Board of Zoning Appeals members deferred a request Jan. 2 to reduce the minimum parking requirement from 16 spaces to zero for a proposed beer garden at 117 Third Avenue North, saying the applicant should provide additional information on alternate parking options.

Staff recommended denial, telling the panel that the applicant had not shown the site could not accommodate required parking and had not adequately explored alternatives the zoning ordinance allows, such as shared, remote or deferred parking. “Staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals move to deny the variance request … because the criteria for granting a variance have not been met,” the staff presentation said.

The applicant, Brandon Prudy of 906 Studio Architects, said the accessory structure has housed commercial tenants for more than 20 years and submitted a downtown parking study taken from city sources that he said shows adequate nearby parking during the site’s peak times. Owner Marla Albert said her family purchased the building from the city in 1987 and that commercial activity there has existed for years.

Board members questioned the permanence and sufficiency of a parking agreement offered by the applicant. Staff said the parking agreement provided was written to renew month-to-month and contained a clause allowing either party to terminate “for any reason,” which staff said fails the ordinance’s requirement that remote or shared parking agreements run in perpetuity. Staff also noted the applicant did not document attempts to secure shared or remote parking from neighboring property owners.

Board discussion reflected divided views. One member said downtown parking is often limited during peak event times and expressed concern about adding more demand. Another member said the adjacent paid lot is seldom full and suggested the site may be able to function without meeting the strict numerical standard. After debate, a motion to deny the variance failed on a 2-1 vote (motion recorded as a denial motion; second by Board Member Smith; vote: Smith for denial; two members opposed). The board then moved to defer the item to the Feb. 6, 2025 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to allow the applicant to return with additional documentation. The deferral passed unanimously.

The board advised the applicant to demonstrate exhaustion of alternative parking options required by section 10.1.10 of the zoning ordinance (shared parking, remote parking, valet, deferred parking) or to provide a lease arrangement that meets the ordinance’s perpetuity requirement. The board also noted that applicants may seek a rezoning or a variance only after fully documenting why alternatives are infeasible.

The item will return to the board Feb. 6; staff and the applicant agreed to use the interval to provide the requested study details and clearer documentation of efforts to secure permanent parking agreements.

Ending: The board’s deferral leaves the requested reduction to zero spaces unresolved; the applicant intends to pursue additional documentation and will appear Feb. 6 for further consideration.