there are fewer spaces provided than required for existing structures only, the applicant must pay into the Parking Infrastructure Trust Fund a fee, as determined from time to time by the City Commission upon recommendation of the parking board, reflecting the actual land and construction costs for parking, for each space required but not provided. Monies paid into the Parking Infrastructure Trust Fund shall be placed in a trust account separate from general funds and may be used only for improvements to the city parking infrastructure to increase parking capacity or to enhance use of existing parking capacity (3) Designated historic buildings are exempt from all parking requirements. (4) Any changes in use in a building will require a re- calculation in the required parking pursuant to (B) above. If the new combination of uses requires additional parking spaces, a fee, as determined from time to time by the City Commission upon recommendation of the parking board, must be paid into the Parking Infrastructure Trust Fund. If fewer spaces are required, no refunds will be paid. Section 4: Section 20 -8.10, Land Development Code, entitled "Bonus allocations," is hereby modified as set forth below to eliminate the parking reductions and parking bonuses for developments within the boundaries of the TODD f District. 20 -8.10 Bonus allocations. Action Bonus _. weade not eauntod in b • a a� NOW � a a (C) P7- 0cedure. (1) The required number of spaces shall first be calculated pursuant to Section 20 -7.12 for each permitted use. a b ' (2) The difference between the number of spaces provided, including on street parking, and the number of spaces-required shall then be determined. If there are fewer spaces provided than required for existing structures only, the applicant must pay into the Parking Infrastructure Trust Fund a fee, as determined from time to time by the City Commission upon recommendation of the parking board, reflecting the actual land and construction costs for parking, for each space required but not provided. Monies paid into the Parking Infrastructure Trust Fund shall be placed in a trust account separate from general funds and may be used only for improvements to the city parking infrastructure to increase parking capacity or to enhance use of existing parking capacity (3) Designated historic buildings are exempt from all parking requirements. (4) Any changes in use in a building will require a re- calculation in the required parking pursuant to (B) above. If the new combination of uses requires additional parking spaces, a fee, as determined from time to time by the City Commission upon recommendation of the parking board, must be paid into the Parking Infrastructure Trust Fund. If fewer spaces are required, no refunds will be paid. Section 4: Section 20 -8.10, Land Development Code, entitled "Bonus allocations," is hereby modified as set forth below to eliminate the parking reductions and parking bonuses for developments within the boundaries of the TODD f District. 20 -8.10 Bonus allocations. Action Bonus _. weade not eauntod in b • a a� a � a a (C) P7- 0cedure. (1) The required number of spaces shall first be calculated pursuant to Section 20 -7.12 for each permitted use. a b ' (2) The difference between the number of spaces provided, including on street parking, and the number of spaces-required shall then be determined. If there are fewer spaces provided than required for existing structures only, the applicant must pay into the Parking Infrastructure Trust Fund a fee, as determined from time to time by the City Commission upon recommendation of the parking board, reflecting the actual land and construction costs for parking, for each space required but not provided. Monies paid into the Parking Infrastructure Trust Fund shall be placed in a trust account separate from general funds and may be used only for improvements to the city parking infrastructure to increase parking capacity or to enhance use of existing parking capacity (3) Designated historic buildings are exempt from all parking requirements. (4) Any changes in use in a building will require a re- calculation in the required parking pursuant to (B) above. If the new combination of uses requires additional parking spaces, a fee, as determined from time to time by the City Commission upon recommendation of the parking board, must be paid into the Parking Infrastructure Trust Fund. If fewer spaces are required, no refunds will be paid. Section 4: Section 20 -8.10, Land Development Code, entitled "Bonus allocations," is hereby modified as set forth below to eliminate the parking reductions and parking bonuses for developments within the boundaries of the TODD f District. 