TO: Mayor and Commissioners
FROM: Tim Stillings, Director of Planning and Zoning
THROUGH: Donald B. Cooper, City Manager
DATE: March 15, 2016
Title
ORDINANCE NO. 02-16, A PRIVATELY-INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 4.4.24(C), TO ADD SINGLE-LEVEL MECHANICAL PARKING LIFTS AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE OLD SCHOOL SQUARE HISTORIC ARTS DISTRICT (OSSHAD). (SECOND READING/ SECOND PUBLIC HEARING)
Body
Recommended Action:
Recommendation
Motion to Adopt Ordinance No. 02-16 on a final public hearing, the amendment to LDR Section 4.4.24(C), to permit single-level mechanical parking lifts as an accessory use in the OSSHAD zoning district, by adopting the findings of fact and law contained in the staff report, and finding that the text amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the criteria set forth in LDR Section 2.4.5(M).
Body
Background:
The item before the City Commission is the consideration of a privately-initiated text amendment to LDR Section 4.4.24(C), to add Single-level Mechanical Parking Lifts as an accessory use in the Old School Square Historic Arts District (OSSHAD).
Single-level mechanical parking lifts are currently permitted as an accessory use in the CBD, and are subject to specific criteria and requirements listed in LDR Sections 4.6.9(D)(1)(e) and 4.6.9(D)(11)(a-h). Provided as an attachment.
The OSSHAD zoning district is applied to a majority of the properties within the Old School Square Historic District. When a mechanical parking lift is proposed, a site plan application would be required to ensure compliance with the above LDR Sections, as well as those included in LDR Section 4.5.1(E), Historic Preservation: Designated Districts, Sites, and Buildings: Development Standards. The Historic Preservation Standards require compatibility and appropriateness of new development proposals and improvements to all properties within the Old School Square Historic District. As part of the existing requirements, the lifts are required to be integrated into a structure with at least three walls and a roof.
The attached Planning and Zoning Board Staff Report of the meeting of December 21, 2015 contains the complete analysis of the request.
Review by Others
The subject amendment was initially submitted with additional amendments including Automated Parking Garages and Private Parking Facilities. These were part of the initial Advisory Board reviews. However, those amendments, which were the subject of much discussion at both the Parking Management Advisory Board and Pineapple Grove Main Street meetings, have been withdrawn.
At its meeting of October 27, 2015, the Parking Management Advisory Board (PMAB) recommended approval of the proposed LDR amendment.
At its meeting of October 28, 2015, the Pineapple Grove Main Street (PGMS) did not recommend approval of the proposed LDR amendment. Noted concerns during their discussion involved ability to construct larger buildings by accommodating additional parking and noise impacts on neighboring properties.
At its meeting of November 5, 2015, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) recommended approval of the proposed LDR amendment.
At its meeting of November 9, 2015, the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) recommended approval of the proposed LDR amendment.
At its meeting of November 12, 2015, the West Atlantic Redevelopment Coalition (WARC) recommended approval of the proposed LDR amendment.
At its meeting of December 2, 2015, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) recommended approval of the proposed LDR amendment on a vote of 4-2 (Sexton and Patton dissenting, Sherman absent) with the single-level mechanical parking lifts being added as an accessory use requiring Conditional Use review and approval, as opposed to a permitted accessory use.
At its meeting of December 21, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the proposed LDR amendment, as proposed, on a vote of 5-1 (Smith dissenting; Jocelyn Patrick absent). The HPB recommendation was reported to and considered by the Board, however, the amendment, as proposed, was supported.
City Attorney Review:
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency.