Proposed Changes to Land Development Code - Parking

Yes the Small Business Association is back without a solution, but plenty of gripes.

As far as grandfathering goes you have to lose everything including a significant portion of the foundation to lose your grandfathering status. If you lose a poured concrete foundation then this county has much bigger problems than parking.

How about instead of just stonewalling any kind of progress the Small Business Association comes up with solutions to parking?

Matt, if I didn't know any better, it almost sounds like you're running interference for the county when you said, "How about instead of just stonewalling any kind of progress the Small Business Association comes up with solutions to parking?"

Isn't that the county responsibility? Of course I expect your reply to be that the county is trying to solve the parking and the SBA is "griping" about these so called solutions. But the gest of my comments as well as others is that the county will be royally screwing many property owners AND business owners with the current draft.

You also made a comment that "As far as grandfathering goes you have to lose everything including a significant portion of the foundation to lose your grandfathering status." Are you qualified to make a statement like that? My understanding of "grandfathering" is different than yours when it comes to rebuilding a significantly damaged structure. Are there different types of grandfathering? Matt, these are truly open minded questions.

I am going to weigh in here with my 2 cents. I think that if the SBA doesn't like the proposal the county is proposing then realistically they should come up with an alternate proposal that addresses concerns of both sides. It is called compromise, and depending on how you feel about that, it is going to depend on whether you are interested. If that isn't something that can't be worked out and the county proceeds with their plan and the SBA sues, we all lose. If the county prevails then all those small businesses have cut their profit margin, which is already tough in some businesses, and helped pay for a lawyer. My suggestion, and it's only a suggestion, sit down with the county and work something out, because if you lose, based on comments from the SBA those homes and businesses in worst case scenario can't be rebuilt.

Bob Wells is right on the money. This issue could be worked out by cleaning up language and changing some parts of the proposal. Everyone wins and nobody pays lawyers for something they can work out themselves.

Agreed. So when will the SBA step up and participate?

Lazin' & Drinkin' I'll refer to John G's comments.

As far as my qualifications go, well I'm not a planner, architect or engineer, but then I don't hold a degree in computer science and am able to grasp the concept of the internet and this message board.

I agree that the businesses need to participate in a solution - one is certainly needed for businesses. However I do have some concerns about the requirements for single family homes on lots less than 1/2 acre. Since there is no minimum lot size in Walton County, I think a lot of existing lots are going to find it really hard to meet the requirements. I am not thinking here about vacation rental properties so much as I am thinking about full time permanent residents, of which we are getting more and more these days. According to the proposed ordinance, a home 2501-3000 sq ft would require 5 parking spots, and if tandem spots are used they can be no more than two deep. I think this might result in the front of the house being all one wide driveway cut and nothing else. Seems very limiting. As I read this, you could not for instance have a long driveway on one side where you could stack up three cars. The assumption seems to be that it might be rented so lets just make everyone conform. Does the average family that lives in this size house have five cars??

Matt J, I think your last post confused me with someone posting with a play on my handle. I've not posted on this or other in a while. drinkin & lazy is probably to whom you refer. No relation, and one of us improbably proud of that fact, but I have no idea which of us it is.

I agree that the businesses need to participate in a solution - one is certainly needed for businesses. However I do have some concerns about the requirements for single family homes on lots less than 1/2 acre. Since there is no minimum lot size in Walton County, I think a lot of existing lots are going to find it really hard to meet the requirements. I am not thinking here about vacation rental properties so much as I am thinking about full time permanent residents, of which we are getting more and more these days. According to the proposed ordinance, a home 2501-3000 sq ft would require 5 parking spots, and if tandem spots are used they can be no more than two deep. I think this might result in the front of the house being all one wide driveway cut and nothing else. Seems very limiting. As I read this, you could not for instance have a long driveway on one side where you could stack up three cars. The assumption seems to be that it might be rented so lets just make everyone conform. Does the average family that lives in this size house have five cars??

So you have an issue. A reasonable solution, maybe would be if they are homesteaded?

I agree that the businesses need to participate in a solution - one is certainly needed for businesses. However I do have some concerns about the requirements for single family homes on lots less than 1/2 acre. Since there is no minimum lot size in Walton County, I think a lot of existing lots are going to find it really hard to meet the requirements. I am not thinking here about vacation rental properties so much as I am thinking about full time permanent residents, of which we are getting more and more these days. According to the proposed ordinance, a home 2501-3000 sq ft would require 5 parking spots, and if tandem spots are used they can be no more than two deep. I think this might result in the front of the house being all one wide driveway cut and nothing else. Seems very limiting. As I read this, you could not for instance have a long driveway on one side where you could stack up three cars. The assumption seems to be that it might be rented so lets just make everyone conform. Does the average family that lives in this size house have five cars??

There is a maximum width for driveways IIRC.

I don't think a homestead exemption would work. What would happen if the home sold and the buyer turned it into a vacation rental?

As for maximum width for driveways, if there is one for single family residential, it sure isn't being enforced. I could show use a dozen homes in a ten minute ride around Seagrove that are all driveway along the front street frontage, some of them nearly new.

It isn't a personal issue for me. Just thinking about it though and looking at some of the vacant lots in SoWal, I think many of them won't be able to meet those new requirements and will ask for a variance. And we sort of know how that usually goes.

I read the proposed ordinance and I like it. Yes, there are quite a few overbuilt rental houses and businesses that do not meet the requirements and will have problems if they try to expand. But since those houses and businesses don't have adequate parking now and routinely park in the street, in the ROW, in front of their neighbors' houses, and at beach accesses I don't feel a lot of sympathy.

If my house burned down, floods, or is blown away by a hurricane, I have to rebuild it to current codes. If I add onto it, I have to follow current codes. Why should businesses be any different?

The square footage requirement for houses is a long overdue fix for dens, offices, studies, exercise rooms, sitting rooms, libraries, and whatever else people call bedrooms to avoid following the rules.

Take a good look at what is being proposed, not what they say is being proposed. I think you will find that almost all of the houses and businesses not in compliance already have parking problems. The ordinance changes are a direct response to growing parking problems and people bending or breaking the rules.

I read the proposed ordinance and I like it. Yes, there are quite a few overbuilt rental houses and businesses that do not meet the requirements and will have problems if they try to expand. But since those houses and businesses don't have adequate parking now and routinely park in the street, in the ROW, in front of their neighbors' houses, and at beach accesses I don't feel a lot of sympathy.

If my house burned down, floods, or is blown away by a hurricane, I have to rebuild it to current codes. If I add onto it, I have to follow current codes. Why should businesses be any different?

The square footage requirement for houses is a long overdue fix for dens, offices, studies, exercise rooms, sitting rooms, libraries, and whatever else people call bedrooms to avoid following the rules.

Take a good look at what is being proposed, not what they say is being proposed. I think you will find that almost all of the houses and businesses not in compliance already have parking problems. The ordinance changes are a direct response to growing parking problems and people bending or breaking the rules.

Hit Nail on Head BeachArkie!!! Nail on Head.