20 -8.10 Bonus allocations. Action Bonus _. weade not eauntod in b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22' 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 5 For every l floor of 1 additional floor of residential use residential use with the minimum parking requirement (two (2) cars per residential use) Public plaza -min. 5,000 sq. One (1) additional floor ft. and art work in plaza setting Develop full frontage with One (1) additional floor street design as part of pedestrian walkway system Develop "cross- thru's" One (1) additional floor from street to public open space as part of pedestrian walk- system, on owner's property (maintenance required in Section 20- 8.15) For those properties that back up to public open space or easement. Buildings may be built in rear to within 5' of rear property or easement line. s , tb. Section 5: All ordinances, resolutions and parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance shall not be in force and effect during the time period of this ordinance. Section 6: If any section, clause, sentence, or plu-ase of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section7: This ordinance shall take effect immediately at the time of its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2008 ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: MAYOR CITY ATTORNEY CITY COMMISSION VOTE: Mayor Feliu: Vice Mayor Beasley: Commissioner Palmer: Commissioner Wiscombe Commissioner Beckman X: \PB \PB Agendas Staff Reports\2008 Agendas Staff Reports\3- 11- 08\Parking moratorium Permanent Amendment Ord 2007.doc sour South Miami o� �r 'T All- America City INCORPORATED 1927 � C R 1 2001 To: Honorable Chair and Planning Board Members From: Sanford A. Youkilis "t Acting Planning Directo Date: March 11, 2008 Re: LDC Amendment- Removing Certain Bonus Provisions of Land Development Code Relating to Off - Street Parking PB -07 -029 Applicant: City of South Miami AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; REMOVING FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 4.4(G) ENTITLED "JOINT USE SPACES VIA SPECIAL PARKING PERMIT "; REMOVING FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 4.4(H) ENTITLED "METRO - RAIL USAGE CONSIDERATION VIA SPECIAL PARKING PERMIT "; AMENDING SECTION 20 -7.6 ENTITLED "PARKING" IN ORDER TO MODIFY REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO BONUSES AND PARKING REDUCTIONS IN THE "SR(HD -OV)" SPECIALITY RETAIL (HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 20 -8.10 ENTITLED "BONUS ALLOCATIONS" IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE PARKING REDUCTIONS AND PARKING BONUSES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE "TODD" TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE BACKGROUND This item was presented to the Planning Board on January 31, 2008. At that time several members offered to do additional research to determine if the City should retain some of the parking reductions proposed for permanent removal from the Code. The item could not be considered in February due to the cancellation of both Planning board meetings in that month. The City Commission at its May 4, 1999 meeting adopted a limited parking moratorium ordinance (No. 8- 99- 1682). The ordinance has been extended on seven different occasions, the latest was adopted June 5, 2007 (Ordinance No. 15- 07- 1916). The 2007 ordinance amended the original moratorium to last 9 months until March 5, 2008. The City Attorney has now advised that the temporary moratorium continuously, being re- adopted since 1999, must end. He also stated that only those specific sections which were included in the ongoing moratorium ordinances could be permanently adopted if that is the desire of the City. The City Attorney emphasized that no new language or revisions could be added as part of the permanent ordinance. PURPOSE OF MORATORIUM The moratorium ordinance was a reaction to the impact of the Shops of Sunset and its purpose was to afford the city staff and citizens enough time to review the parking provisions in the Land Development Code and recommend amendments, if necessary. it was also felt that the City needed time to begin building public off - street parking as part of the infrastructure of the Hometown Parking Bonus Off street- Parking Page 2 of 3 District. This objective has been partially satisfied with the opening of the 73`d Street Municipal Parking Garage. The moratorium was extended several times in order to allow for a completion of a downtown Parking Space study (2004) In addition, amendments to the parking regulations have also been recommended by the Zoning Task Force, the Parking Advisory Committee and the Planning Board. All of theses recommendations are now part of a single ordinance which will replace the existing parking regulations in the Land Development Code. It is important to note that all of the previous studies and the changes suggested by the citizen Boards have stressed the need to remove parking bonuses and other provisions which reduce the provision of off - street' parking spaces. REGULATIONS SUBJECT TO MORATORIUM The current moratorium impacts five sections in the LDC which allowed for a reduction of required parking in the Hometown District and in the vicinity of the Metro -Rail station. These were: (1) Sec 20-4.4 (H) Metro Rail Usage Consideration. Allows 50% reduction in parking if within 1,500 feet of the MetroRail Station; this provision was suspended during the entire period of the moratorium. (2) Sec 20 -4.4 G) Joint Use Spaces. Allows parking reductions if there is a mix of uses; this provision was suspended during the entire period of the moratorium. (3) Sec 20 -7.6 (B) Hometown District. Allows for parking reductions if a developer included certain features (i.e. arcades) or included mixed uses in multi -story buildings. The moratorium allowed these bonuses to be used if a development was less than 25,000 square feet. However, for larger developments over 25,000 square feet, the City Commission was permitted to waive the moratorium if approved by a vote of four members. It is important to note that during the period the moratorium was in effect there