The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005 11 08 Informational 300 PARKING WORKSHOP AGENDA ITEM 300 Consent Information X Public Hearin2 Re2ular November 8. 2005 Meeting /Dept. /~ _(A-- MGR. REQUEST: The Public Works Department is providing information to the City Commission regarding residential and commercial parking guidelines. PURPOSE: The purpose of this agenda item is to inform and obtain input from the Commission regarding the parking guidelines to be applied for new residential and commercial developments both inside and outside the Town Center. APPLICABLE CITY CODE: 9-277. Off-street parking requirements. Provides minimum parking requirements for a wide range ofland uses. Attachment 2 shows these requirements for some of the most common land uses. 20-213. Off-street parking regulations (R-3 Multiple-Family Dwelling Districts). Requires all multi-family developments in the R-3 District to provide a minimum of two (2) spaces per dwelling unit. 20-324 (10). Parking (Town Center). States that there are no minimum parking requirements for the Town Center. Applicants are required to provide a parking analysis justifying the proposed parking solution. 20-334. Off-street parking and driveway requirements (Greenway Interchange District). States that parking in the Greenway Interchange District "shall be adequate to serve all employees, visitors, and company vehicles." 20-346.3. Conditional uses (parking in the C-3 17-92 Commercial District). Multi-family residential developments (when approved as a conditional use in the C-3 District) shall have at least two (2) parking spaces per unit. November 8, 2005 Informational Item 300 Page 2 OVERVIEW: The purpose of this agenda item is to provide some background information and recommendations for the Commission's review regarding parking requirements for residential and commercial developments. Based on the discussions held at some of the recent Commission meetings, it is apparent that a set of realistic parking guidelines for individual land uses is necessary to establish a baseline for reviewing parking for all new development. Some differences in opinion have been expressed regarding the appropriate parking ratios to be used for the most common land uses, including residential, retail, restaurant, and office. A set of recommended parking rate guidelines may be brought back to the Commission for approval at a later date. A draft set of proposed parking rate guidelines is included with this agenda item as Attachment 2. As has been discussed previously, there are problems with providing too little or too much parking. Too little parking causes inconvenience, driver frustration, and can have a detrimental impact on residences and businesses. Too much parking is visually unappealing, creates unnecessary impervious area, limits development flexibility, and is costly to the owners. REFERENCE MATERIALS: The following information is enclosed for the Commission's review: 1. Parking Standard Comparison Chart (Attachment 1) 2. Recommended City of Winter Springs Parking Guidelines (Attachment 2) 3. Summary of parking field data taken from six existing multi-family developments in Winter Springs (Attachment 3) 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking rates for various land uses taken from ITE's Parking Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (Attachment 4) 5. FDOT Site Impact Handbook Parking Requirements (Attachment 5) 6. Selected parking guidelines from the Urban Land Institute (Attachment 6) 7. Project-specific parking information for the following mixed-use locations (Attachment 7): a City Place, West Palm Beach, FL b. Haile Village Center, Alachua County, FL c. Market Square, Gaithersburg, MD d. Southlake Town Square, Southlake, TX e. Easton Town Center, Columbus, OH f. Bayou Place, Houston, TX g. Pacific Place, Seattle, W A 8. Miami-Dade Land Development Code for Offsite Parking (Attachment 8) November 8, 2005 Informational Item 300 Page 3 9. Article, "Curbing Parking," from the June 2005 issue of Governing (Attachment 9) 10. PowerPoint Presentation for November 8 Parking Workshop prepared by Staff (Attachment 10) The Recommended City of Winter Springs Parking Guidelines (Attachment 2) provide recommended parking ratios that could be adjusted, both upward and downward, based on the unique conditions at each development. These Guidelines were developed by Staffbased on the following considerations: · Published parking guidelines (ITE, Urban Land Institute, etc.) . Input from the City's engineering consultants . Field data taken from existing developments in the City · Parking standards from other Florida cities and counties PARKING RATIOS: Parking ratios refer to the number of parking spaces per unit of development. For residential development, parking ratios are typically expressed by the number of parking spaces per dwelling unit. For example, a I DO-unit complex with a 2.0 parking ratio would have 200 parking spaces (100 x 2.0). A I DO-unit complex with a 2.25 ratio would have 225 parking spaces (100 x 2.25). Parking ratios for commercial development are typically expressed by the number of parking spaces per 1000 square feet of building space. Parking demands for restaurants can be as high as 20 spaces per 1000 sf, while professional offices can sometimes be as low as 3.0 spaces per 1000 sf. SHARED PARKING: Shared parking refers to the opportunity to reduce the total number of required parking spaces in a mixed use development because the peak parking times for the various land uses are not the same. For example, a parking lot that is shared by an office building and a restaurant can utilize a shared parking arrangement since the peak period for the office (weekday business hours) is different from the restaurant's peak period (weekend evenings). If a restaurant required 50 parking spaces on its own and an office building also required 50 spaces on its own, a shared parking lot serving the two may only require 75 spaces. The parking guidelines discussed and recommended herein are based on individual land uses; that is, there are no built-in considerations given to shared parking. Shared parking should be considered on a case-by-case basis using a peak-hour parking demand analysis. Shared parking can typically reduce the total parking demand by 10-25%. The first step in reviewing a shared parking opportunity for any mixed use development is to determine the individual parking demands for the respective land uses. If there is no consensus on the individual parking demands, determining an appropriate reduction for shared parking will be difficult. RECOMMENDATION: None at this time November 8, 2005 Informational Item 300 Page 4 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Parking Standard Comparison Chart (Attachment 1) 2. Recommended City of Winter Springs Parking Guidelines (Attachment 2) 3. Summary of parking field data taken from six existing multi-family developments in Winter Springs (Attachment 3) 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) parking rates for various land uses taken from ITE's Parking Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (Attachment 4) 5. FDOT Site Impact Handbook Parking Requirements (Attachment 5) 6. Selected guidelines from the Urban Land Institute (Attachment 6) 7. Project-specific parking information for the following mixed-use locations (Attachment 7) 8. Miami-Dade Land Development Code for Offsite Parking (Attachment 8) 9. Article, "Curbing Parking," from the June 2005 issue of Governing (Attachment 9) 10. PowerPoint Presentation for November 8 Parking Workshop prepared by Staff (Attachment 10) CITY COMMISSION ACTION: .: ATTACHMENT 1 fI) CD fI) :) "D C ca ..... "D I) - u CD a; tn o - "D .! Q. ~ fI) 'E ca "D C J! tn 0) c :i2 ... ca Q. '0 c o fI) 'C ca Q. E o (.) 'a.. il; 0 1ft 1ft ~ ~ i c 0 ~ ~ ~oj N ... ... coi i~U) ~u alii!: ~ ~ f5 ~05 III u~a.. N N N Q) g~ 0 0 0 8 .- :l 0 0 0 ~ 0 N N N lri cnU ..!. Q) ~ 8 It) ~ ~ e"c: III III :l N ~o8 N N .... M '2 III 'a C _0 S 0" 0 It) It) ~ U) ~fij 0 "': "': u(3 N .... .... N c"t)B ~ ~ 0 8 1Ilc:.a C'! €1Il~ ::>...J~ .... .... .... M I- 8 ~ ~ 8 8 LL. N .... .... M w C') CD 0 ~ ~ "": "! !:: .... .... .... N Q)..... -"..... C:ON 8 0 ~ ~ (gudl C! 8~~ N .... .... N Ucn :t:: :t:: - c: c: c: - :l :l :l 02 ~ lo~ ~ - ::> UJ 'i I 1 0 0 ~ 0 " " " .... .... 