Plantation staff outline draft parking and zoning changes; public comments favor reduced parking minimums

City staff on Feb. 4 presented a draft parking and zoning update that would reduce or eliminate parking minimums in targeted redevelopment areas, create maximum parking standards in some districts, and reformat zoning sections to add a new Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) category.

Michael Alpert, assistant director of planning, told the Plantation Planning and Zoning Board the workshop is intended to collect direction and feedback and that the item is not being voted tonight. “We will not be voting on an ordinance tonight, but rather discussing the main concepts and getting your direction and feedback,” Alpert said.

Staff said the draft would: reduce minimum parking requirements and institute maximums for the Midtown District; eliminate minimum parking and set maximums in the Gateway Overlay District and in identified transit-oriented corridor areas; maintain current parking rules for most other parts of the city; and consolidate parking and driveway rules into a revised Article 8. Staff noted the draft also relocates Gateway districts into mixed-use sections and creates a new TOD category with its own permitted, conditional and prohibited uses.

Alpert used the Broward Mall area as an example, showing aerials and impervious-surface calculations to argue that large surface parking areas reduce green space, increase heat-island effects and hamper redevelopment. Staff also proposed incentives for redevelopment projects — for example, reduced setbacks of up to 25% if a project includes at least 50% workforce housing — and suggested flexibility in landscape standards and rooftop garden incentives.

The draft would also remove a local requirement for electric-vehicle charging spaces, staff said, citing state preemption over such regulations. “It removes the requirement for electric vehicle charging stations, which is preempted to the state of Florida,” Alpert said. City staff also noted proposed changes to drive-thru stacking, reserved-parking policies, and how accessory dwelling units are regulated.

Public commenters were predominantly supportive. Matthew McIntosh, a local resident, said: “Anything to reduce the mile of parking would be greatly appreciated.” Barbara Boy, another resident, praised the proposal’s resilience and sustainability aims, urging reductions that would increase green space and support transit and walkability. Joanne (last name provided in record) — speaking also as chair of the city’s Resiliency Advisory Board — urged stronger incentives for green roofs, native planting, bicycle storage and bus-stop infrastructure and suggested allowing a higher maximum number of bonus floors to encourage density.

Members of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and other residents urged stronger incentives or realistic targets for workforce housing. One commenter, speaking from experience with a recent development, warned that overly ambitious affordable-housing percentages can make projects unfinanceable: “It’s better to have a smaller requirement but get the affordable housing built because 15% of a project is better than zero units because the project never gets built,” a board member said.

Board members and staff discussed how to structure incentives — for example, whether EV-capable parking or rooftop gardens can be used as bonus criteria — and whether certain inducements could unintentionally make projects fail to secure financing. Paul (last name in record), speaking with professional planning experience, advised the board to avoid codifying EV requirements at this time because of funding and political uncertainty at the state and federal levels.

Several board members asked staff to study the economic feasibility of proposed workforce-housing percentages and asked that the TOD incentive program allow a higher maximum building height where appropriate. Staff said they would return a refined draft ordinance and additional analysis, including more detailed tables of proposed parking minima/maxima and exhibit maps, at a later public hearing.

Ending: The board took public comment and provided direction; staff will revise the draft and present a public-hearing version of the ordinance in the future. No formal vote or ordinance adoption occurred at the Feb. 4 workshop.