were no special requests to waive the restrictions. (4) Section 20 -7.6 (C) Hometown District. — This section permits payment into the Parking Infrastructure Trust Fund in lieu of providing required spaces. In August of 2006, the Parking Moratorium Ordinance was extended and it was amended to limit the type of development that could take advantage of this provision. The ordinance adopted at that time included a provision that only "existing structures" could be eligible to pay into the fund in lieu of providing parking spaces. (5) Section 20 -8.10 TODD Bonus Allocations - This section permits parking space reductions in the Transit Oriented Development District (TODD) if a new development includes an arcade, underground parking or a mix of uses as part of the bonus allocations chart. In August of 2006, the Parking Moratorium Ordinance was extended and it was amended to eliminate the provisions permitting parking reductions. STAFF OBSERVATIONS (1) Since the implementation of the moratorium in 1999 there has been several quality developments in the Hometown District built without use of the parking bonuses under moratorium. (2) It is important to reiterate again that previous parking studies and revisions suggested by the citizen Boards have stressed the need to remove parking bonuses and other provisions which reduce the provision of off - street parking spaces. Parking Bonus Off street - Parking Page 3 of 3 (3) The attached ordinance makes permanent all of the provisions which suspended parking reductions and bonuses in several sections of the LDC. PARKING BOARD RECOMMENDATION The City's Parking Board at its December 14, 2007 meeting reviewed the attached draft ordinance and adopted a motion by vote of 5 ayes 0 nays recommending approval. RECOMMENDATION It is important to note again that the moratorium ordinance was to expire on March 5, 2008. The City Commission at its March 4, 2008 was advised that the Planning Board had deferred action on the ordinance several times. The Commission realizing the importance of not letting the moratorium expire, did adopt an emergency ordinance (6 -08 -1941) extending the moratorium for 30 days. It is recommended that the attached draft ordinance making permanent the provisions (parking bonuses and reductions) which are currently suspended be approved. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Current moratorium ordinance effective until 3/5/08 Public notices JP /SAY X: \PB\PB Agendas Staff Reports \2008 Agendas Staff Reports \1- 15- 08\PB -07 -029 Parking Moratorium Report.doc CITE' OF SOUTH MIAMI , PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Action Summary Minutes Tuesday, March 11, 2008 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. EXCERPT I. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:41 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. II. Roll Call. Action: Chairman Morton requested a roll call. Board members present constituting a quorum: Ms. Young, Mr. Farfan, Mr. Davis, and Ms. Chael. Absent: Ms. Yates City staff present: Sanford A. Youkilis (Acting Planning Director) and Lluvia Resendiz (Administrative Assistant). IV. Planning Board Applications /Public Hearing (B) PB -07 -029 (continued from 1 -15 -08 meeting) Applicant: City of South Miami AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; REMOVING FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 4.4(G) ENTITLED "JOINT USE SPACES VIA SPECIAL PARKING PERMIT "; REMOVING FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 4.4(H) ENTITLED "METRO - RAIL USAGE CONSIDERATION VIA SPECIAL PARKING PERMIT "; AMENDING SECTION 20 -7.6 ENTITLED "PARKING" IN ORDER TO MODIFY REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO BONUSES AND PARKING REDUCTIONS IN THE "SR(HD -OV)" SPECIALITY RETAIL (HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 20 -8.10 ENTITLED "BONUS ALLOCATIONS" IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE PARKING REDUCTIONS AND PARKING BONUSES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE "TODD "TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Plamung Board Meeting March 11, 2008 Page 2of5 Action: Ms. Young read the item into the record Mr. Youkilis advised that at its January 15, 2008 meeting the Plamling Board deferred this item. He noted that on January 15, 2008 Ms. Yates advised that she would provide evidence to support her recommendation as to why certain sections should not be removed from the Land Development Code. Mr. Youkilis informed that the City Commission has expressed that the moratorium must end. The moratorium ended on March 5, 2008 however on March 4, 2008 the City Coni nission passed an emergency ordinance extending the moratorium for an additional 30 days. Mr. Youkilis described the five sections which are subject to be eliminated from the Land Development Code. Staff recommended that the ordinance be approved as proposed. Mr. Morton expressed concerns related to portions of an existing structure being left in retrofit. He questioned if the ordinance could cause confusion with regards of retaining 25% of the existing building. If so, under which of the four sections would that project fall under. He was concerned that there may be a loophole which may leave a portion of an existing structure to fall under. He questioned if there was a possibility to take advantage of paying into the infrastructure if part of the building was left standing. Mr. Youkilis