18 8 I~ ~ Ie III Q) og e e 0 e :r:: 8 2: .... Oe 0 8? ~ ~ ~ 15 .Q UJ c: 0 ~ I (jj .r: Q) ~ j ~ ~ Ie: " ~ 0::: 0::: ~ c: m m ~ ~ N N ATTACHMENT 2 Recommended City of Winter Springs Parking Guidelines for Selected land Uses I Residential DeveloDments: Recommended Current City Code .!J..nit Total Spaces Sec. 9-277 Detached Single Family dwelling unit 2.00 2.00 1 BR Apartment dwelling unit 1.25 1.00 2 BR Apartment dwelling unit 1.75 1.00 3 BR Apartment dwelling unit 2.25 1.00 1 BR Townhome I Condo dwelling unit 1.25 1.00 2 BR Townhome I Condo dwelling unit 1.75 1.00 3 BR Townhome I Condo dwelling unit 2.25 1.00 Non-Residential Land Uses: Unit Rate Office per 1000 sf 3.30 2.50 Retail per 1000 sf 4.00 3.30 Restaurant per 1000 sf 10.00 10.00 ATTACHMENT 3 Parking Analysis Field Summary Cypress Club Type of development: ownership villas Number of units: 75 Unit breakdown: N/ A Parking spaces provided: 169, all assigned except for 15 "visitor" spaces (2.25 overall ratio) Field observations taken: Mon., Aug. 29 9:00 PM Field notes: · 79 total open surface spaces (68 assigned and II visitor) · 53% overall parking utilization rate · II ofthe 15 visitor spaces were open · Complex is fully occupied Conclusion: Appears to have more than adequate parking onsite. Visitor parking ratio of 0.25 spaces appears to be sufficient. Courtney SDrines Type of development: Rental apartments, with plans to convert to condos Number of units: 252 Unit breakdown: 80 1 BR, 132 2 BR, 40 3 BR Parking spaces provided: 504, including 80 detached garage spaces (2.0 overall ratio) Field observations taken: Wed., Aug. 24 9:30 PM Field notes: . 95 open surface spaces · 78% of surface spaces occupied (329 of 424) · Lots in front of some buildings nearly full · All garages were closed - unable to count these . No assigned spaces (other than the garages) . A row of about 20 spaces is dedicated to boat parking . Complex is fully occupied Applying the recommended City Guidelines, this complex would have: 421 spaces; if 80 were garage spaces, there would be 341 surface spaces; 329 surface spaces were occupied, indicating that the City standards would barely provide enough parking at the time of the field observations. Conclusion: Parking is appropriate as currently provided (2.0 ratio). Moss Place Type of development: ownership townhomes Number of units: 20 Unit breakdown: N/A Parking spaces provided: 38 (1.9 overall ratio); all spaces appear to be assigned Field observations taken: Mon., Aug. 25 9:45 PM Field notes: . 19 open surface spaces . 50% parking utilization rate . Does not include grass parking spaces on other side of road Conclusion: Too many parking spaces -lot is half full near the peak time of day. Golf Terrace ADartments Type of development: Rental apartments Number of units: 552 Unit breakdown: 276 1 BR, 276 2 BR Parking spaces provided: 873, including some detached garage spaces Field observations taken: Mon., Aug. 29 9:30 PM Field notes: · 300+ open surface spaces · Estimated 60% +/- surface parking utilization rate · Did not count spaces in front of garages - not sure if these are intended to be parking spaces or not . Lots at some buildings nearly full · All garages were closed - unable to count these . No assigned spaces (other than the garages) . A row of about 30 spaces is dedicated to boat parking · Some parking spaces at the perimeter of the complex are quite far from the nearest residential building Applying the recommended City Guidelines, this complex would have: 828 spaces (1.5 overall ratio); this would save 70 spaces from the current layout but would still be too many. Conclusion: Too much parking. Data suggests an overall ratio closer to 1.25 would be appropriate. Casa Park Villas Type of development: ownership villasltownhomes Number of units: 288 Unit breakdown: N/ A Parking spaces provided: 648 surface spaces (2.25 overall ratio); does not appear to be assigned Field observations taken: Thurs., Aug. 25 9:30 PM Field notes: · 150+ open surface spaces . Plenty of parking available at each building · Complex appears to be fully occupied Conclusion: Too many parking spaces provided; using a 2.0 instead of a 2.25 would eliminate 72 spaces and still provide sufficient parking for this complex. Seville on the Green Type of development: ownership villas Number of units: 200 Unit breakdown: 40 I BR, 140 2 BR, 20 3 BR Parking spaces provided: 380 surface spaces (1.9 overall ratio); does not appear to be assigned Field observations taken: Mon., Aug. 29 9:15 PM Field notes: . 84 open surface spaces . 78% parking utilization rate . Some lots are nearly full at some buildings . An additional 20-30 spaces are unavailable due to site construction Applying the recommended City Guidelines, this complex would have: 340 spaces (1.7 overall ratio); this would still be sufficient. Conclusion: Parking is appropriate (perhaps too high when the spaces closed for construction are considered). ATTACHMENT 4 ITE Parking Generation Rates Institute of Transportation Engineers - Parking Generation Handbook average peak weekday rate Land Use Unit (spaces per DUt~_ .. Residential -. Detached Single Family per dwellina unit 1.83 Low/Mid-Rise Apartment per dwellina unit 1.20 High-Rise Apartment per dwelling unit 1.37 Rental T ownhome per dwellina unit 1.73 ....~_.- Condo / T ownhome per dwelling unit 1.46 Non-Residential Retail per 1000 sf 4.01 Office (Professional or Commercial) per 1000 sf 2.84 Church per 1000 sf 1.17 Restaurant per 1000 sf 10.10 -- Movie Theater per seat 1.26 Library per 1000 sf 2.61 Bank I oar 1000 sf 2.30 - -~;;;.. 0"0 .....C>> NJ:: .. CJ C>>J! tl)c>> :::)0 "O~ c- CU'- ..JE :. . C>> a c us ...kJ~~~Vt-{n1 J~ ...."......:....J....~.;... . ...._.,#'*.~~;~~~ ~ J .l: ~ Ii J i .l:- e ~ -& c: 1il ii j l!' i ~ g '5 I $ ! ~ ~ . .l:- 2l :! 'E : -g t i ~ ~ ~ o ,,-8 g> ss- cu i"j15 j jjiJ !~ ~J~t ~il ~ ~~ij j~i J ~s g>15 "-&.. Iii! i'if j !.liCU.e :;!'" UU ml HIl !H I .~~~I ~ So ; "'2~" ~~ ~t~! !.ll-! ~Ifl 1: P ~;~" IJ i~JI iJ t :~ ~ ! q i ;~'g i~i :I: :0 fI) S~ ... I j I Ii III! fS- -8 g>j 0 ~ ~-t!- ! ~! i!~ . ~ ~j ~ ~ ~id e" 8 .. 1$ I 'H~~ IIi e-Ii ~l _UlOm ~ f' 1tj! 5... 1!gs! Ii ~il!':Z; i i :i~li Hi J! cf ~ ~ it>:-: !~~~ J ! ~j~~ f~ t II j i sjf ~-5 h Iii iS~i ;;;...."'''' ~,!Lll ~11:~ ~__O> 1';1> "'~!,; :=;: ~lio2S ..A~ ! ~ i.i. 'ii.. . -.8> j Jl f f ... ! ~ ~ I-- I ' 10 I ' ' .... c 1\ I :::) i \ \ l i \ \' ! { g I , A .. '0 : \ 0 ~: o .' c: ~ ';:'0 \!\ .... :;) an::s ii CD c \ i CD ~o 0. ~ \ \ \ al ..s:;. .:JI, I I I <<I ~ :e .. I <<I CD \ \ , S :)<<1 :. 0 \ \ \ rn ) 'O~ ~.. Q I" g i- ~ c \ \ . u. c.- :5 ...- \ <<Ie: - \ I 10 \I ....- i -E i: 2 1 ,<<I I I )( i 0. i \ Il- ~ \ . i . , t , Il- i t \ ! I 1 0 I \ ~ ~ 10 0 10 0 .... .... sel:>>IQe^ pe)tJ8d = d '& \ --_. -. -.,. ".-_",-,_,;,_,,,,,,,~,,,,__,,,,,,,-,,,,,,;~,_W':"'__~-~'"""-:-"'""",.:~:~_;..C""~"""":...,,,,,,,.____,,,____ 0) c "; ::J o X 0"0 T-Q) N.c .. Co) Q) ftI (1)1) ::)0 "0>- c= ftI E -1ft1 LI- . Q) '5 c en C) c Ci ::J o :J; 0"0 T-Q) N.J::. ." Co) Q) ftI (1)1) ::)0 "0>- C= ,5e lIS "r Q) "'6>> c en ! c ::) I "i ~ Q ~ " ;~ Iii Q: ~~ ~Oi :'6 " o "C II> IL .ll: l II> 1lI I! II> ~ o "! C!"!"! <j ~ N-""' ~ ~ CD Ii ... . ::. i ~ II) ri f it Ul 1 "0 o .C "0 Q) C a.. ftI ~ E ftI Q) Q)Q 0.0) >-c ftI- "Ol!: ~ftI Q)a.. ~ \. i I I i I ! co I i Zl~ I ~~I I II let:: ~-t-j--~-- 0 o LO 0 LO 0 N ~ ~ SeIO!48A pe)!Jed = d o ..- j j f IX) JI ~ f J!l .S co ::::I OJ v I " 2: ~ o i E u. I II )( N !l ~ ! J I J '5 1 , ,. I c G) E .....t: NIlS NQ. ue( G)G) 11) 11) ;:) .- ,,~ c:~ ji ~ ..J ! c :;) f ii > " C i >-.e ~~~ l!'i~ _..C 'C-& 0.68 'g .../ : ...: : lL . ! . ~ ". "," -,...,_..._._.....,:~_.""-"",'-...'._~~ .. " o 'C CD D. ~" ftl c: G) ftl Q. E c: G) ftlQ -eO) ::J c: .Q- ::J-E f/) ftl :>dL ftl " ~ I ~ I col vi ~I.~ MO ~ II ~11t o 0 o 0 o 10 N .- 000 g ::g .- ......_~~~. ".. .-.....--- o ~ i I j ;Il I f S81:)148A p811J8d = d o In o * o c .- :;) Q I j I o II ::g >c o ! o Q. J!I .. c 11 fl < j I 1; O' _.:-<< I '" !~ ~il~ <S elt " ~~z.i I ~~ iU 4~ti st~ "10 ~ > :x ~10111~ '?~- .:-< l i~t "'I ~IOO~ sl':-<~ 00_ ~!~11~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~oo~ - s~ ~il!~1 -':-<z1 ~.<s ... Ii -~ ~ . C ~ ~Q. ~t G) iill~~ l~'i~ e ~.c! .....t: oil il\ t lQ.~ l~ NIlS % '-0: ;.:. ;:"0 NQ. ~"!~ Ii i.:-<~i oo~ i ue( ~<S :J: == '!1~!1 ~i~ J 1 - i ! ~~_z.! s. l:..a ;:)i2 ill-to i~l.:-< ~I ~ ". l Ililt ~~O'~ Coo ~l i 1 ji ., - i15~ is Ii Ii; :i8~ 1~ l ~,,~ & .t- ell 1\\1\11 <s~<si i~ !l 0 .00 t oo~ ! 1 ..J t ~ ~ .I .:-<< 0>0: iO <Ii e ~~1~ ~iS :i iriti : .:-<I-.t~ i! ~ 1; 11 li-tl j .11!-~ ~! I I ~ l~ill- "-i tll~\c: ~ i t.f~~ Ill:. e t ~.s .......