| | | | | | | | | | 
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
| | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Item 9.
COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM | | | |
| | | | | | | | TO: Land Use and Sustainability Committee
|
| FROM: Raul J. Aguila, Interim City Manager
|
| DATE: January 20, 2021
|
| |
| | | | | | | | | TITLE: | DISCUSS ENACTING LIMITATIONS ON BIG BOX STORES ON LINCOLN ROAD
ACTION REQUESTED:
Discuss the item and provide appropriate policy direction.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss the item and continue to the February 17, 2021 LUSC meeting.
|
| |
| | | | | | | | HISTORY:
| | On October 14, 2020, at the request of Commissioner Ricky Arriola, the subject discussion was referred to the Land Use and Sustainability Committee (LUSC) by the City Commission (item C4L). On November 18, 2020 the item was deferred to December 15, 2020. On December 15, 2020 the item was discussed briefly and continued to the January 2021 LUSC meeting. |
|
| | | | | | | | ANALYSIS:
| PLANNING ANALYSIS
Currently there are no interior size regulations for business establishments on Lincoln Road. Over the years there has been a balance of larger stores and smaller, boutique stores. However, given the uncertainty of the current economy, as well as the change in venue of larger spaces such as the Regal Cinema at Alton Road, regulations dealing with business sizes may be warranted.
For comparison purposes, the following is a list of regulations from other cities regarding commercial building size:
San Francisco, CA
To maintain a diversity of small-scale, neighborhood-serving businesses, San Francisco prohibits stores over 4,000 square feet in several of its neighborhood commercial districts.
Fairfield, CT
In 2007, the city of Fairfield limited retail stores and restaurants located in neighborhood business districts to no more than 4,000 square feet.
Guilford, CT
This town of 20,000 people caps the size of retail stores townwide. The size limit varies by area, ranging from 15,000 to 60,000 square feet.
Whatcom County, WA
In September 2008, Whatcom County in Washington state adopted a store size cap measure limiting retail stores to no more than 65,000 square feet in urban growth areas and no more than 35,000 square feet in the rest of the county.
Walpole, NH
On March 14, 2000, the residents of Walpole voted overwhelmingly to enact a 40,000-square-foot size limit on new retail stores and restaurants.
North Elba, NY
After a long ordeal fighting Wal-Mart, North Elba adopted a size cap ordinance limiting single retail stores to 40,000 square feet and capping shopping centers at 68,000 square feet.
Charlevoix, MI
The city enacted a measure that caps stores at 45,000 square feet, which is about 20 percent smaller than a football field and about one-quarter the size of a typical Wal-Mart supercenter.
Easthampton, MA
In June 2015, the City Council of Easthampton, a 16,000-person town in western Massachusetts, unanimously approved a zoning ordinance that caps new retail development at 50,000 square feet.
Rockville, MD
In August 2000, the city of Rockville enacted the following ordinance, which bans stores over 65,000 square feet and requires those over 25,000 square feet to comply with design and siting guidelines.
Westford, MA
Even though Westford, MA beat back a Wal-Mart in 1994, the Town Meeting soon after added future protection by prohibiting the building of large retail developments (over 60,000 square feet) and making it harder to build 30,000 – 60,000 square feet developments by requiring that they apply for special permits, allowing time for citizen input and review by planning boards.
Agoura Hills, CA
In 2002, voters in Agoura Hills, a community 20 miles north of Los Angeles, adopted a measure limiting stores to no more than 60,000 square feet.
Miami, FL
The two Coconut Grove Neighborhood Conservation Districts prohibit retail establishments over 70,000 square feet. The Miami 21 Code requires that commercial establishments occupying more than 55,000 square feet of floor area be approved as a Conditional Use in T6-O districts, as an Administrative Conditional Use in D1 districts, and by right in D2 districts. They are prohibited in other commercial districts. In addition, the code has additional design requirements to ensure that the building is designed in an urban manner in T6-O and D1 districts.