advised that Mr. Morton's concerns have not been noticed and he has not seen that situation present itself in the City. Ms. Chael advised that she has deep reservations on approving the ordinance as it reads. The downtown is not a strip shopping mall because not everyone comes to the downtown by car. Downtown South Miami cannot be redeveloped adequately if people are forced to go by suburban parking standards. Suburban strip shopping mall parking standards cannot be applied to the South Miami downtown. The ordinance, as written, does not take consideration of the realities of South Miami's downtown district. The rules as written will simply have South Miami as a parking garage. If people are forced to have such stringent parking requirements the downtown will become stagnant and the idea is to have vibrant mixed uses. Ms. Chael advised that traffic studies conducted in 2002 support changing parking bonuses formulas instead of eliminating them. She read that "although downtown South Miami suffers from a public perception that public parking spaces are hard to find although there is actually an abundance of parking. However, many popular destinations have few parking spaces close by which means immediate proximity and the parking garages and parking lots with available parking spaces typically are not well connected to the popular destinations." She advised that there have been no changes since 2002 and based on the quote there is no shortage of parking. Ms. Chael suggested that valet parking may remedy the parking situation. She stated that it is a mistake not to acknowledge transit as a means of mobility. After further discussion of the proposed ordinance the Board agreed that the parking bonuses should not be completely eliminated but rather reduced. The Board agreed that Section 1, "Joint Use Spaces" shall not be eliminated because having mixed uses in the downtown area promotes one -time parking as opposed to parking several times for different shopping behaviors. The Board recognized that there was a correlation between Section 3 required parking for "Hometovm District Overlay Zone" and Section 2 "Metro- P1arming Board Meeting March 11, 2008 Page 3 of 5 Rail Usage." They noted that Section 3 provides parking concessions for mixed uses as does Section 2 "Metro -Rail Usage." The Board acknowledged that developments less than 25,000 square feet snake up 90% of the downtown tenants therefore precisely those tenants should be assisted by the parking bonuses and by a common parking strategy of paying into the parking pool. Ms. Chael reiterated that the City of South Miami is a "park once" environment and many things can be accomplished without having to park a vehicle more than once. The Board also acknowledged that Section 4 "Bonus Allocations" in the Transit Oriented Development District (TODD) would be realistic if the City. provided essential parking where all the merchants can car pool. They agreed that any site within the Metro -Rail should have some advantages given their proximity to the downtown district. Chairman opened the public hearing. Speakers: NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE Jerry Proctor 200 South Biscayne Blvd Oppose Mr. Proctor advised that during the last City Commission meeting Commissioner Beckman suggested that staff look into the parking situation regarding the new garage and its benefits. The moratorium has been in effect for many years and the ordinance based upon a finding that there is a parking shortage. Mr. Proctor stated that the parking shortage may not be the same anymore. He suggested that he Board adopt some modifications to the existing parking requirements under the Land Development Code: He too acknowledged that a 50% reduction under Section 1 (Metro -Rail Joint Usage) might be too much. There is no substantial justification to eliminate all the bonuses because the idea of mixed uses in the downtown is to have all things, including parking, working together. He recommended modifying the excess bonuses instead of a total removal. Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Youkilis advised that there are no results for the recent parking space count study but daily counts at the parking garage are being conducted at several times throughout the day. The results are expected to be finalized for the City Commission meeting scheduled for March 18, 2008. Mr. Youkilis indicated that an item related to a special use in the City parking garage was deferred at its March 4, 2008 meeting because the City Conunission requested to have a full count of the available parking spaces. He advised that the Parking Board also agreed to eliminate all parking bonuses. Mr. Youkilis advised that the bonuses illustrated under Section 1 "Joint Use" are available throughout the City therefore, if removed the bonuses could be eliminated for the entire City including the Hometown District. Ms. Cheal stated that the government should not have to regulate parking spaces but rather the market should. The 60% accumulation of bonus reduction in the TODD district should not be stricken form Section 4. Mr. Youkilis advised that the reason it was proposed was because properties in the TODD districts can get a bonus of 50% where some buildings Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2008 Page4of5 may have up to 60% which is a concern to the City staff. Mr. Youkilis advised that the Zoning Task Force recommended that parking