-...-._"'''~,'-~~-_._--- ~- j 0 Jl ! ." 0 I 5~~ It) C ::I at f ~ ! 8 B - l ~ -c ~ c 8. C>> ~Ijj 0 ~ E ~ ~ j CD ....t: Q.-c ! 1 Ncu -g ~ c ~jj ~c 0 c 8 Na. e-o.e ":"'lil CU CU 0 ;::) i Qioc( ~::;o l"'l c!}::I CD E DI :i IL II) C>> 0 0. CD I :::).! I~ i cQ l ~a:: i!: ..~ ea OJ 8 c · .: g of c cu:2 0.0 N H -0 ..J :::) .- ....:1 .g >.~ N )( 1 :. ea ea + ,8 i ! 0 ~ -co. T"" 0 ... oT"" 0 0 .... : j Q. ~;II I T"" ~ 0. .. & ea 1/ ." U) ii I e 0..1 ~ ~ 0 c( 0 0 . J 0 0 8 0 ~ 0 g 0 ~ N S&I:)lq&^ P&lIJed = d '5 c CD e ....1:: ~&. a;oc( II) CD :::).! "O~ C"O ea.- ...I~ ! !! c: ::I f 1 ~ -0 C >0 C It.e Q.::I at~ c: iiii o.5S l :. ~ . :. t 1 ~ J\ . " o 1: CD Q.~ "" c I ea 0. e CD cO ea Q of c :::)i t;-ea ,,0. "" CD ~ : r-- i : +! lC) ; )(. O! : r--' 0 : lX:!: II 1 o '('Of : II' IX: : 0..: o o <0 8 ~ ~ c :) g' 1 o II ~ )( o g080000 <o~~g~~ S81:)1l48^ p&)tJ8d = d i I I J I i ! 1 ii: \ I ~ J 1 \ i "--"~"'--""""'-""'''-':'~'-~"",,*,--,...-,,,,._- j T 8 Jl I 0 co ~ f ! ~I . c: f ;) +. :8 f l:Il xci i ~. . , ' " ! 0 i 'a I . ('If : 0 - 0 .: ~; It: ! co C c .;: :\ ' I III G) ~ 8 I ~ .. a.; :t= ~E l'a i c ! :) Nt:: i >00 .-:: C CJ .. as i-3z := ~ 8 :5 ~ G)C1. Q.II:i <!;t ~ " fl)e( ~i~ 0. CD 0 :;:)G) CO ~ "C .f! =fiii zO) "- CD: .= 0.5 , i II I A.oc! , x ~.c >d!: I 0 '& .. as as 0 Q 'C c: N . 0 ~o. :f A. ;::l .II: l! i l .3 ~ J & ~ f 0 . . 0 8 0 0 0 0 ~ I ~ 8 0 0 0 'ii co co <!;t N ~ ..- S81:>1l.t8^ p8)tJ8d = d 1 ... C CD NE N1:: Nas "C1. Ie( :;:)CD "C.!! C~ ~.c Q % ~f i fi ~ ~ I~ '" ~.. 11 i~ i ~ ~ 1 I .t!! ti 11 ~ ~! ~\ i~ ,!! ,. i~ \ IS!:: i5 ~ f t II ~! ~ ~ l - l' g s 11 t~ ~ 5 I) ~ ~ ~! i a .fl Is Ii ~li 1 ~!! ~1 & i 1 8. . t If 4... ~t ! 5.'1 ~ 1! ~i 11 ~~ II ~ I i~ I~ I i~ ~~ i~ ~ i It -I <s ii !i. ~i 1 \ ~!t 11 t = l~ = ;11 it 1 i !I! \...t ! t ~~ t 1~~ .~ i 1 2 ~ ~ : - \ \1 11 l!t II i 1 !li it i i ill Ui ~q nll it i i I II '1 i 1 , 1 I ~.,,,,,,,,,,,<<,<<-,,<,,,"''''''>.'_'__-ioK,,,,,,,,,,,, d"..'....... -",_..';"'.;...~, ":,,,,,_,,,,,,,.~,,_~,,,,,, ."""....~- '" i ~ ~~j ~ e ~ ::I 01 J I 8 t", ~ E; . f CD 0 ..,.11) ~ bi "0 g N::I I>> 0 NO 'C "0 ~ .l:. CD C . .. C ~! c CD ~ 0.. ftl I ~ CIJ 0 ~j ~ E I o g' f! ;:)1- me! I , o - ~ ,,- ~. ~ .1 N J Cj! .c o..Q I ~ ca C ILO j ~.5 J ..JCD I I u 'tJi!: I I I loC 0:: ~ca I I Zo.. 0 ~ 0 l ~ - t I ~ J 4( 000 0 ~150888O J vMN- S81:lILl8^ p8)jJed = d 11 CD ~cn N::I N~ .. C :~ ;:).- "0- C,! jc & '5 ~ Ii. .. ~ >.~ 1 "'l '" ,,, ~ ..:.. ",l!' ~I I ~l 1 ~ t i'5 i~ ! \\ .B" ~ >- =l!~ j II 11 t ~l l g \ lit \i l!" ~ i ~'" ~ III ,I Ii i ~i a 1i & t \~ )1 ,t I ill I 1: ~ '51 ~ ~t t ~ ~t. ~ ii IS . ~iJ. i .., z t ~ ltl I z 8 ~ x I ~~~~~~~~--~----~--~ 1 \ 'I I Oi ! o :& ~ & (,) 1 j !l I f o o (t) i a: .. I ~"'! 5" N ....... 'N, :110 'x 0) c , ~,II '~!~ 8 I/) !II N ~ a. ;:) Dl C ~ G) en ::I o .s: c o~ (")0 Nt:: -- E Q..::I ::1- o C .. -- C>E G)O en"C :)c "CO cU ca- ..J.! - c G) "C '0 G) ~ J! 'i! ;:) Q I , I \: 1\ ; \ \, \ \ ; 'tI o "I: G> a. ..lIl:" ca c l~ C G) cae €Q ::I C J:l_ ::I~ (J) ca >-a. ca " ..lIl: G> ~ ;,; > 'l:I r: r: i;'~ i~B QI~ r:~" ~~g -r:;; Goog "8 -' 'I: . Go .>0: l . Q i ct ~ <3 J u. I o II ~ )( I I '5 I ~ J o 8158~8158:50 ~(t)(t)NN........ s81=>>IQeA p8)jJed = d c~ ~ i ~!.~ '83 i !li i !~~l!l Ii ~~ i~l }" ~11 ~l " \1 i~ Iii ~l.... 11!; ,g1"2 1~ :::,} ;il 11 I _&~ ~t i f~ s~ !j~ !l t ljt li ~ ~~l- ~i III CD! I i!~g t~ 8.! ii~ i.~ ~; s !il 2'~ '5 ~Q. l~ 151~ ~! i ~~ l~' i~ ~i 11 ,~~ ari ti 5- I~ 18~ ~i ~ \~I It ~ 1\ g~ lit t! 8. 8.j !!! 1'5.... ~~ 1 ! ~ .1! i!. -. ~ gt; tl % efi' ~t I t1' "i 1 IV It igll Ii ~ i~! ii~ ~ I.d tCl ~J~~ i~ ~ 1il - l !-! i Sf r: ~i i ~i~ ~1 a ~lf f ~i i 11 i! i Ii a t i i ~ I ~ t j ~ II- I ~~ ~ \\'~:.!l's, ~, 811 i l~t. l~i 1 -, \1- 1 ~1 5 5~ ~ t iil! ~i'; li~ j ~~ ! 1!1 ~\ < At11 ! ~ ~ ~i5 ~ w~ G> en ::I o .s: c o~ ~t: .- E Q..::I ::1-- o C .. - c>E :-8 :;:)c o -oU c_ ca to ..1+1 C G> "C '. ~ i \ " ; ATTACHMENT 5 FboT SITE IMPACT HANDBOOK Table 24. Parking Requirements Typical Land Use Parking Generation Rate Requirements (Trio Gen Unit) fRef ~ (Ref 1, 6) Weekday Weekday Residential . (Dwellin2 unit) Sin21e-Familv - - 2.0 Multifamily Apt. 1.04 1.21 .=... 3 or more BR - - I 2.0 'I 1-2 BR - - \ 1.5 ) General Office ~ (1000 sfGLA) 2. 79GF A 0.79GSF 3.0 GLA Shopping Center (1000 sfGLA) 3.23* .97* --- >600.000 sf -- - 5.0 400 - 600,000 sf - - 4.5 25 - 400,000 sf - -- 4.0 Convenience Store (1000 sf GLA) - - 3.0 Restaurant (1000 sfGLA) 9.0 - 12.5 7.0 - 15.9 20.0 Industrial (Emplovee) 0.75 -- 0.6 Theatre (Seat) 0.19 0.26 0.3 Hotel (Room) 0.8 1.0 1.25 * Off peak season Unit III - Standard Site Impact Review Procedures 106 Step 10: Site Access Circulation and Parking ~, ATTACHMENT 6 Urb -- 1E1l1E1T11l 'All. .... While a residential component is not very common in mixed-use developments. it is often desired as a means to create a self. contained community or neigh- borhood with home. work. and social land uses in one development. In terms of opportunities for shared parking. residential parking demand tends to comple- ment office and retail demand. Some residents drive to other work locations during the day. vacating parking space for use by the site's office employees and retail patrons. Twelve suburban and four CBD multifamily residen- tial developments ranging in size from 64 to 740 occupied units were surveyed.14 In the suburban de- velopments. parking demand was measured by hour of the day on a weekday and a Saturday, and in both suburban and CBD developments questionnaires were distributed to identify the rates of auto ownership and residents' driving habits. This information was supple- mented by aggregated results representing 18 devel- opments surveyed recently by the California Depart- ment of 1ransportation (Cal1rans).lS PUlIIIlIEMIIII The results indicate a ranlre of~peak parkin!!: de- mands from 0.35 ~arked vehicle per occupied unit to_ 1.85 parked vehic es per unit. This ratio is a direct reflection of auto ownership in the development, how- ever. In remote suburban areas, the average peak de. mand wasrl.5 vehicles per occupied unit, with a range of 1.2 to 1.85. A reasonable peak design value woJ,lld ~ be 1.6 spaces per unit. In other areas, the average peak was 0.5 vehicle per occupied unit, with a range of 0.35 to 1.0. These latter values tend to vary substan- tially, depending on such factors as available parking. levels of income. and public transit service. .., A~IUTIDII The hourly parking accumUlation for a weekday and a Saturday is shown in exhibit 17. The midday ac- cumulation on a weekday is equivalent to 60 percent of 14For the analysis of residential parking demand. CBD as well as suburban developments were surveyed to reflect the fact that midday parking demand is greater at downtown residential proj. ects than at suburban residential projects as a larger percentage of downtown residents leave their cars at home and walk or use public transit. 15 Based on a series of traffic and parking counts at miscellaneous sites in the San Francisco area during 1979. 1980. and 1981. L-a~ "IV\s+i+u4e. the daily peak. For Saturday, it is 70 percent. In downtown locations, where a greater percentage of residents walk or use public transit, the midday reduc- tion is not as great; the midday parking accumulation is 85 percent of the peak daily accumulation. SUS. VIlliTIII In most residential developments, peak parking ac- cumulation does not vary significantly by season, and seasonal variation in residential parking accumulation should generally be considered negligible. 29 I....... t. o l.<O/Ui\a ~(" re~~~'h"j)l ~ 1\ M' ')CWPU~ tJ..tv.e,\Cf ,wA ts ,.....- - .:..;.J.1ill Urbon LMJ .1V1s-tliu-k STEP 2: ""IIE111 FII PEAl '....1. FICTOR This step produces an appropriate set of peak park- ing demand factors. They represent the number of parking spaces needed per unit of land use or other parameter. 