Clermont, Florida
Clermont’s zoning code prohibits retail development over 100,000 square feet.
Largo, Florida
In 2005, Largo adopted an ordinance capping stores at 125,000 square feet and requiring those over 50,000 square feet. to meet design standards.
SUMMARY
At the request of the item sponsor, the administration reached out to the Lincoln Road BID to obtain their input on this discussion item. Members of the administration participated in the November 19, 2020 BID meeting, at which time a subcommittee was formed to take a closer look at the proposed regulations.
On December 2, 2020 the subcommittee met to discuss the proposal and recommended that the focus be on ‘uses’ and not overall square footage at this time.
The administration would note that that there are already several problematic and nuisance type uses currently prohibited on Lincoln Road; these include the following:
1. Pawnshops;
2. Secondhand dealers of precious metals/precious metals dealers;
3. Tobacco/vape dealers.
4. Check cashing stores;
5. Medical cannabis dispensaries (medical marijuana dispensaries;
6. Convenience stores;
7. Grocery stores;
8. Occult science establishments;
9. Pharmacy stores;
10. Souvenir and t-shirt shops; and
11. Tattoo studios.
UPDATE
On January 5, 2021 the Lincoln Road BID subcommittee met again to discuss the proposal. The subcommittee recommended that the focus of the proposed legislation should be on the types of uses that are sought to be controlled, and not overall square footage.
As indicated previously, while the exclusion of additional uses can certainly be explored, careful consideration must be given to the types of uses this may affect. Additionally, as part of the larger discussion, a threshold square footage for commercial spaces on Lincoln Road, based upon existing build outs of larger, historic, structures, should be considered.
Another option would be to create more limited, strategic regulations for that portion of Lincoln Road west of Lenox Avenue, which falls outside of the boundaries of the Flamingo Park Local Historic District (except for the historic Chase Federal Bank Building at the SW corner of Lenox Avenue and Lincoln Road). In this regard, the two main structures west of Lenox Avenue are quite large and, absent specific regulations, could present opportunities for uses, in the future, that are incompatible with the unique character of Lincoln Road.
Regarding the adaptive re-use of larger, existing structures, such as the Regal Cinema, future uses should be viewed within the larger context of Lincoln Road. Additionally, not all large retail uses and establishments are the same, and there may be an opportunity to incentivize desired uses.
In this regard, there are examples of multiplex theaters being transformed into warehouse fulfillment centers (high ceilings), offices/office clusters (existing segmented spaces), as well as mixed-use with retail, restaurants, apartments and office. Other potential successful uses could be a niche furniture store, production company or even an arts and cultural space. Organizations such as Young Art Museum, which was looking for a space in Miami Beach, could be a unique opportunity, as well as a good fit. However, for most such arts and culture organizations, financing could be a challenge, so it is not likely that they would be able to take up the entire space.
From an Economic Development perspective, spaces such as this could be well suited for a number of uses, including an advanced manufacturing facility, tech startup office hub, gallery space, business incubator, brewery/restaurant, or any combination of the above. Although some of these uses may require amendments to the CD3 regulations, they would offer an opportunity to provide new uses that would no compete with the rest of Lincoln Road.
Staff would suggest that this option be further explored, as opposed to solely limiting certain types of uses, which may have unintended consequences. However, if there is a desire to explore a separate definition for multi-product establishments, and create limitations for such establishments, staff would recommend that it be done in conjunction with an expansion of allowable uses, as noted above, for the area west of Lenox Avenue.
|
|
| | | | | | | | CONCLUSION:
| | The administration recommends that the LUSC discuss the item, provide additional policy direction, and continue the item to the February 17, 2021 LUSC meeting. |
| | |
| | | | | | | | Applicable Area
| | South Beach |
| | |
| | | | | | | | | Is this a "Residents Right to Know" item, pursuant to City Code Section 2-14? | | Does this item utilize G.O. Bond Funds? | | | Yes | | No | |
| | |
|