reductions in the downtown should be modified instead of removed. Mr. Youkilis advised that the Task Force recommended that "buildings with mixed uses of two or more than three categories under the permitted uses shall constitute no less than 25% of the gross floor area." Therefore it was suggested that if a building has mixed use, the bonuses can reduce required parking by flat 25 %. Mr. Youkilis advised that the "Joint Use Spaces" should not be available City wide only for the hometown district. The Board agreed to strike the current joint use and replace it with the Zoning Task Force recommendation of 25% reduction for Section 1. The Board also agreed that Section 2 (Metro -Rail Usage) shall remain however changing the percentage from 50% to 20 %. The language for Section 3(B)(2,3,4, and 5) shall be eliminated and replaced with the recommendations made by the Zoning Task Force including the language that on- .street parking shall be counted. Mr. Morton. questioned Section 3(B)(6). He was concerned that if a building was destroyed the amount of potential rebuildable square footage would be reduced. Any damaged property under this provision must be grandfathered - otherwise the financial ramifications of the property's capital improvements will be overlooked at the time of the disaster. Mr. Proctor advised that the City Code indicates that a destroyed building constructed under the pre- moratorium bonuses could not be rebuilt because it would be nonconforming. He suggested that, to address the issue, a recommendation be forwarded to the City Commission or the City Commission may pass an emergency ordinance at the time that such event may occur. After further discussion the Board agreed to remove "in subparagraphs (2) and (3) above shall" and replace with "have the option" under Section 3(B)(6). The Planning Board recognized that the suburban ratios are not applicable therefore the need for parking bonuses exists and will result more realistic parking requirement. Mr. Youkilis stated that the Board's recommendations reflect the reality of an urban center. Motion: Ms. Chael moved to approve the proposed ordinance with the following recommendations: 1. Section 1 entitled "Joint Use Spaces Via Special Parking Permit" shall be removed as recommended. 2. Section 2 entitled "Metro -Rail Usage" parking reduction shall remain however reduce the percentage from 50% to 20 %. 3. The language for "Hometown District Overlay Zone" Section 3(A) shall remain and (B)(2,3,4, and 5) shall be removed and replaced with the recommendations made by the Zoning Task Force including the language that on- street parking shall be counted. Section 3(B)(6) shall also remain and read "For replacement of an existing building, completely damaged due to natural or man made disaster, the allowable parking adjustments identified above shall continue to he as provided. Planning Board Meeting March 11, 2008 Page 5 of 5 4. Section 3(C)(1) shall remain if the 25% reductions are incorporated as suggested by the Zoning Task Force. 5. Under Section 3(C)(2), line 3, strike the language "then required for existing structures only" as well as replace "must" for "may" in order to clarify that other alternatives are available. 6. Section 3(C)(4) line 4 strike "must" and replace with "may." 7. Section 4 shall illustrate that the 5% parking reduction shall not be provided for arcades and that height bonuses shall not be provided in the Transit Oriented Development District. 8. The language for mixed uses under Section 4 shall read "three or more uses" with "25% reduction." 9. Section 4 shall also reflect that "In no event can the accumulation of bonuses exceed a 45% reduction on required parking." Mr. Davis seconded. Vote: 5 Ayes 0 Nays X: \Comm Items \2008 \4- 1- 08 \03- 11- 08- PBMinutes ExcerptParking Ord.doc CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI PILANNING BOARD Regular Meeting Action Summary Minutes Tuesday, January 31, 2008 City Commission Chambers 7:30 P.M. EXCERPT 1. Call to Order and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Action: The meeting was called to order at 7:41 P.M. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison. II. Roll Call. Action: Chairman Morton requested a roll call. IV. Planning Board Applications /Public Hearing (C) PB -07 -029 (continued froin 1 -15 -08 meeting) Item was deferred. Applicant: City of South Miami AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; REMOVING FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 4.4(G) ENTITLED "JOINT USE SPACES VIA SPECIAL PARKING PERMIT "; REMOVING FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20- 4.4(H) ENTITLED "METRO - RAIL USAGE CONSIDERATION VIA SPECIAL PARKING PERMIT "; AMENDING - SECTION 20 -7.6 ENTITLED "PARKING" IN ORDER TO MODIFY REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO BONUSES AND PARING REDUCTIONS IN THE "SR(HD -OV)" SPECIALITY RETAIL (HOMETOWN DISTRICT OVERLAY) ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING SECTION 20 -8.10 ENTITLED "BONUS ALLOCATIONS" IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE PARKING REDUCTIONS AND PARKING BONUSES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE "TODD "TRANSIT ORIENTED' DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Action: Ms. Young moved to defer the item to the next meeting when Ms. Chael and Ms. Yates could report on their research. Mr. Davis seconded. Vote: 6 Ayes 0 Nays After an