1b determine the factors, the following subtasks are necessary. Verification of Land Use and Selection of Parking lbrameters. The land uses described for the project in step 1 define the specific set of peak parking factors needed for the analysis of parking demand. The pa- rameter for each factor should be verified. Generally, square feet of floor space or rooms or dwelling units would be used; however, other variables might be more appropriate for certain unique activities. Specifically, the following information must be verified: . Verify that occupied GLA is to be used, including or excluding common areas. . Convert convention facilities to equivalent square feet if capacity per person is used in the building program (15 square feet per person may be used if another density factor is not available). Selection of Parking Factors. A preliminary value should be selected or determined for the set of peak parking factors. Information could be drawn from three sources: (1) parking factors suggested by the study (see exhibit 20), (Z)validated experience oftlie developer or other local authorities, or (3) new park. ing field surveys. It is essential to know what season or time of year and mode of travel are represented in the specific source for factors. This information should be described in terms of month of year (by land use) and approximate percent of nonauto use (that is, percent of person-trips made by modes other than auto). Adjustment for Season. For demand analyses, all parking factors need to reflect the same "design con- dition." 1YPically, the 30th highest hour has been used for highway projects. Similarly, for development analy- ses, the appropriate design period must be selected; that is, the peak season for each land use must be determined, based on developer's data, another source, or study results (see exhibit 27). However, because the design month frequently is different for each land use in a multiuse development, trial and error may be required to determine which month produces the maximum aggregate parking de- mand. The intent of the exercise is to recognize the .. aggregate effects" of seasonality. This concept is the same as that used to determine the impact of daily peaks. Using the quantity for each land use, test calcula- tions (parking demand factor multiplied by floor space) are made to identify the controlling land use. On this basis, a oesignmonthcan be selected: Each ~~ 'l I: : ~ r: :Ii' :~ t. ii' it ; I ! I I. ~ C EXHIBIT 26 ~ - REPRESENTATIVE ~ PARKING DEMAND F~CTORS ; I i: k 1 f n j .;1 ~ ,I 'i! II. , Land Use Unit Weekday Saturday Office Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA 3.00 0.50 Retail (400,000 sq. ft.) Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA 3.80 4.00 Retail (600,000 sq. ft.) Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA 3.80 5.00 Restaurant Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA 20.00 20.00 Cinema Parking spaces per seat 0.25 0.30 Residential Parking spaces per dwelling unita 1.00 1.00 Hotel Guest room Parking spaces per room 1.25b 1.25b Restaurant/lounge Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA 10.00 10.00 Conference rooms Parking spaces per seatc 0.50 . 0.50 Convention area Parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLAc 30.00 30.00 -Per one auto awned per dwelling unit. bFactored up to 100 percent auto use from the 80 percent auto use indicated in exhibit 13. cUsed by nonguests; the given rates thus are upper bounds, which are very rarely achieved. 45 ATTACHMENT 7 ,. :project Data: CityPlace 1.,: "nerallnformatlon oJect type E>b page ication ~e.s/hectares ij,klng ~stment to date New.town center for an existing city http://www.cityplaceweb.com/ West Palm Beach, Florida, on Okl1li't:hne"'"" l.loul€..tilrd,)USI (MISt of 1- 95 72.9130 3,300 spaces in four parking garages- approximately 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet (93 square meters) of leasable retail space $550 million ($220 million retail component) 'wners '.k.......llitYPlaCe Partners, New York; the Related Companies, L.P., New fbrk; the Palladium Company, New York; the O'Connor Group, .~ York; the Related Group of Florida, Miami; the Ohio State jlchers Retirement System; the City of West Palm Beach Sf" ?'~ I ,~O v~loper Palladium Company, New York .'sier planners'anClArcHltl'cti' slManfredi Architects Ltd., Boston (cultural arts center: Rick hzalez, REG Architects) . dscape Architect 'dshaw Gill & Associates, Ft. Lauderdale mmerclal Uses ..."dlng Area by Type of Use Square FeetJSq~re Meten 606,000/55,740 750,000/69,680 No~.s I, The master plan was eventually devdoped by Duany Plater- Zyberk & Company and by the Gibbs Planning Group. 2. Carole Clancy, .CityPlace Au:hitect Draws Inspiration from Italy.>> South FIorit/4 BusiMJS Jou17l4l. May 15. 1998, 3A. 3. Addison Mizncr (1872-1933) was a Florida architcct and developer who popularized Mediterranean arcl1itccture in Boca Raton and South Florida-particularly thc Spanish t Colonial style, which he employed in projects such as the . Cloister Inn of Boca Raton. r l ) Retail Uses Num~ofi;!>tablishments Lease rates (p~T square foot/square meter) Tenant mix Range of shop sizes Hotel Uses 440 rooms (planned) Residential Uses Unit Type Private townhouses Garden apartments Luxury rental apartments Mid-rise rental apartments ~~Dt?lU~~. Live/work lofts Total 78 Low $30s/low Balanced mix of!'\Ot!Ofliil chains (including Barn,oK & Schwarz, Macy's,l)o(ti;~ry B<Hn, and Restoration Hardware) and unique local and regional establishments; a ~ supermarket; ten restaurants Most smaller shops range from 200 to 3,000 square feet (19 to 280 square meters), with a half-dozen larger stores and restaurants 't. .~ Number of Units 51 33 128 264 38 S6' 570 i f 'j j; Civic Uses Harriet Himmel Gilman Theater for Cultural and Performing Arts. a central plaza, and assorted small urban open spaces .1996 December'1998 October 2000 2003 4. Clancy, .CityPlacc Architect. >> 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Darcie Lunsford. .CityPlacc SParks Downtown Homes.. South Florida Business Journal (Miami-Dade edition). May 1. 1998, lA. 2. Development Schedule City contract awarded Ground breaking Opened BuiJdout date .. .' GtyPl". 1'.' . r r froject Data: Haile Village Center enerallnformation :iject type Village center in a 1980s master-planned community' http://www.haileplantation.com/ indexhvc.html Alachua County, Florida 50120 In the mixed-use portion of the proiect, five spaces per 1,000 square feet (93 square meters), with no additional spaces for the residential space abOve commerCial ?Dace; in the multifamily portion, one space per bedroom evelopmli!nt.rost~to..date. eb page oeation :res/hectares .rking ratios j,12.2f!1Jllio!,. twners .nd Developers Jbert B. Kramer and Matthew Kaskel; the Fleeman family b . I ~ /laster Planners and Architects 3.0 ~ obert B. Kramer and Matthew Kaskel J lulldlng Area by Type of Use lse Square Feet/Square Meters Existing Proposed etail ' 15,000/1,390 80,000/7,430 lffice 90,000/8,360 80,000/7,430 Mc 4,700/44D 6,200/580 otal 109,700/10,190 166,200/15,440 :ommercial Uses lumber of establishments 55 ) Tenant mix Neighborhood shops, services, and dining establishments, and a wide range of small professional offices; no major national chains except Sun Trust Sa nk Size range (square feet/square meters) 500-3,000/46- 280 Civic Uses: Building Area by Use Use Square Feet/Square Meters Meeting Hall 3,200/300 Community association' building 'l,500/140a Residential Uses 120 units, including apartments over shops; single-family homes "(;iinarrow-iots;ITve7workunff5;ancracc~s~ryOTIlf5"(~artmellts .'. over garages); of the accessory units, 30 have been built and another 70 to 80 are permitted. Another 100 multifamily units , are under development. slii'es Prices Townhouses and detached homes start in the low $200,000s and range widely in price: three-bedroom, four-bath, 3,OOD-square-foot (2So-square-meter) townhouses sell for between $275,000 and $295,000. Development Schedule Construction began Projected buildout 1994 2005 a. Including sheriff's office and post office (a total of 3,000 square feet has been proposed), Haile Village Center 1213 I.li,!. I ~ , 'i 'j , ject Data: Market Square Main street and town center for a traditional neighborhood develop- ment (TNO) Gaithersburg, Maryland, just off Kentlands Boulevard 22/9 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet (93 square meters) $ 13 million3 ers and Developers ~/ " ~ nds II, LLC;the Beatty Companies ~ fter=Planner - '5' ;slt any Plater-Zyberk & Company ing area are feet/square meters) ber of establishments 255,000/23,690 33 Notes 1. Great Seneca Development Corporation, a subsidiary of Chevy Chase Savings and Loan, took over the development of Kentlands when the bank was forced to foreclose on the prop- erty. While the TND homes continued to sell at premium prices right through the recession, the financial circumstances of the original developer, Joseph A1fandre, unraveled after the Simon Property Group was unable to consummate a deal to purchase a large parcel of Kentlands fur a regional shopping Tenant mix Four restaurants. an eight-screen cinema, and a mix of smaller local and regional shops and services; about one-third of all retailers are national chains Range of shop sizes (square feet/square meters) 900-35,800/80-3,330 Lease rates (square feet/square meters) $30-$40/$322-$430 Residential Uses No residential uses in Market Square itselfthe Kentlands and Lakelands TN Os, which include a mix of apartments, townhouses, condominiums, and single-family homes; are directly adjacent to the project. Civic Uses PubncsqUarewrttTan6UtdoofiEesk-atin9,fiAk-Maig~StJ~et Pavilion, and fountain plaza Project Schedule Construction began Buildout date 1999 2001 a. As reported at httpJ/www.reji-comlarchive/CREJ/1997/97122'3/ 97122355html (May 13,2001). mall on property that c:ventually became the - Kendands Square shopping center. 