The P&Z Board work session meeting will be held on Oct. 6th at 6:30 p.m.
Agenda Item #1:
Continued Discussion Regarding Revisions to Section 90 Internal Traffic Circulation, Access and Storage
Do the residents of Anna Maria want to see parking rules relaxed in the commercial districts?
Click on ‘comments’ to read about what suggested changes have been brought forward.
Monday, October 5, 2009
5 comments:
PLEASE NOTE: Our Anna Maria Blog invites significant and thoughtful discussion. It is not, however, a democracy. Comments considered offensive or innappropriate may be removed at the discretion of any one of the blog administators without notice. If the removal of your comment may offend you, it is probably best that you not comment at all. After typing in your comment, click on the "Subscribe by email" link (below, right) to have email alerts sent to your computer whenever a new comment is proffered regarding this post.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
At the August 18th Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Board work session meeting, Planner Alan Garrett, who works for the City administration, presented some revision language for code Chapter 90 Internal Traffic Circulation, Access and Storage. There was some discussion and straw votes taken but no recommendations made. The September 15th meeting was cancelled and discussion will continue Tuesday October 6th at 6:30 p.m.
ReplyDeleteOne of the revisions that Garrett presented was for Sec. 90-3 Off-street parking requirements. part(c).
Today this code currently reads:
“(c) Increase in floor area or capacity. When an existing building, structure or use is enlarged in floor area or in capacity, it shall be considered a completely new construction project and shall be subject to minimum off street parking requirements.”
Garrett brought forward a suggestion for a revision that would strike out the words “it shall be considered a completely new constructions project and shall be subject to minimum off street parking requirements” and would add the words “parking shall be provided for the increase in floor area”, so that the revised code would read:
“(c) Increase in floor area or capacity. When an existing building, structure or use is enlarged in floor area or in capacity, parking shall be provided for the increase in floor area.”
There is a problem with this suggested change. There are several existing businesses in our city that do not meet minimum off-street parking requirements. They do not have enough parking spaces to meet code and cars end up parking in front of residences or on city property. If such a commercial building were to expand floor area or capacity, it should have to bring its parking up to code, just like it has to today. If a business secures a new parking area, it should take care of the original problem first and then use the remainder of the new parking area to provide spaces for the expansion. We already have a reasonable code requirement for controlled, orderly development. It should not be changed.
Planner Garrett presented another suggested revision which would relax parking requirements for smaller restaurants.
Our present day code requires restaurants to provide .33 parking spaces for every seat. For example, a restaurant with 25 seats now requires 9 parking spaces (25x.33=8.25) plus spaces required for employees.
Garrett brought forward a change that says restaurants with 25 or less seats would only have to provide .25 parking spaces for every seat. Under such a code change a restaurant with 25 seats would only have to provide 7 parking spaces (25x.25=6.25) plus spaces required for employees.
Where do the extra 2 cars park? What if there is a cluster of 4 future restaurants (e.g., ice cream parlor, creperie, sub shop, café) in a small area. That’s now 8 more cars that the business properties won’t have onsite. Where will they park? In the right-of-ways in front of residences or other businesses? In the City Hall parking lot, which is needed at times for The Island Players and for City Hall parking? In the parking area for the City Pier?
The code should not be changed and .33 parking spaces should continue to be provided for every restaurant seat; this is a standard number used by many other towns and cities.
To see all the revisions you can request a copy of the Revisions to Section 90 Internal Traffic Circulation, Access and Storage from City Hall.
The public is welcome to attend the P&Z board work session meetings and is usually able to give their public comment opinion on agenda items.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe Mr Garrett per se is the problem - he is just being paid to carry out orders by those who have 'employed' him. At times I have felt he is extremely uncomfortable with some of the things he is being asked to write. But he is expendable. If he won't follow orders they will find someone else who will.
ReplyDeleteIt really does seem ironic that it is our tax dollars being used to pay Mr Garrett to re-write codes that often do not seem to need to be re-written and at times do not seem to be in the best interests of the residents. Far from being able to relax knowing that we have a City Planner who is being asked to put the interests of the residents of the City first it has become a minefield as we have to work our way through the changes that are constantly being proposed and what the implications of those proposed changes are going to be. In difficult economic times and with the City struggling to balance its books can Anna Maria really afford the luxury of a City Planner?
I agree with the previous comments that suggest that we be allowed to know who has requested the constant changes that he has proposed.
On October 6, I emailed Alan Garrett and asked who, specifically, is initiating these requests for changes to our ordinances to accommodate PAR and the wedding business. After 48 hours, no response. Will advise if he does reply. If I do not hear from him by next week, I'll do a public records request. We have the right to know.
ReplyDelete