approval to defer item PB -07 -029, the Board agreed to open the floor public remarks pertaining to the item. Planning Board Meeting January 31, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Speakers: NAME ADDRESS SUPPORT /OPPOSE Victor Dover 6227 SW 57'Street Oppose Mr. Dover advised that the intent behind the parking bonuses is correct. The question, however, is whether or not the proper tools exist to allocate the parking bonuses. The reason the section was incorporated in the code was for buildings that promoted walk - ability. The code left in place the ratios. Those ratios are the same as those used in suburban shopping centers and 100 percent driving locations, not walk -able transit environments. If the section is wrong then remove what does not work but fix the ratios. The big problem is not for the big sites because they will have the ability to redevelop without the reductions. However, the small buildings will suffer the consequences of the removal of the bonuses. He feels that reform to the code is needed because after the Hometown District overlay, the reductions and incentives were also included in the TODD zone. He concluded adding that preserving character in the Hometown District is better than having too many parking spaces. Jason Chandler 5940 SW 73 Street Oppose Mr. Chandler advised that he agrees with Mr. Dover. He advised that the LDC is imperfect and that it needed adjustments. But he has always found the LDC to be a good code with valuable intents. Therefore, he believes the structure of the code needs to be preserved. The Brandon Lurie building was influenced by the code and its spirit of South Miami. Although the owner chose not to take advantage of the bonuses, the rational for not taking the reductions was that he believed that their clients would demand parking spaces. Three years later the parking lot is often empty. It is ironic because this is someone whom is much attuned with what he believes a buyer thinks they will need. He embraced the spirit of the code and in the end he realized that the intent of the code is clever. Mr. Chandler advised he conducted a poll of the new garage and has found that it is 1/3 full. These are investments that cannot be ignored. The dismantling of the code in a drastic manner will only harm the City's investment. One cannot rely on the developers to do things properly. What can be done is to allow the code to control parking behavior. The big buildings will not suffer but rather the small buildings will. The Green Task Force was a great addition by the City. It takes into consideration green and sustainable design. XAConi n Items\2008 \4 -1- 08\01- 31- 08- PBMinutes Excerpt Parking Comments.doc Parking Board Meeting Dec. 14, 2007 I. Board members in attendance constituting a quorum: Shirley Huebner, Sharon McCain, Ken Merker, Luis Merceda, Eddie Barones (New board member), Michael Miller, Alex Abril, Julian Perez (Guest) Also in attendance were some others that did not speak clearly into the microphone. II. Minutes for review included: a. September 7, 2007 It was mentioned in the minutes that the cost for residential decal parking was an issue. Sharon wanted to ammend to the minutes that the cost is actually minimal. Minutes were then approved by the board. b. September 21, 2007 A motion was made to strike "not that zones would not be used." from the sentence "Sharon McCain notes that the residential decal parking minutes were incorrect. On this point the vote was for colored decals with zones, not that zones would not be used at this time." The motion was passed. Minutes were then approved by the board. c. October 5, 2007 - "Sharon asked for anyone on the board who would possibly benefit..." was ammended to say "Sharon asked if anyone on the board..." - "Michael Miller suggest letting another body determine the issue in favor of Shirley Huebner." was ammended to omit "in favor of Shirley Huebner." - "Sharon raised concerns over the zones on 74th terrace only being a half a block long." was corrected to say "Shirley raised concerns..." - "A letter written October 4th to her..." referring to Sharon, was not in fact written to Sharon. The sentence was ammended to say the letter was addressed originally to Aji Bola. - A motion was passed to attach the letter from Steve Smith to Aji Bola to the minutes. Minutes were then approved by the board. d. November 9, 2007 - Sharon noted that the recent minutes from November 9th back did not reflect the opinions of Luis Machado concerning residential decal parking. - Sharon also noted the minutes to state that the board had already voted for residential parking zones. - Alex also felt that these two things needed to be included in the minutes. - A motion was made to ammend under paragraph 4 that the board voted in favor of zoned residential decal parking ordinance. - Board corrected and passed some names. Minutes were then approved. III. Motion was passed to allow Sharon to contact the city attorney.through the City Clerk. IV. All members of the board were sworn in before the minutes were finished being removed since Kenny Merker had to leave early. V. In regards to the packet that Julian Perez brought, the board wanted to make a suggestion that even though this is supposed to help the parking problem, there is a flaw with the infrastructure of the parking fund. VI. On accepting the changes as presented by the planning department, the board was all in favor.