by SC Reporter Emilie Alfino
The Planning Commission’s Land Development Code Review Subcommittee met this week to consider three things: Nonresidential parking standards, open bodies of water, and height limitations in the Resort Housing District.
The issues being considered include:
• Minimum off-street parking requirements add cost and time to permitting and are especially impactful to smaller properties with less area for additional spaces.
• Over-precision of parking requirements by land use types increases change-of-use permit requirements and associated fees (i.e. change to use with different parking standards).
• Shared parking is encouraged by existing policy, but few properties have implemented such plans.
Lastly, in December 2023, Planning Commission approved a priority list for Land Development Code amendments in 2024, including nonresidential parking standards as a “first level priority.”
Staff primarily relied upon The High Cost of Free Parking (2005) written by planning scholar Donald Shoup and published by the American Planning Association. The book represents one of the first texts to establish planning theory for parking and is considered required reading for aspiring transportation planners.
Below are some of the more relevant findings from the text:
• Minimum (free) off-street parking requirements subsidize vehicle trips.
• Off-street parking requirements increase the cost of development/redevelopment.
• Approximately 330 square feet is necessary to provide a single parking space.
• Eight to 12 bicycles can be parked in the same amount of area as a typical vehicular parking space.
• Before 2005, there were no planning textbooks that explain a theory behind parking policy (that is, parking standards were created and put into effect with little to no supporting data).
• Most planning professionals survey nearby cities as the primary source of information for recommending parking policies.
• Studies and data disprove the notion that parking demand is related to floor area.
• Minimum off-street parking requirements impose enormous costs on the economy and the environment.
The Sanibel Plan is largely silent on parking policy but does state: Ultimately, the City will look for opportunities to reduce the amount of land area devoted to streets, roads and parking areas for private motor vehicles.
This is underscored by Policy 3.4, which states: The amount of parking, public and private, will not overwhelm the resources of individual sites and land uses and will not overwhelm the human-made and natural resources of the City.
Staff recommends adoption of a parking policy that no longer calculates parking demand by floor area. Staff does not recommend establishing an arbitrary minimum standard.
In recognition of on-site parking as an objective of the Sanibel Plan, staff does not recommend total deregulation of off-street parking supply either. Instead, staff recommends off-street parking to be constructed and maintained as a general requirement with only specific parking supply requirements for conditional uses established on a case-by-case basis by Planning Commission, as guided by specific information provided by the applicant, including but not limited to a parking study.
Staff also recommends adoption of three incentives to reduce the burden of parking requirements upon applicants:
(1) Allow shared parking plans in lieu of a parking study, but it must be a formal plan;
(2) Allow on-street parking on local roads only. Example, at Whitney’s, allow parking on Palm Street where there is adequate room; there are other businesses similarly situated;
(3) Allow reduction of one space for every 10, accommodate more bicycle space.
Restaurant uses are the most challenging, and it goes by floor area now. A change to number-of-seats would be more accurate. Allow a right-of-way permit with adjacent owner, or with Public Works where applicable.
Commission Chair Roger Grogman said his concern is only micromanaging. “ If a business doesn’t have enough parking spaces, it’s a problem to solve,” he said. “Parking regulations are being dropped by many cities.”
Subcommittee Chair Eric Pfeifer said this is definitely moving in the right direction. “This will help the small businesses and small eating establishments.”
A motion was made to present this to the Planning Commission and passed unanimously, with Commissioner Kate Sergeant absent.
Leave a Comment