The Planning and Architectural Review Board on Tuesday recommended approval of a variance that would allow a narrower shared driveway for a proposed mixed‑use building at 907 North Ocean Shore, with the condition that the applicant provide a total 16‑foot driveway (10 feet on the applicant’s lot) before the item goes to the City Commission. The recommendation was made during the board's Aug. 5 meeting and will be placed on the Aug. 20 commission agenda for final action.

The project team described the proposal as a two‑unit commercial ground floor with a single residential unit above and parking at the rear. "It's a mixed use project. Our client wants to do a mixed use project on A1A and it is 907 North Ocean Shore," architect Joseph Zulli said during the conceptual presentation. Each commercial unit was described as about 686 square feet and the upper floor is intended as a long‑term rental or eventual owner residence; the plan includes a two‑car rear garage and one handicap space currently shown at the back of the site.

Board members and the applicant spent most of the discussion on access and parking standards. The applicant said the lot is a 50‑foot interior mixed‑use parcel with an existing shared driveway and that an adjacent three‑story building to the north partially cantilevers over the shared drive and contains egress windows, which the applicant said constrains achieving a full 24‑foot joint drive. The project team said they moved the proposed building 1 foot, 1 inch from the south property line to preserve a ladder access angle and intend a masonry firewall on the south elevation where windows were omitted.

The applicant argued the narrower drive is consistent with the city’s mixed‑use guidelines and with FDOT guidance for low‑trip driveways, saying the driveway would function like a Type A driveway (12 feet) for low trip counts. The applicant also noted the site required an approximately 10‑foot rear adjustment to accommodate stormwater and that the adjacent property’s existing improvements limit the applicant’s ability to achieve a wider joint drive.

Board members reviewed relevant code and design guidance included in the agenda packet and discussed alternatives the applicant could pursue, including moving the handicap space to the front or pulling the building back to create parallel curbside parking. One board member described similar 50‑foot mixed‑use sites on A1A where rear parking and narrower drives were used, and the board discussed how grandfathered conditions and shared easements affect redevelopment.

Board member Barbara moved, "I would recommend approval of the the variance with the condition that the applicant remove the handicap space in the back of the building and bring it to the front of the building and then have a 16 foot wide driveway." A fellow board member seconded the motion. Staff clarified the board’s recommendation required a total 16‑foot drive and that how the applicant arranges parking would remain under the applicant’s control so long as the 16‑foot drive is achieved.

The board recorded a recommendation for approval with the 16‑foot‑drive condition and no public comment speakers were present at the meeting. The board’s recommendation and record of its findings will be forwarded to the City Commission for a final decision at its next scheduled meeting.

Discussion only and next steps: the conceptual site‑plan review portion of the meeting was advisory; the variance is a quasi‑judicial item and the board’s action was a recommendation. The commission will receive the board’s findings and the full staff report, including the planner’s evaluation of the six variance criteria, before making a final ruling.