2. For examples of how other recent projeCts have handled free- standing buildings within a town square, see the case studies on CityPlace and Southlake Town Square. Marke-t Square /225 I J , r . ~ Project Data: Southlake Town Square General Information Project type Town center Web page httpJ/www.southlaketownsquare.com/ Location Southlake, Texas, between Southlake Boulevard and State Highway 114 130/53 (42/17 in Phase I; 8/3 in Phase II) Approximately 1,800 parking spaces: 3.47 spaces per 1 ,000 square feet (93 square meters) $75 million Acres/hectares Parking Sf 61(~ "J. Investment, Phase I Owner and Developer Cooper & Stebbins, L.P. ,.8b~&~ p~~!~!~. ..nclArchit.~ts David M. Schwarz! ArchiteCiura,"Servbis, inc. Building Area by Type of Use Use Squar. Feet/Square Meters Phase I Phase II Bulldout 220,000/20,440 37,000/3,440 700,000/65,030 160,000/14,860 1,800,000/167,230 80,OOO/7,43oa 22,000/2,fJ4dJ 460,000/42,740 59,00015,480 2.500,000/232,260 Retail Office Ovic Total Commercial Uses: Lease Rates Use Base Rent Tenant Improvement Allowance (Per Square Foot! (Per Square Foot! Square Meter) Square Meter} $16+/$172+ $15/$161 $22+/$236+ $20/$215 Office Retail Retail, Service, and Restaurant Uses Number of establishments 89 Tenant mix National retail chains, including Eddie Bauer, the Container Store, the Gap, Pottery Barn, and Williams-Sonoma Range of shop sizes 100-10,000 square feet (9--930 square meters), with some larger stores, including a 24,000-square-foot (2,230- square-meter) Container Store and plans for a two-story Barnes & Noble Hotel Uses Two planned Residential Uses 'N()ne@r~!!y;'fbftsaMtownhouses .pf;mnecHor futu rephases Civic Uses A town hall, a post office, a library, and a city park Development Schedule Land acquisition Project planning, design, and approvals Ground breaking Opening, Phase I Opening, Phase II Estimated buildout date 1995 1995-1997 Fall 1998 . March 1999 2001 2010 a.Town hall. b. Post office. Southlake Town Square 2.5 ~u 1 . d:lW ~j!f1~: ~,."_~"A,,,f. ,,--'-' . .,. ,-^~^ . I . t ! iti otUn C fy... c;, /1) ~bt/s OAt C7 ~ f5 illS,. ~l{ . . -- --... n""....+i.....",+it"'\n~ ..,.. rl~ f (k 5 i tfk-.fu,JL . . . _..&._H r-'_..._-+_:.....-,..,..... nnc-tlnotinno I 4~Q ,- ~ ~ . ~ /k~;~faL ! Ii, -.... I ,..,~.."I"....inn J:lAtAil Entertainment Destinations ATTACHMENT 8 M ~a M ;-1:::bk PCA{\t{ iV1' Lo~ Miami-Dade Land Development Code: ARTICLE VII. OFF-STREET PARKING Sec. 33-124. Standards. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with the following minimum standards: (a) Dwellings: :J:' (1) Single-family dwellings not specifically referenced elsewhere in this section shall pjf$.' be provided two (2) parking spaces. Paving of said spaces shall not be required. . (2) Two-, three- and four-unit dwellings shall be provided two (2) parking spaces per " b · unit. \ V~ (3) Townhouses shall be provided a minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces per 0.- townhouse unit. Such parking spaces may be provided on the lot of the townhouses or in a commonly owned and maintained off-street parking bay or facility; provided, that no parking space shall be more than one hundred fifty (150) feet, by the most direct pedestrian route, from the door of the townhouse to the parking space it is intended to serve. Each townhouse site shall have its own off-street parking area and driveway thereto where on-site off-street parking is to be provided. In addition to the above required residents off-street parking spaces, a minimum of twenty-five hundredths (0.25) visitors parking spaces per townhouse shall be provided in a convenient commonly owned and maintained off-street parking bay or facility. Individual garages shall not be credited (4r-ar~i:ie?~~~il~e~:rt\ave two and one-quart~arking spaces provided for each dwelling unit either on the individually owned lot(s) or on common property. Tandem parking is permitted only on individual lots and in the driveways connecting such lots with the adjacent roads-prOVIded sai<lOiwewaysare-forllieexCIuslveuse oT. each individual lot; however, tandem parking shall be limited to no more than one (1) such tandem parking space for each individual lot. Individual garages shall not be credited towards the parking requirement. (5) Zero lot line communities shall have a minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces provided on each platted lot. In addition, zero lot line communities shall provide one (1) guest parking space for every four (4) dwelling units for all projects, except for those developed on public streets. Tandem parking is permitted only on individual lots and in the driveways connecting such lots with the adjacent roads; provided, said driveways are for the exclusive use of each individual lot; however, tandem parking shall be limited to no more than one (1) such tandem parking space for each individual lot. Individual garages shall not be credited towards the parking requirement. (6) Five (5) or more unit apartment buildings or apartment hotels: ~. . r ~(f' One and on~-half (1.50) parking spaces for each guest room, efficiency, or one (1) ~\orJ' ^tVJ . kVl bedroom umt. \. C;' -\' U" One and three-quarters (1.75) parking spaces for each two-bedroom unit. \.'" I":> Two (2.0) parking spaces for each three- or more bedroom unit. ?O (7) A minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for each mobile home space, both such parking spaces may be on the mobile home space, and each ofthe same shall be hard surfaced, or one (1) or both parking spaces may be in a common ~~ -t, . \~ \UvY ~\ 'V~ . parking court, such courts, where provided, to be installed throughout the park to conveniently serve the inhabitants in different areas of the park, and such courts shall be hard surfaced. (b) Hotels, rooming houses. At least one (1) parking space for each of the first forty (40) individual guest rooms or suites; one (1) additional parking space for every two (2) guest rooms or suites thereafter. Public meeting rooms in hotels shall be further controlled as to parking by Subsection (e) of this section and by Subsection (k) where the meeting room does not contain permanent seats; and restaurants by Subsection (i) and (j). In addition, one (1) parking space shall be provided for each four (4) employees. (c) Motels, tourist courts and transient accommodations. One (1) parking space for each individual sleeping room or bedroom. (d) Churches. At least one (1) parking space for each fifty (50) square feet or fractional part thereof of the seating area in the main auditorium (sanctuary), including adjacent areas which may be used as part of the auditorium. ( e) Reserved. (f) Hospitals. At least one (I) parking space for each of the first three hundred (300) beds and one (1) additional parking space for every two (2) additional beds thereafter for patients contained in such building, plus one (I) parking space for each three (3) employees and resident staff members. (g) Sanitariums, convalescent homes, homes/or the aged and similar institutions. At least one (1) parking space for each two (2) beds for patients contained in such buildings, pl~ one (11Parl<:iI1K.SQ~C~ for ~a~l!J~o (2)employ~e~~ (h) Commercial: (1) Retail--Food or grocery stores, drug and sundry stores, department stores, membership ware!!2!lses,.!~!~!~!Q!~s, !e!ail ~2f~. simj!