Planning & Zoning Board members at their September 3 meeting voted 5-2 to recommend amendments to the Land Development Code that will change parking requirements for multi-family residential, retail, and non-medical office projects.
Discussions leading to the amendments began after a 2023 Chamber of Commerce event featuring author Henry Grabar. In his book, “Paved Paradise,” Grabar notes the surplus of parking spaces allowed by municipal parking codes and suggests parking requirements be left up to the private sector. According to P&Z meeting documents, non-medical office buildings are the most common example of surplus parking and neighboring cities have lowered the parking requirement for small apartments and condo units.
Commissioners reviewed possibilities for changing city-wide parking codes at a November 9th work session and agreed with several proposals presented by city staff that include:
- Changing the non-medical office and retail parking code requirements to one space per 333 square feet versus the current requirement of one space per 250 square feet.
- Reducing required parking for large office buildings to one space for every 400 square feet at any building measuring more than 15,000 square feet.
- Changing the multi-family residential requirement for buildings with three or more units to 1.25 spaces for a one-bedroom unit, 2 spaces for a two-bedroom unit, and 2.5 spaces for a three-bedroom unit. Townhomes and condo projects with units measuring larger than larger than 2,000 square feet would maintain the current 2.5 space per dwelling unit.
- Impose a maximum parking provision of no more than 150% of the minimum code requirement.
The amendments also include a provision that gives the city final say on the feasibility of parking lots shared by multiple businesses. Planning & Zoning Director Allison McGillis pointed out that the amendments do not change restaurant codes because eating establishments drive the most demand for parking.
The first item is already in use at the Central Business District and Hannibal Square Neighborhood Commercial District, and is among the code requirements of the Orange Avenue Overlay. The combination of items 1 and 2 means a 30,000 square-foot office building would require one space per 333 square feet for the first 15,000, and 1 space per 400 square feet for next 15,000. The multifamily requirement in item 3 was approved for the Rollins College workforce housing plan during the August 28 City Commission meeting.
P&Z Board member Jason Johnson did not approve of the changes based on the general uncertainty of the city’s future parking needs and changing office dynamics. “My concern is we hamstring ourselves in the future if companies want all their employees to come back,” he said.
Board member Warren Lindsey was uncomfortable capping parking lots to 150% of the minimum and with the wording of the shared parking lot provision that names the city as “the sole determinant” of their feasibility. He suggested the wording of the first provision would prevent developers from, “being more responsible with parking,” while the second implies the city’s unwillingness to allow variances or negotiation. “I think that’s an improper government function,” he added.
McGillis explained the city’s role in the shared parking provision is meant to prevent insufficient parking lots that manage to meet code requirements. She used Orlando Avenue’s Lakeside shopping plaza as the example. “We all know that Trader Joe’s needs more parking than the code requirements,” she said. “This is basically saying that we get to determine that it’s feasible to do a shared parking scenario.”
Board members agreed with the need for both provisions but requested wording changes that would signal some flexibility. The parking lot cap was raised from 150% to 200% of the minimum with a variance required for additional space. The shared space provision was changed to state that shared parking may be denied, “if the city reasonably determines that shared parking is not feasible.”
Johnson was one of the two dissenting votes with Jim Fitch voting “no” due to reservations over the residential parking amendment and the inspiration for the discussion. “This was sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce,” he said, “that gives me pause. I will not vote for this.”
The parking amendments will now go before City Commission for discussion and a vote at a future meeting.
