Goal was to provide for more flexibility and a more streamlined process, staff says
The Sarasota County Commission unanimously has adopted new parking regulations that the county’s Planning and Development Services staff recommended because they are “more flexible in the spirit of a more streamlined development process” and allow for “a more efficient use of staff resources,” as a staff memo pointed out.
The action came following an Aug. 28 public hearing for which no member of the public had signed up to speak. No commissioner offered remarks, either.
The changes resulted from a study undertaken at the commission’s behest, county staff documents explained. An August 2023 report on the study’s findings noted, “Given the diversity of development patterns across the County, the current application procedure has brought staff concerns over the length of time it takes to process, and the development community has noted that an overly restrictive process frequently leads to requests for exceptions and variances, adding time and cost to the development process.”
Among the changes are minimum and maximum parking requirements to “allow a development more flexibility, albeit codified predictability, to ensure adequate parking is provided for,” the staff memo in the Aug. 28 agenda packet explained.
For example, the ordinance the commissioners approved changes the minimum parking requirement for multi-family housing — such as condominiums — to one space per bedroom, plus one space for every five units, labeled for visitors and “located in proximity to each building.” The maximum is two spaces per bedroom, plus one per five units, labeled for visitors.
That is a change from requirements based on whether the multi-family units would have less than 900 square feet of floor area or more than 900 square feet.
New standards for restaurants have been implemented, as well, to reflect the type of dining establishment:
Yet another set of changes involves on-street parking spaces:
Among the other revisions, the staff memo noted, are the following:
- An allowance “for valet parking, on-street parking provisions, off-site parking, and shared parking without the need for an Alternative Parking Plan.”
A separate document in the agenda packet explained that alternative parking plans had been the county’s primary method for allowing variances from the parking requirements included in the County Code. That document pointed out that about one-quarter of all development applications staff receives include requests for such plans. - Revision of the requirement for an alternative parking plan to make certain that it provides sufficient information to demonstrate the need for the parking supply being requested.
The ordinance also adds this new language to the County Code: “Where an applicant requires an amount of parking either below the minimum ratios or above the maximum ratios … or if [the number of spaces determined to be necessary for] the proposed use is not listed in the table [in the County Code], the applicant may prepare an Alternative Parking Plan” that analyzes and demonstrates the parking needs and and requests a specific number of spaces. “The Alternative Parking Plan shall be required at time of Site Development,” that section notes.
- Revised required parking ratios to reflect development trends and recent modifications in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual. That manual last was updated in October 2023, the Institute’s webpages say. That version is the sixth edition.
- An allowance for a “site context-based parking reduction allowance of up to 10%” when projects are located within one-quarter mile of a completed multi-use trail — as designated on the Sarasota County Trails
Master Plan — or within one-quarter mile of a fixed-route transit service operated by Sarasota County Breeze Transit.
- Allowing for electric vehicle charging spaces that do not count against the minimum and maximum parking spaces, up to a maximum of count of 15 spaces.
The comprehensive study
The August 2023 Planning and Development Services report on the parking regulations study explained that staff hired the Sarasota consulting firm Stantec, with which staff worked over six months.
The county’s parking regulations are found in Article 8, Section 124-120 of the county’s Unified Development Code (UDC), which contains all of the county’s land-use and zoning regulations, the report noted.
Staff had not reviewed the county’s parking standards in recent years prior to that undertaking, the report added; yet, “significant changes in the transportation industry” had taken place, and staff also had documented a “consistent pattern of requests for parking exceptions from developers …”
As part of the study, staff and Stantec representatives compared Sarasota County’s regulations with those of Manatee, Charlotte, Lee and Collier counties, the report said. Further, they reviewed the parking requirements in the fifth edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking General Manual, which — the report pointed out — is “broadly used as the definitive transportation industry research document on actual parking use for a wide range of development types and land uses.”
Further, the report continued, staff and the Stantec representatives compared the county’s regulations to those of “other Florida and national suburban communities,” particularly Overland Park, Kan.; Fairfax County, Va.; and Orange County in Florida.
Finally, the report said, the review included “a selection of Alternative Parking Plan requests submitted with development applications from mid-2019 to early-2023,” The report added, “This review explored the Plans’ requested parking use, reasoning, and extent of deviation from the code, to understand how developers were navigating and interacting with the current parking regulations.”
The analysis of those requests found no clear geographic pattern, but a pattern was observed “among land uses and the kind of variation (increase or decrease)” requested, the report noted.
The most common land uses for which a decrease in parking was sought were “Residential (38%) Retail/Retail Warehouse (31%), and Restaurant (13%),” the report continued. Land uses for which increased parking was requested were more varied, the report noted. However, it said, the more common ones were “Office/Healthcare (29%) and Fast Food (23%).”
The report further explained that plans seeking fewer parking spaces typically called for a decrease of 3% to 33%, whereas the sites where more parking was sought entailed increases from 15% to 278%.
Developers focus on specific concerns
As part of the outreach during the work on the report, the document continued, staff and the Stantec team hosted a round table on March 24, 2023 “to gain insight from staff and development industry partners with regular involvement in the application process. … The contributions of the stakeholder group were included in the recommendations made to the County,” the report added.
Among the findings from that round table discussion, the report pointed out,participants “seemed favorable to use of in-lieu parking fees in the mainland areas directly adjacent to Siesta Key and the County’s other unincorporated barrier island communities; this would allow for flexibility in parking on the mainland.” Part of the discussion focused on places where “certain regulations might make sense to come in to play, such as near the Legacy Trail or in contexts where Transit Oriented Development was taking place.”
Yet another key takeaway from the stakeholders, the report continued, was “a desire for the parking aspects of the application process to be more streamlined, with the ability to receive flexibility upfront, rather than the current ‘back-and- forth’ process.”
Additionally, the report said, stakeholders pointed to “staff’s difficulties with tracking the development of existing SKOD [Siesta Key Overlay District] parking standards. There was an overall request from stakeholders that the proposed standards be very clear on how they work for both staff and developers.”
Further, the report noted that part of the discussion focused on “how redevelopment is treated.” With some area of the county “starting to need retrofitted and redeveloped,” it continued, “separate standards may be warranted.”
The participants “discussed a few scenarios [in which] parking requirements seem to be misaligned with what developments are experiencing. The discussion pointed out that parking demand for medical uses are heavily reliant on number of staffing and patients, suggesting that parking requirements should be contingent on those metrics, rather than square footage of the medical facility. Likewise, professional offices experienced similar disconnect, suggesting that metrics based on number of employees and company cars would be more appropriate. Assisted living facilities, multi-family, and restaurants were also scenarios that were discussed.”