~.!Q!!t~ f~~~~J>.anks, po~J offices, mortuaries, funeral homes, waiting rooms stations for common carriers and shopping centers shall be provided parking at a rate of one (1) parking space for each and every two hundred fifty (250) square feet of the gross floor area or fractional part thereof. All retail uses within enclosed malls in excess of three hundred thousand (300,000) square feet shall provide parking at the rate of one (1) parking space for each and every three hundred and fifty (350) square feet of the gross floor area or fractional part thereof, excluding theaters, restaurants and food courts which shall provide parking as delineated in this section. (2) Auto dealership showrooms, garage and gas station bay areas, and similar uses shall be provided three (3) parking spaces for the first twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet of floor area, or fractional part thereof, and one (1) parking space for each additional five hundred (500) square feet of gross floor area, or fractional part thereof, plus three (3) parking spaces for each five thousand (5,000) square feet, or fractional part thereof, of open lot area. Office and retail parts areas shall be provided parking spaces as otherwise contained in this article. Customer and employee parking shall be labeled as such. (3) Furniture showrooms shall be provided three (3) parking spaces for the first twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet of gross floor area, or fractional part thereof, and one (1) parking space for each additional five hundred (500) square feet of gross floor area or fractional part thereof. When such a use is located within any au District, the site plan submitted to the Department shall illustrate future parking spaces based on a calculation of one (1) parking space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area or fractional part thereof, which shall be provided in the event the furniture use is discontinued. The lot area reserved for future parking spaces shall remain unencumbered with any structures and shall be landscaped. However, this landscaped area shall not be credited toward the minimum required open space. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy for any use other than a furniture store, the property owner must provide the required number of parking spaces for the intended use as provided elsewhere in the article. (3.1) Home improvement centers, including all storage/sales areas, shall have parking provided at a rate of one parking space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area or fractional part thereof. (4) Plant nurseries shall have parking provided at a rate of eight (8) spaces for the first acre, or fractional part thereof, and one (1) parking space for each two (2) acres thereafter up to ten (10) acres. One (1) additional parking space shall be provided for each five (5) acres or portion thereof thereafter. (5) Packing plants shall have parking provided at a rate of one (1) parking space for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area, or fractional part thereof. (6) Open lot commercial uses such as, but not limited to, used care lots, storage yards and recreational vehicle sales lots shall be provided five (5) off-street parking spaces for the first five thousand (5,000) square feet of net lot area, or fractional part thereof and one (1) parking space for each additional five hundred (500) square feet of net lot area so used. These spaces shall be reserved for customer and employee parking only, and shall b.~Ja.beled~~ll.cb.. (7) Self service gas station/mini marts shall be provided one (1) parking space for each two hundred fifty square feet (250) of gross floor area or fractional part thereof, with a __!!!!~um _ol!~~ (32~~~~~~11!~h sha!!b~_<!~~ed s.~ ~!1ot 1~ !I!!~f~!:~_"",!!h th~___ dispensing operation. . (8) Wholesale showrooms in the industrial districts shall be provided one (1) parking space for each six hundred (600) square feet of showroom area, or fractional part thereof. (9) All commercial uses not identified in Subsections (1) through (7) above shall be provided three (3) parking spaces for the first twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet of gross floor area, or fractional part thereof, and one (1) parking space for each and every addition ed (500) square feet of gross floor area, or fractional part thereof. (i) estaurants, 10 nges, nightclubs, or similar places dispensing/ood, drink or sf' J,O/J~ (1) Table service establishments shall be provided one (1) parking space for each fifty (50) square feet of floor area, or fractional part thereof devoted to patron use. (2) Take-out establishments shall be provided one (1) parking space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area, or fractional part thereof. (j) Reserved. (k) Recreationa~ and entertainment use: (1) Art galleries, amusement centers, cultural centers, libraries and museums shall be provided one (1) parking space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area, or fractional part thereof. (2) Banquet halls, bingo halls, convention halls and private clubs shall be provided one (1) parking space for each one hundred (100) square feet of patron area, or fractional part thereof. (3) Bowling alleys, skating rinks, and indoor gun ranges shall be provided one (1) parking space per two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area, or fractional part thereof. Office, retail, restaurant and other areas in conjunction therewith shall have parking spaces provided as otherwise contained in this article. (4) Dance, karate, and aerobics schools, and health/exercise studios shall be provided one (I) parking space for each one hundred (1oo) square feet of classroom area, or fractional part thereof. Office, retail, and restaurant areas in conjunction therewith shall have parking spaces provided as otherwise contained in this article. (5) Golf courses shall be provided three (3) parking spaces per hole plus three (3) additional spaces. Office, retail, restaurant and other areas in conjunction therewith shall have parking provided as otherwise contained in this article. (6) Live-aboard marinas shall be provided one (1) parking space per boat slip. (7) Non-live-aboard marinas shall be provided one (1) parking space for each two (2) boat slips. (8) Boats stored in racks shall be provided one (1) parking space for each three (3) boat racks. (9) Stadiums and basketball gymnasiums shall be provided at least one (1) parking space for each four (4) seats. (10) Commercial tennis and racquetball clubs shall be provided four (4) parking spaces per court. Office, retail, and restaurant areas in conjunction therewith shall have parking provided as otherwise contained in this article. (11) Theat~r~'u4tcluginglllove thea~~!), an<igen~ral audit()riums ~Aall be provided one (1) parking space for each one hundred (100) square feet of auditorium seating area or fractional part thereof. (12) Open lot recreational use parking require~ents shall b<?__<:i~~rmi~~~~v!l1e '--15irector-an<fsuchrequrrementS-ihatTbebasedon the number of people 'that ~an reasonably be expected to be on such premises at one (1) time. Said determination shall be calculated on a basis of one (1) parking space for each four (4) persons. (1) Schools. (1) Day nurseries, kindergarten and elementary schools: Total parking spaces shall equal the combined total of personnel and transportation vehicles. (2) Junior high [schools]: Total parking spaces shall equal one and one-quarter (1114) times the combined total of personnel and transportation vehicles. (3) High schools, trade schools and colleges: One (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of classroom area, including laboratories, libraries and administrative areas. Housing facilities on college campuses must provide off-street parking of two (2) spaces for each three (3) sleeping rooms. Other such uses, such as restaurants, auditoriums, theaters, etc., shall provide parking as required in this section for such uses. In addition, in connection with the foregoing schools, one (1) parking space shall be required for each four (4) employees, excluding teachers. In connection with the foregoing school use, parking required for church use may be credited toward parking requirements for school use, where the same are operated by the same ownership and on the same property. The applicant shall submit information substantiating the personnel and vehicle figures used for computing the above parking requirements. (m . Office 'ifessional building or similar uses. One (1) parking space for each three hundf 00) square feet of gross floor area of such building or fractional part thereof. (n) Industrial. (1) For a warehouse building, one (1) parking