| | | | | | | |  | Committee Assignments - C4 I
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM |
| | | |
| | | | | | | | | TO: | Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission | | | FROM: | Raul J. Aguila, Interim City Manager | | | DATE: | March 17, 2021 | | | |
| | SUBJECT: | REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD - ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO LINCOLN ROAD RETAIL USES AND SIZE LIMITS. |
| | | |
| | | | | | | | RECOMMENDATION
| | The Administration recommends that the City Commission refer the attached draft Ordinance to the Planning Board. |
| | | |
| | | | | | | | BACKGROUND/HISTORY
| HISTORY
On October 14, 2020, at the request of Commissioner Ricky Arriola, a discussion pertaining to retail use and size regulations 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 the December 15, 2020 LUSC. On December 15, 2020 the item was discussed briefly and continued to the January 2021 LUSC meeting.
On January 20, 2021 the item was discussed and continued to the February 17, 2021 meeting with direction to prepare a draft ordinance addressing retail sizes and uses. On February 17, 2021, the LUSC reviewed and discussed the draft Ordinance prepared by the Administration and recommended that the City Commission refer the item to the Planning Board, with the following additional direction:
1. The Planning Board is requested to provide a recommendation on whether the 45,000 square foot threshold for retail uses should be lowered.
2. The Administration and the City Attorney are requested to explore a waiver provision for the 45,000 square foot threshold, or lower threshold, in consultation with the item sponsor.
BACKGROUND
Currently there are no size regulations for business establishments on Lincoln Road. Over the years there has been a balance of larger stores and smaller, boutique stores. Given the uncertainty of current and future economic conditions, as well as the change in venue of larger operators such as the Regal Cinema at Alton Road, regulations addressing business sizes were recently discussed by the Land Use and Sustainability Committee (LUSC).
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
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 retail “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 an ordinance prohibiting stores over 65,000 square feet and requiring stores greater than 25,000 square feet to comply with design and siting guidelines.
Westford, MA
The town of Westford prohibits the construction of large retail developments (over 60,000 square feet) and requires special permits for developments between 30,000 – 60,000 square feet, allowing the opportunity 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.
At the request of the item sponsor, the Administration reached out to the Lincoln Road BID to obtain input on this proposal. 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.
On January 5, 2021, the Lincoln Road BID subcommittee met again to discuss the proposal. The subcommittee again 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.
|
| | | |
| | | | | | | | ANALYSIS
| PLANNING ANALYSIS
The Land Development Regulations already prohibit a number of uses on Lincoln Road that are associated with negative neighborhood impacts/nuisances, and which would be detrimental to the historic and economically vibrant character of the corridor. 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.
While the exclusion of additional uses can certainly be explored, careful consideration must be given to the types of uses this may affect. As part of the larger discussion, a threshold square footage for commercial spaces on Lincoln Road, based upon existing buildouts of larger, historic structures was considered.
Pertaining 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 At Art Museum, which has expressed interest in 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 use 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 require amendments to the CD-3 regulations, they would offer an opportunity to provide new uses that would not compete with the businesses along the rest of Lincoln Road.
SUMMARY
Following the direction of the LUSC at the January 20, 2021 meeting, staff prepared the attached draft Ordinance. The draft Ordinance applies to properties with a lot line on Lincoln Road between Alton Road and Collins Avenue. On the subject properties, the Ordinance prohibits retail establishments over 45,000 SF. The prohibition provides an exemption for specific types of commercial uses, which are encouraged in larger commercial spaces, pursuant to the Economic Development suggestions above.
For reference purposes, the following is survey data from the Miami-Dade Property Appraiser and includes the size of the larger existing retail establishments along the Lincoln Road corridor:
• H&M – 37,787 SF
• Forever21 – 41,370 SF
• The Gap – 29,741 SF
• Nike – 31,573 SF
As retail establishments over 45,000 SF would generally only be feasible on lots over 50,000 SF, the draft Ordinance provides alternative uses that could be located above the ground floor on such lots along the corridor. The additional uses are similar to those described above and include the following:
Main Permitted Uses:
1. Artisanal Retail for On-Site Sales Only,
2. Production Studios,
3. Furniture sales establishments over 45,000 SF, and
4. Major Cultural Institutions.
Conditional Uses (i.e. uses that require Planning Board approval):
1. Artisanal Retail with Off-Site Sales,
2. Neighborhood Fulfillment Center (with a cap of one establishment).
At present there are only two lots over 50,000 SF that could take advantage of the additional uses, should they be approved. However, more sites could potentially be created by establishing unified development sites, though for much of the corridor this would be unfeasible or unlikely.
The LUSC requested that the Planning Board study the proposed size limit of 45,000 square feet for retail establishments. Additionally, subsequent to the February 17, 2021 LUSC, and at the direction of the Committee, staff discussed different options pertaining to a waiver provision of the 45,000 square foot threshold with the item sponsor. In this regard, a ‘no variance’ provision has been added, as a safeguard. Further, any modifications to this 45,000 square foot threshold would need to be approved by the City Commission, as an amendment to the LDR’s.
The Administration believes that the proposed draft ordinance represents a careful balance between encouraging certain types of uses within larger spaces and providing measurable limits on such spaces, as opposed to solely limiting certain types of uses, which may have unintended consequences.
APPLICATION FEE WAIVER
The subject amendment is proposed for referral to the Planning Board on a comprehensive, areawide basis, and not on behalf of a private applicant or third party. Pursuant to section 118-162(c) of the Land Development Regulations of the City Code, amendments to the City Code require the payment of the applicable fees in section 118-7 and Appendix A. These fees may be waived by a five-sevenths (5/7ths) vote of the City Commission, based upon one or more of the following circumstances:
1. The City Manager determines, in writing, that the proposed amendment is necessary due to a change in federal or state law, and/or to implement best practices in urban planning;
2. Upon written recommendation of the city manager acknowledging a documented financial hardship of a property owner(s) or developer(s); and/or
3. If requested, in writing, by a non-profit organization, neighborhood association, or homeowner's association for property owned by any such organization or association, so long as the request demonstrates that a public purpose is achieved by enacting the applicable amendment.
The City Manager has determined that the proposed amendment implements best practices in urban planning.
|
| | | |
| | | | | | | | SUPPORTING SURVEY DATA
| | Appropriate Regulation of Development |
| | | |
| | | | | | | | CONCLUSION
| The Administration recommends the following:
1. In accordance with section 118-162(c) of the City Code, the City Commission waive the applicable application fees based upon the legislation implementing best practices in urban planning.
2. The City Commission refer the attached draft Ordinance to the Planning Board. |
| | | |
| | | | | | | | 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 | |
| | | |
| | | | | | | | Legislative Tracking
Planning |
| | | |
| | | | | | | | Sponsor
Commissioner Ricky Arriola |
| | | |
|