space shall be provided for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area in the building up to ten thousand (10,000) square feet and then one (1) space for each two thousand (2,000) square feet of gross warehouse floor area thereafter. Office, retail and wholesale showroom areas provided in conjunction with the industrial use shall have parking spaces provided for such areas as otherwise contained in this article. Regardless of the intended mix of use, a minimum of two (2) parking spaces shall be provided for each bay in the building. In determining the number of bays, the Director shall take into account the possibility of partitioning the building into multiple units, the number and location of bathrooms, the . number and location of overhead or other door openings, the layout of electrical circuits and air conditioning units, etc. In detennining the number of spaces to be provided, the formula requiring the greatest number of parking spaces shall be applied. (2) Where open lot or walled-in uses only are involved, such as salvage yards, batching plants, precast or prestressed concrete products, or the like, two (2) parking spaces for each five thousand (5,000) square feet of lot area shall be provided, or one (1) space for each two (2) employees shall be provided, whichever requires the greater number of parking spaces~ Such parking spaces shall be located no farther than one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet from the industrial use in question. Such noncontiguous property to be.Jls..edfor parking must be lQcatedin BU:-IA, BU:-:2,BU,:3QrIUl industrial district. (3) For a telecommunications hub, one (1) parking space for each two thousand (2,000) square feet of gross floor area shall be provided. Office areas provided in conjunction . .... _ ...'Yi.tl1t!tej~~\l~!J:!~!~s~_~Jtall h~ye parki~ ~aces provided for such areas as otherwise contained in this artIcle. -Ifithe event of a- suhsequentchange-iilusefrom a-- - _..-- . telecommunications hub to a permitted, alternative use, the alternative use shall conform to the parking standards otherwise contained in this article. A variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces shall not be granted solely on the basis of a proposed change in use from an existing telecommunj.cations hub to an alternative use. The ownership of the parking area shall be tIie same as that of the individual site which it is to serve. Before any permit for industrial use may be obtained, which under this chapter requires additional and separate parking areas, the owner of the industrial site shall cause to be recorded an agreement to the effect that the ownership of the industrial site and of the separate parking area shall remain the same until the regulations are amended eliminating the need for such separate parking area. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the erection of a new structure or building, or for an addition thereto, either of which is to be used for industrial purposes, or prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy for a different use of an existing industrial structure or building, the applicant shall complete and execute a fonn prescribed by the Director which shall, among other things, provide the necessary information upon which the required off-street parking may be determined; and the applicant shall therein acknowledge that such infonnation is submitted for such determination; and in the event of a change in use or additional use is contemplated, such additional off-street parking as may be required by this chapter, if any, must be furnished prior to such use change or additional use. SI(fJO sf 3. ,/f (0) Housing for low and/or moderate income for older persons and/or persons with disabilities. (1) For any publicly owned or non-profit apartment building exceeding four (4) units providing housing for elderly persons or persons with disabilities that is developed and financially assisted under the United States Housing Act of 1937, fifty hundredths (0.50) parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit in the apartment building. (2) For any other apartment building exceeding four (4) units providing low and/or moderate income housing for older persons as defined by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. ~ 3607, one (1) parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit in the apartment building. (3) Provisions of Chapter 33 of the Code of Miami-Dade County concerned with the requirements for lot coverage and open space shall remain enforced under this section. The lot area not used as a result ofthe decrease in parking spaces as required under Section 33-124(a) shall remain as open space and shall be landscaped or used for recreational purposes. Said open space shall be in addition to the open space requirements of the Code. The site plan submitted to the Department shall illustrate future parking spaces if the present parking requirements are inadequate pursuant to subdivision (4) herein. (4) If it is determined by the Department at the time of annual renewal of certificate of occupancy that the parking reduction permitted pursuant to subsections (1) or (2) above does not allow adequate parking for the apartment building, the owner must increase the nUmb~LQf parking. spaces to fulfill the needs as detennined by the Director. (P) Self-service storage facilities. (1) Self-service storage facilities shall be defined as fully enclosed spaces used for .~~<::!tQu~!J:t.&_~hi~.11_c~nt(li!!.i1!4iviQ\!1l1 ~tQ~~um!~ ~th floo.!~~!l!Q.gr.~~.!jl1JmJQID"_ hundred (400) square feet and an interior height not to exceed twelve (12) feet. No wholesale or retail sales are permitted. (2) In self-service storage facilities, off-street parking shall be provided on the following basis: One (1) parking space per five thousand (5,000) square feet of building area for the first twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of building; one (1) parking space per ten thousand (10,000) square feet (or fraction thereof) of building area thereafter; and one (1) parking space for the manager's apartment, where provided. One (1) parking space per four hundred (400) square feet of gross office area (or fraction thereof) shall also be provided. In the application of these regulations, a minimum number of five (5) off-street parking spaces shall be provided for any self-service storage facility regardless of size. (Ord. No. 57-19, ~ 5(BB)(1)(3), 10-22-57; Ord. No. 61-27, ~ 1,6-27-61; Ord. No. 62-23, ~ 1,6-5-62; Ord. No. 64-13, ~ 1,4-21-64; Ord. No. 64-31, ~ 1,7-21-64; Ord. No. 69-71, ~ 2, 10-8-69; Ord. No. 77-10, ~ 1,2-15-77; Ord. No. 77-61, ~ 1,9-6-77; Ord. No. 83-14, ~ 1,3-15-83; Ord. No. 83-57, ~ 1, 7-5-83; Ord. No. 83-116, ~ 1, 12-20-83; Ord. No. 91- 36, ~ 1,3-19-91; Ord. No. 94-165, ~ 1,9-13-94; Ord. No. 95-215, ~. 1, 12-5-95; Ord. No. 95-218, ~ 1, 12-5-95; Ord. No. 98-5, ~ 1, 1-13-98; Ord. No. 01-99, ~ 2, 6-5-01; Ord. No. 03-80, ~ 1,4-8-03; Ord. No. 03-117, ~ 1,5-6-03) Cross references: Off-street parking for buildings for public assemblage, ~ 33-17(7). ATTACHMENT 9 Curbing Parking From Governing's June 2005 issue ASSESSMENTS ALAN EHRENHAL T Local zoning laws mandate parking spaces as if empty lots were a virtue. Here.s a question for you: How many parking spaces should a convent be legally required to provide? If you immediately answered "zero," that's probably because you have some common sense. Parking at a convent shouldn't be a zoning question. The Mother Superior should be able to do whatever she wants. When there's a problem, the nuns will tell her. In fact, however, that's not the way it works in most American cities. Convents usually have to have a minimum amount of parking to stay within the law. So do at least 265 other kinds of enterprises, including golf courses, zoos, sex shops, slaughterhouses, maternity hospitals and taxi stands. All of them are on a list compiled by Donald Shoup, an economics professor at UCLA, in a new book that is undoubtedly the most comprehensive study of parking ever undertaken in this country. Shoup tells us, among other things, that the most common requirement for convents is one space for every 10 nuns in residence. That may seem a little arbitrary, but some of the others are worse. Taxi stands, for example. I've never met anybody who drove to a taxi stand, parked, and then hailed a cab. The average cabbie doesn't need parking either - he uses one vehicle, and it's on the road during business hours. And yet most cities not only require parking spaces at cab stands but also require a fixed number: one space for each employee on the largest shift, plus one for each taxi. Some zoning laws demand extra spaces for "visitors" - whoever they might be. Where do rules like this come from? In general, they come from a document called "Parking Generation," which was first published decades ago by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and has been updated periodically since then. As Shoup puts it, local zoning officials who consult Parking Generation "act like frightened supplicants bowing before a powerful totem. ITE's stamp of authority relieves planners from the obligation to think for themselves because simple answers are right there in the book." Unfortunately for convents, taxi stands and countless other enterprises, the answers in the ITE book make very little sense. They tend to be based on a percentage of maximum occupancy - that is, the largest number of cars ever likely to use a faCility at a given moment. The manual recommends enough spaces to ensure that virtually every driver will be able to find one virtually all the time. And then cities go ahead and require those spaces as a matter of law. Think how odd that is. If I were building a hotel, and I knew that I could fill 200 rooms on the busiest day of the year, but only 50 on an average day, I wouldn't build 200 and leave three-quarters of them empty most nights. I wouldn't open a restaurant so big I couldn't fill it up except on Valentine's Day and New Year's Eve. Neither would you. You'd just accept it as a fact of life that once in a while, somebody will have to be turned away. It's only when it comes to parking lots that planners and local governments insist on invoking a concept as foolish as maximum capacity. And that's for a rather simple reason: When it comes to parking, nobody worries about losing money. Parking, after all, is free. Or, rather, they think It's free. Of course, It Isn1. That's the idea that Shoup sets forth in abundant detail in his book, which he calls, appropriately, "The High Cost of Free Parking." If I were to tell you a 733-page book about parking is a great read, you probably wouldn't believe me. The fact is, however, that Mr. Shoup's opus not only is lucid and convincing but also witty, erudite and highly enjoyable. It quotes Albert Einstein and Robert Frost, Lewis Carroll and Graham Greene. It is filled with quirky little details about the way ordinary people go about their lives. Most of all, however, it is filled with animosity toward free parking. Shoup hates free parking - especially the off-street parking that developers and businesses are required to provide in order to operate. He says it degrades urban life in ways that hardly anybody bothers to think about. "Because we never see the money we spend on parking," he says, "it always seems someone else is paying for it... but by prescribing massive overdoses of parking, planners are poisoning the city." How, exactly? Well, for one thing, parking lots eat up a huge amount of land that could be used for more productive purposes. Many shopping malls devote 60 percent of their surface land to parking spaces and only 40 percent to the buildings. For the most part, that's not because developers insisted on all that parking. It's because zoning law forced them to create it. Either way, the result is oceans of asphalt and an ugly landscape as far as the eye can see. All the land that's paved over and reserved for cars is land that can't be used for housing - affordable or any other kind. Because parking requirements have taken so much land out of development, they force up the cost of building on whatever land remains. Rents are higher than they would otherwise need to be. What's more, the parking requirements written into zoning law make smaller, moderately priced apartments difficult to produce anywhere. Some cities in Southern California require residential developers to provide as many as 3.25 spaces per apartment. That often leaves as practical only two kinds of projects: a massive, sprawling condo complex that meets the requirement by paving over additional acres of land, or a boutique development that makes money by selling or renting luxury units at luxury prices. A densely built project filled with compact two- and three-bedroom apartments just doesn't cost out. Meanwhile, in the central business districts of older cities, the amount of parking keeps increasing and the number of buildings keeps declining. Buffalo and Albuquerque devote more central-city land to parking lots than to all other uses combined. For anyone who wants to come downtown, a member of the Buffalo City Council lamented a couple of years ago, "there will be lots of places to park. There just won't be a whole lot to do here." That's one of the simple ironies of this whole depressing subject. But there's an even bigger irony: The central city districts that have done really well in recent years aren't the ones that have provided the most parking; they're the ones that have provided the least. Portland, Oregon, instead of expanding its downtown parking capacity, has spent the past 30 years restricting it. There was less parking per capita in downtown Portland in the 1990s than there was in the 1970s. And Portland, as any visitor notices at once, has one of the most successful downtowns in America. Los Angeles and San Francisco both opened new concert halls in the 1990s. Los Angeles included a six-level garage for 2,188 cars, built at a cost of $110 million. San Francisco, on the other hand, put in no garage - for a total cost of nothing. After each concert in L.A., the patrons head straight for their cars, leaving the area around the building deserted. After concerts in San Francisco, people spill out onto the local streets, spending money in local bars, restaurants and bookstores. Some of them have to walk several blocks to their cars parked along the curb, but every block they walk adds extra life to the neighborhood. How smart do cities have to be to learn the lessons of all this? Smarter than most of them have been so far, apparently. But as cynical as Shoup can sometimes sound, he has a few modest proposals for dealing with the disasters of parking policy. First, he suggests, instead of making developers build off-street parking, allow them to pay a fee in lieu of each space provided. If you make the fee less than the cost of building the space, most of them will accept that deal. Some 25 American cities are actually doing this. Most of them are small towns in California, or wealthy suburbs in the east, but there are some surprises. Orlando, Florida, allows subsidies in lieu of parking. So does Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The developers get to spend more money on the actual project. And the fees go for public improvement in the area. Then, since the amount of parking will be reduced, allow commuters to take the value of a free parking space in the office lot and trade it in for cash. They can use it on public transportation, and if they don't spend it all, they can keep what's left over. Different versions of this experiment have been tried in Denver, Dallas, Salt Lake City and San Jose. Ultimately, though, as Shoup himself concedes, there's a more basic answer: Local governments have to rethink the whole idea of parking. Even here, there's something to report. Minneapolis and Chicago are now exempting the first 4,000 square feet of retail space in a new development from any parking requirements at all. That's a tiny step, but it's a step. The asphalt jungle we have created will not disappear anytime soon. As Shoup says, "automobile dependency resembles addiction to smoking, and free parking is like free cigarettes...it will take decades for cities to recover from the damage." That's a sobering thought. On the other hand, as the Chinese would probably understand, sometimes even a journey of a thousand miles has to start with a single parking space.Ironically, the central city districts that have thrived in recent years aren't the ones that have provided the most parking; they are the ones that have provided the least. Jack Pardue illustration Copyright (ej 2005, Conaressional Ouarterlv. Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing, City & State and Governing.com are registered trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, lnc.